What makes it "exclusive"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Then leave us alone in private school and go back to public school.

I'm not the poster you're mad at.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Private and public schools are germane to the use of the term "exclusive", at least, on the DCUM boards.

Sure they're "germane," but that low bar is not what I'm talking about. OP took pains to phrase her question in a non-judgmental way, and specifically opined that no school could really claim to be exclusive under all measures. She seems to have gone out of her way to try to avoid offending anyone. But someone just had to come in and divert the discussion to a contest. Next stop is gratuitous insults. And we never get anywhere.

[Anonymous]

Everything you have to apply to is exclusive. There may be more things that are exclusive but I would say this is large majority.

I would also include the schools that are in districts that people can't afford houses.

[Anonymous]

Example:

Exclusive = non-inclusive (e.g., public school)

Exclusive admission (e.g, regards to public magnets and TJ) = admission based on raw brain power (grades and test results)
Exclusive admssion (e.g, regards to Big 3) = admisssion not based on raw brain power (grades and test results)

[Anonymous]

I think access works on a variety of levels. For instance, many schools have made big efforts to "diversify", bringing in more familys of color, more familys with alternative make-ups, and increasing financial aid. However, they have not subsequently adjusted the culture of the school to reflect this diversity and, as such, remain exclusive, even to those who are members of the community. Now, how much the school should adapt and how much the new members of the community should is up for debate, but the fact remains: many people are brought in to a community only to be treated as a second-class citizen or outsider once there. So, exclusive is not only about barriers to entry from the outside, but also opportunities and barriers once within.

[Anonymous]

The mothers are stuck up bitches. The fathers need to get laid, very badly.

[Anonymous]

I think access works on a variety of levels. For instance, many schools have made big efforts to "diversify", bringing in more familys of color, more familys with alternative make-ups, and increasing financial aid. However, they have not subsequently adjusted the culture of the school to reflect this diversity and, as such, remain exclusive, even to those who are members of the community. Now, how much the school should adapt and how much the new members of the community should is up for debate, but the fact remains: many people are brought in to a community only to be treated as a second-class citizen or outsider once there. So, exclusive is not only about barriers to entry from the outside, but also opportunities and barriers once within.

D.C. area private schools are relatively poor by endowment standards; where is all this money pouring in for scholarships and diversity to include the middle and lower socioeconomic classes? Are you spinning or believing the spin?

[Anonymous]

The mothers are stuck up bitches. The fathers need to get laid, very badly.

= DCUM surfers

[Anonymous]

In my own decidedly personal opinion, exclusive means that there is some sort of somewhat-high admissions bar based on some measure of academic or intellectual evaluation, that means the school is not automatically open to all who apply, and that it may not ever be open to some individuals. My thought train therefore leading to the idea that these schools as a general rule provide a higher-than-average level of education or preparation

With the exception of a school like TJ in Ffx, this mean that public schools are not exclusive. Yes, some require lottery or require that you live in a certain school boundary, but the potential for attending that school is open to all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In my own decidedly personal opinion, exclusive means that there is some sort of somewhat-high admissions bar based on some measure of academic or intellectual evaluation, that means the school is not automatically open to all who apply, and that it may not ever be open to some individuals. My thought train therefore leading to the idea that these schools as a general rule provide a higher-than-average level of education or preparation

With the exception of a school like TJ in Ffx, this mean that public schools are not exclusive. Yes, some require lottery or require that you live in a certain school boundary, but the potential for attending that school is open to all.

But is the potential really there? To attend my high school in New Jersey, you had to pony up the modern day equivalent of $800000. No exceptions. There was no potential to attend that school without $800,000.

[Anonymous]

I guess we just need to know which school is most popular among the denizens of Georgetown?

That's going to be a tough one, considering Georgetown is packed with senior citizens, gay men, and single professionals. None of whom have school-age children

[Anonymous]

OP here. I'm finding this to be an interesting discussion (with the usual exceptions). My own thoughts on the matter are that exclusivity relates to the output rather than the input. In that sense, I don't necessarily see a school that sets artificial limits (cost, available slots, etc.) on access as being "exclusive" in an academic sense. Similarly, I don't necessarily see a school that only accepts the top 1% of WISC takers, and then brags that it produces students that rank in the top 10% of SAT takers, as being "exclusive". On the other hand, I do think of a school that produces exceptionally high-achieving graduates regardless of admissions standards or barriers as being "exclusive".

I don't want to make this a political discussion, but it seems that folks like to focus excessively on the process while paying comparatively little attention to the end result. In other words, does "exclusivity" really matter if the students coming out at the far end are relatively unremarkable in their academic achievements?

[Anonymous]

....perhaps exclusivity is more a measure of apartheid behaviour and not academic or intellectual performance at the other end

[Anonymous]

socioeconomic or "zip code" apartheid

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here. I'm finding this to be an interesting discussion (with the usual exceptions). My own thoughts on the matter are that exclusivity relates to the output rather than the input. In that sense, I don't necessarily see a school that sets artificial limits (cost, available slots, etc.) on access as being "exclusive" in an academic sense. Similarly, I don't necessarily see a school that only accepts the top 1% of WISC takers, and then brags that it produces students that rank in the top 10% of SAT takers, as being "exclusive". On the other hand, I do think of a school that produces exceptionally high-achieving graduates regardless of admissions standards or barriers as being "exclusive".

I don't want to make this a political discussion, but it seems that folks like to focus excessively on the process while paying comparatively little attention to the end result. In other words, does "exclusivity" really matter if the students coming out at the far end are relatively unremarkable in their academic achievements?

But does this definition really conform to any definition you would find in a dictionary? I think it is dangerous to public dialogue to just define words to be whatever you want... Don't you want another word to describe this very very admirable kind of school? effective, perhaps? Exemplary? If we don't use words according to their common definitions, they will cease to have meaning, no?