Who defines the Big 3?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How about using "highly competitive" as a substitute term? It both sums up the admissions process and refers to the least attractive aspect of high school life at these schools!

That is a good point. DS has been admitted to a "highly competitive" school and now my husband is fretting that it could be a disaster for him in high school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How about using "highly competitive" as a substitute term? It both sums up the admissions process and refers to the least attractive aspect of high school life at these schools!

I don't think "highly competitive" is a good substitute since many of the students are admitted based on money, connections, legacy, sibling . It's only competitive for persons not from certain types of families and those children have to have great academics and other qualities [areas of achievement].

[Anonymous]

But then it's still competitive, even if the competition is around who has more money or connections or whatever. So I like "highly competitive".

Or "private K-12" schools, as somebody else suggested. And if we can verify that it is the same small group of schools.

Anyway, the term "big 3" always makes me gag, even if DC did get into one of them. And I don't agree that it's always used in a non-smug way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How about using "highly competitive" as a substitute term? It both sums up the admissions process and refers to the least attractive aspect of high school life at these schools!

I don't think "highly competitive" is a good substitute since many of the students are admitted based on money, connections, legacy, sibling . It's only competitive for persons not from certain types of families and those children have to have great academics and other qualities [areas of achievement].

I think the earlier poster was referring to the competitive academic environment in HS, not the admissions process. Yes, the admissions process is highly competitive. But the school work, especially in HS, is also highly competitive. A lot of work coming fast at the students. This is my husband's concern.

[Anonymous]

I really don't understand why this debate continues to rage. I find "big three" to be a useful collective short-hand for three schools that are often discussed on DCUM (Sidwell, GDS, Beavoir/StA/NCS). Referring to them as "the big three" does not necessarily signify that they are any better or more desirable than any other schools. It's just short-hand. Even if someone somehow convinces everyone on DCUM that we should change the terminology (for example, replace GDS with Maret, or call them "the big four"), it won't make any of these schools better or more desirable.

In many respects, it's sort of like referring to the "Ivy League." The Ivy League is just a sports conference that happens to include some very good colleges. Other schools like Stanford or University of Chicago are arguably better schools than some of the Ivy League schools, but there's no need to put them into the Ivy League.

In the end, I feel like this debate has to do with people trying to rank the relative merits of the schools (which you'll never get agreement on). If you just accept that "big three" is a descriptive name, and not a value judgment, the debate is solved.

[Anonymous]

The word "big" by definition conveys a value judgment, I don't see how you get around this. Nobody thinks we're talking about enrollment or campus acreage.

DCUM is full-to-overflowing with cattiness and one-upsmanship, and I'm convinced that this sort of language contributes to it. From those who got in as well as those who didn't....

[Anonymous]

OK, how about:

SCAG = Sidwell-CAthedral-Georgtown

Or SCAM, for you Maret boosters out there!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I really don't understand why this debate continues to rage. I find "big three" to be a useful collective short-hand for three schools that are often discussed on DCUM (Sidwell, GDS, Beavoir/StA/NCS). Referring to them as "the big three" does not necessarily signify that they are any better or more desirable than any other schools. It's just short-hand. Even if someone somehow convinces everyone on DCUM that we should change the terminology (for example, replace GDS with Maret, or call them "the big four"), it won't make any of these schools better or more desirable.

In many respects, it's sort of like referring to the "Ivy League." The Ivy League is just a sports conference that happens to include some very good colleges. Other schools like Stanford or University of Chicago are arguably better schools than some of the Ivy League schools, but there's no need to put them into the Ivy League.

In the end, I feel like this debate has to do with people trying to rank the relative merits of the schools (which you'll never get agreement on). If you just accept that "big three" is a descriptive name, and not a value judgment, the debate is solved.

b/c the connotation is associated w/the elite

So if the Big 3 represent the top tier, what shall we call the rest? the small 3,000? (no need to capitalize it . . .)

[Anonymous]

So if we all just start referring to them collectively as "BGS" there will no more unrest on this topic?

[Anonymous]

Works for me. Although you might have to change that to CGS, because "Cathedral" is broader than Beauvoir and includes NCS & St. Albans.

[Anonymous]

In that case, be prepared to face the wrath of the "It's Maret, you morons" poster (for anyone who remembers the thread about where Michelle Obama would send her children).

[Anonymous]

I loved her! Anything to get her to come back and abuse us some more!

[Anonymous]

I think she called us idiots.

[Anonymous]

She did. And she was hilarious doing it, but not for the reasons she thought.

[Anonymous]

I'm surprised by how quickly fashions change. Last year there was an incredible amount of chatter about Maret. This year, nothing. Can we attribute that to the "It's Maret" poster? Maybe her devious plan was to increase her own child's chances by destroying the school's reputation.