WPPSI scores and DC privates

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My dd, non-legacy, got into one of the big 3 with WPPSI in 83%ile, and is now a top reader. The 99%ile kids (I am assuming that every other child- other than mine is 99%ile) are reading at lower levels. The only two that read better than dd are kids of teachers. I guess, those 99%ile kids will show their stuff later,... oh, did I mention that my dd is one of the youngest in her class? Summer b-day, non red shirt.

Why do you assume that your DD is the only one not in the 99%ile?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:BUT, the point is that WPPSI does not explain everything.

Who on earth said it does?

[Anonymous]

Cut-off at Sidwell is 85TH percentile (with even scores all across the board---meaning you cannot say score 100% on one section, 50% on another, 74% on another, etc). I was OUTRIGHT told this last year. We didn't get in there but another great school. My DS was right around 85th percentile but did have some luneven scores. I believe all the privates are probably around 85% as well but they do take other things into consideration. My son is a minority and I suppose did well in the playdates (charming, cute, etc...JUST KIDDING) and maybe one school was in need of a kid of his type (boy, outgoing, minority, etc). You really never know what they are looking for. I think all the kids I met at the playdates were great and have no idea why one 4 year old would be picked over another.

[Anonymous]

That is untrue pp -- Sidwell does not have a cutoff. Each school will take a certain number of legacies, minorities, poor kids, etc. In order to have diverse student body -- Sidwell and the other schools are not going to have an absolute cutoff point. Whoever told you that was wrong.

[Anonymous]

I went to an open house last year and they mentioned the 85% there. May not be iron clad but they sure made it sound like the minimum.

[Anonymous]

Those are guidelines -- not absolutes. Just like for college admissions -- people print the scores/grades of kids who have been admitted to show people the general range of people admitted. If schools absolutely went by scores -- they'd only take the top 99% -- then schools would have few athletes, few minorities, few legacies, etc. The schools just don't want people to get their hopes up too much.

I am even having a hard time believing someone would give that 85% figure at an open house since there are so many exceptions at Sidwell to that rule. God knows for example that the Obamas are very smart. But do you think if they got below 85% -- they'd be rejected? I don't think so.

[Anonymous]

I am curious as to why 13:12 believes that if schools only took those with top test scores, most minorities would be excluded. Is that statement based on actual data? Or are you simply making assumptions?

[Anonymous]

PP -- I'm 13:12 and I work in college admissions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Those are guidelines -- not absolutes. Just like for college admissions -- people print the scores/grades of kids who have been admitted to show people the general range of people admitted. If schools absolutely went by scores -- they'd only take the top 99% -- then schools would have few athletes, few minorities, few legacies, etc. The schools just don't want people to get their hopes up too much.

I am even having a hard time believing someone would give that 85% figure at an open house since there are so many exceptions at Sidwell to that rule. God knows for example that the Obamas are very smart. But do you think if they got below 85% -- they'd be rejected? I don't think so.

Right - guidelines that apply to all kids other than the president's kids. I think Sidwell thought they were be pretty open when they said they went down to 85% - the point seemed to be that you didn't have to have a 99 and they'd look at other factors. But under an 85 was probably just not the right fit for school. I am not the first PP who commented on the 85% but heard the same message.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Those are guidelines -- not absolutes. Just like for college admissions -- people print the scores/grades of kids who have been admitted to show people the general range of people admitted. If schools absolutely went by scores -- they'd only take the top 99% -- then schools would have few athletes, few minorities, few legacies, etc. The schools just don't want people to get their hopes up too much.

I am even having a hard time believing someone would give that 85% figure at an open house since there are so many exceptions at Sidwell to that rule. God knows for example that the Obamas are very smart. But do you think if they got below 85% -- they'd be rejected? I don't think so.

Right - guidelines that apply to all kids other than the president's kids. I think Sidwell thought they were be pretty open when they said they went down to 85% - the point seemed to be that you didn't have to have a 99 and they'd look at other factors. But under an 85 was probably just not the right fit for school. I am not the first PP who commented on the 85% but heard the same message.

The Chicago Lab School is as competitive as, if not more than, Sidwell. I really doubt that M + S needed to have guidelines tweaked for admission.

[Anonymous]

It's interesting the damn assumptions people make about the President and his children. Whether they like it or not, most Americans will need to raise their intellectual standards and IQ to meet those of Barack and his children.

I am very familiar with University of Chicago Lab school and Harvard Law School. I doubt that Sidwell had to lower their bar for the President's children; not the President named Barack ... perhaps for the President named G.W.!

[Anonymous]

This is college admissions again -- 13:12 -- I wasn't the one who said the Obama children needed help. I said they were smart; but even if they weren't -- Sidwell would have been thrilled to have them. People posting after me seemed to think they got a break. I didn't.

And, I agree that G.W. did catch a big break -- he was a legacy admit at Andover and Yale. Goodness knows why HBS took him when the UT Law School had rejected him.

[Anonymous]

Interesting. President Obama graduated from both Columbia and Harvard Law School with honors. The First Lady graduated from Princeton and Harvard Law School, yet some of you assume that their daughters are dimwits. Considering the clear intellectual chops of the parents, I would assume that the children are bright as well, unless someone has clear evidence to the contrary--like we did with GW Bush.

[Anonymous]

My first post on this thread...I think 16:16 and 15:50 need to re-read the post. PP said that a school like Sidwell (or any school) would bend rules to admit Presidential children. There was no characterization of the President, the First Lady or their kids. Obviously they are very well educated and their kids attended (and probably thrived) at one of the top Chicago private schools.

No need to be defensive about applicant characteristics when the only point being made is that any institution would love to have "first children" in their walls.

[Anonymous]

Hey this is 15:50 again. And, I was also 13:12 as I clearly stated. Trust me, I know how admissions works. I work at the university level in graduate admissions. There are no absolutes when it comes to admissions. People need to realize that -- we admit students for various reasons. People shouldn't feel as though if they have "x,y,z" qualifications they will or won't get in. There are many factors that go into the mix.