DC independent schools with best recent Ivy League admission records

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Let's be honest. GDS students (and their parents) are not the only independent school students with aspirations for Harvard. They may just be marginally better at getting there

where is the evidence that they are "better at getting there?"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's be honest. GDS students (and their parents) are not the only independent school students with aspirations for Harvard. They may just be marginally better at getting there

where is the evidence that they are "better at getting there?"

The only "evidence" is what the same GDS poster continues to troll along.....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's be honest. GDS students (and their parents) are not the only independent school students with aspirations for Harvard. They may just be marginally better at getting there

where is the evidence that they are "better at getting there?"

The only "evidence" is what the same GDS poster continues to troll along.....

I sorta admire this troll. The grammar is decent and s/he manages to put a new spin on it every time.

[Anonymous]

GDS, Sidwell, STA/NCS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:GDS, Sidwell, STA/NCS.

This May be true but the schools promote athletes , female stem, under represented minorities , legacies because they will have the easiest time getting in. So maybe your kid is getting a great education but if s/he has those other things they can be from any school and it doesn't matter

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:GDS, Sidwell, STA/NCS.

This May be true but the schools promote athletes , female stem, under represented minorities , legacies because they will have the easiest time getting in. So maybe your kid is getting a great education but if s/he has those other things they can be from any school and it doesn't matter

Not sure that this holds up under actual inspection. The students I know getting into the most selective colleges from our independent run the gamut, and the mix is pretty consistent with the overall school demographics. Further, there are almost no athletic recruitts to Ivy schools. A few division III athletes to SLACs, but very few otherwise. The female STEM bias is in direct response to the expressed demand by the colleges themselves, and the fact that tracking is much more prevalent in these subjects, allowing the high flyers to develop a transcript with lots of advanced level courses (BC calc, multivariable, Physics 2), which is less the case in the humanities where there is less opportunity for differentiation. I actaully disagree pretty strongly with this policy. In practice, when you ask the kids who are the strongest students they almost always talk about the kids who got bumped two levels in math and rarely about the best poet in the class.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:GDS, Sidwell, STA/NCS.

This May be true but the schools promote athletes , female stem, under represented minorities , legacies because they will have the easiest time getting in. So maybe your kid is getting a great education but if s/he has those other things they can be from any school and it doesn't matter

Not sure that this holds up under actual inspection. The students I know getting into the most selective colleges from our independent run the gamut, and the mix is pretty consistent with the overall school demographics. Further, there are almost no athletic recruitts to Ivy schools. A few division III athletes to SLACs, but very few otherwise. The female STEM bias is in direct response to the expressed demand by the colleges themselves, and the fact that tracking is much more prevalent in these subjects, allowing the high flyers to develop a transcript with lots of advanced level courses (BC calc, multivariable, Physics 2), which is less the case in the humanities where there is less opportunity for differentiation. I actaully disagree pretty strongly with this policy. In practice, when you ask the kids who are the strongest students they almost always talk about the kids who got bumped two levels in math and rarely about the best poet in the class.

The kids might not talk about the poet, but I know a student who achieved at very high levels in STEM, but who was much more heavily recruited by the most selective schools because of her similarly high level accomplishments in poetry. Nationally recognized at high level for both. Given that private schools in this area don't typically provide kids with the acceleration and support they need to succeed at a national level in STEM, a good poet should fare as well as anybody.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:GDS, Sidwell, STA/NCS.

This May be true but the schools promote athletes , female stem, under represented minorities , legacies because they will have the easiest time getting in. So maybe your kid is getting a great education but if s/he has those other things they can be from any school and it doesn't matter

Not sure that this holds up under actual inspection. The students I know getting into the most selective colleges from our independent run the gamut, and the mix is pretty consistent with the overall school demographics. Further, there are almost no athletic recruitts to Ivy schools. A few division III athletes to SLACs, but very few otherwise. The female STEM bias is in direct response to the expressed demand by the colleges themselves, and the fact that tracking is much more prevalent in these subjects, allowing the high flyers to develop a transcript with lots of advanced level courses (BC calc, multivariable, Physics 2), which is less the case in the humanities where there is less opportunity for differentiation. I actaully disagree pretty strongly with this policy. In practice, when you ask the kids who are the strongest students they almost always talk about the kids who got bumped two levels in math and rarely about the best poet in the class.

The kids might not talk about the poet, but I know a student who achieved at very high levels in STEM, but who was much more heavily recruited by the most selective schools because of her similarly high level accomplishments in poetry. Nationally recognized at high level for both. Given that private schools in this area don't typically provide kids with the acceleration and support they need to succeed at a national level in STEM, a good poet should fare as well as anybody.

Your STEM poet sounds just like the kind of future graduate student I would typically look for. As a long-time science educator at the undergrad/grad level, I have seen way too many wonder kids who profess expertise in their fields by the age of 18 - or earlier on occasion - simply because they won such and such high school award. All you have to do is look at the resumes of some of these kids with lists of "substantial" research accomplishments to understand the utter lack of humility. Most significant research can only happen once the work and thinking of predecessors is digested, dissected, discoursed and frequently disputed; In other words, at a post doctoral level. Once sufficiently accomplished, the best scientists can then apply their own personal creativity to the problem at hand, which is where the poetry comes in. Most areas of science require deep understanding and above all patience. Demonstrated interest at a young age is an important indicator of future success. The mistake is in thinking that it is a sprint instead of a marathon. Further, a deep level understanding and foundation in math at the calculus level in high school is a very good start.

[Anonymous]

...and a healthy attitude towards failure, which is inevitable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:GDS, Sidwell, STA/NCS.

This May be true but the schools promote athletes , female stem, under represented minorities , legacies because they will have the easiest time getting in. So maybe your kid is getting a great education but if s/he has those other things they can be from any school and it doesn't matter

Not sure that this holds up under actual inspection. The students I know getting into the most selective colleges from our independent run the gamut, and the mix is pretty consistent with the overall school demographics. Further, there are almost no athletic recruitts to Ivy schools. A few division III athletes to SLACs, but very few otherwise. The female STEM bias is in direct response to the expressed demand by the colleges themselves, and the fact that tracking is much more prevalent in these subjects, allowing the high flyers to develop a transcript with lots of advanced level courses (BC calc, multivariable, Physics 2), which is less the case in the humanities where there is less opportunity for differentiation. I actaully disagree pretty strongly with this policy. In practice, when you ask the kids who are the strongest students they almost always talk about the kids who got bumped two levels in math and rarely about the best poet in the class.

The kids might not talk about the poet, but I know a student who achieved at very high levels in STEM, but who was much more heavily recruited by the most selective schools because of her similarly high level accomplishments in poetry. Nationally recognized at high level for both. Given that private schools in this area don't typically provide kids with the acceleration and support they need to succeed at a national level in STEM, a good poet should fare as well as anybody.

Your STEM poet sounds just like the kind of future graduate student I would typically look for. As a long-time science educator at the undergrad/grad level, I have seen way too many wonder kids who profess expertise in their fields by the age of 18 - or earlier on occasion - simply because they won such and such high school award. All you have to do is look at the resumes of some of these kids with lists of "substantial" research accomplishments to understand the utter lack of humility. Most significant research can only happen once the work and thinking of predecessors is digested, dissected, discoursed and frequently disputed; In other words, at a post doctoral level. Once sufficiently accomplished, the best scientists can then apply their own personal creativity to the problem at hand, which is where the poetry comes in. Most areas of science require deep understanding and above all patience. Demonstrated interest at a young age is an important indicator of future success. The mistake is in thinking that it is a sprint instead of a marathon. Further, a deep level understanding and foundation in math at the calculus level in high school is a very good start.

I agree with most of what you say. That said, do the academics in your department have more humility than the kids you are talking about? I have met a number of kids who have won national level STEM awards, and most of them were humble and polite, unlike many of the academics I know, so I'm guessing not. Lack of humility is less forgivable in adults than adolescents. If profs value humility in their students, maybe they should start by modeling it.

Also, while I agree that most HS level research isn't comparable to graduate level work and that children tend to overestimate the significance of their work, there are exceptions. Some kids have done creative, graduate level+ work with little or no assistance and have been published in top journals.

[Anonymous]

Uh huh

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:GDS, Sidwell, STA/NCS.

Further, there are almost no athletic recruits to Ivy schools. .

this made me laugh out loud... seriously. I say as an Ivy league grad - where teams are packed with recruited 'student athletes'. It is one of the best hooks for very good students to stand out.

[Anonymous]

Why does this make you laugh out loud? I am familiar with two of the three schools in question in recent years, and per year at each school, there are maybe 2-3 Ivy D1 recruits per graduating classes, i.e. actual recruits who had an admissions read early and a verbal commitment junior year or fall senior year, and a national signing letter of intent in winter of senior year. 2-3 at most. There were a few more that "walked on" when they arrived at the school, often with the coach's blessing and knowledge (but no help in admissions) and most of these sat on bench. Others started a new sport in college (most often crew or rugby) but they didn't get any admissions bump for a sport they hadn't begun yet. Then perhaps another handful were recruited or very clearly helped in admissions for top D3 teams (i.e. NESCAC schools such as Williams, Midd, or a few other desirable schools with reasonably strong sports teams in some sports i.e. Emory, Wash U, U Chicago).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:GDS, Sidwell, STA/NCS.

This May be true but the schools promote athletes , female stem, under represented minorities , legacies because they will have the easiest time getting in. So maybe your kid is getting a great education but if s/he has those other things they can be from any school and it doesn't matter

Not sure that this holds up under actual inspection. The students I know getting into the most selective colleges from our independent run the gamut, and the mix is pretty consistent with the overall school demographics. Further, there are almost no athletic recruitts to Ivy schools. A few division III athletes to SLACs, but very few otherwise. The female STEM bias is in direct response to the expressed demand by the colleges themselves, and the fact that tracking is much more prevalent in these subjects, allowing the high flyers to develop a transcript with lots of advanced level courses (BC calc, multivariable, Physics 2), which is less the case in the humanities where there is less opportunity for differentiation. I actaully disagree pretty strongly with this policy. In practice, when you ask the kids who are the strongest students they almost always talk about the kids who got bumped two levels in math and rarely about the best poet in the class.

The kids might not talk about the poet, but I know a student who achieved at very high levels in STEM, but who was much more heavily recruited by the most selective schools because of her similarly high level accomplishments in poetry. Nationally recognized at high level for both. Given that private schools in this area don't typically provide kids with the acceleration and support they need to succeed at a national level in STEM, a good poet should fare as well as anybody.

Your STEM poet sounds just like the kind of future graduate student I would typically look for. As a long-time science educator at the undergrad/grad level, I have seen way too many wonder kids who profess expertise in their fields by the age of 18 - or earlier on occasion - simply because they won such and such high school award. All you have to do is look at the resumes of some of these kids with lists of "substantial" research accomplishments to understand the utter lack of humility. Most significant research can only happen once the work and thinking of predecessors is digested, dissected, discoursed and frequently disputed; In other words, at a post doctoral level. Once sufficiently accomplished, the best scientists can then apply their own personal creativity to the problem at hand, which is where the poetry comes in. Most areas of science require deep understanding and above all patience. Demonstrated interest at a young age is an important indicator of future success. The mistake is in thinking that it is a sprint instead of a marathon. Further, a deep level understanding and foundation in math at the calculus level in high school is a very good start.

I agree with most of what you say. That said, do the academics in your department have more humility than the kids you are talking about? I have met a number of kids who have won national level STEM awards, and most of them were humble and polite, unlike many of the academics I know, so I'm guessing not. Lack of humility is less forgivable in adults than adolescents. If profs value humility in their students, maybe they should start by modeling it.

Also, while I agree that most HS level research isn't comparable to graduate level work and that children tend to overestimate the significance of their work, there are exceptions. Some kids have done creative, graduate level+ work with little or no assistance and have been published in top journals.

The last sentence seems to describe some GDS kids.

[Anonymous]

The GDS poster is either making an extended, elaborate joke or has some kind of mental illness. It could go either way.