Don't understand the crazy about sidwell friend

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:NP here. In what tangible ways has the quality of the educational experienced suffered because of the changing nature of the parent population? Genuinely curious, because most of these comments relate to the parents and frankly come across as insecure.

Insecure? How so?

[Anonymous]

Not insecure to note that the douchebag quotient has increased over the years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


"The OP is disappointed in the SFS Lower School's facilities. Indeed, most of the other area privates have "nicer" facilities, I agree. I say this as a long-time Sidwell parent. To a significant degree, SFS is intentionally modest -- because that comports with Quaker values.

OP here, makes sense. Thank you. "

Long time Sidwell parent. This is an absurd statement.

1. Which schools have nicer facilities than Sidwell's lower school? I disagree that Sidwell is materially inferior to any lower school in the area. Beauvoir's awesome playground, aside, no other school really comes to mind. Lower school as a newish gym. large grass fields and updated pk-4 classrooms.

2. The "Quaker values" argument is undermined by the huge expansion planned for the Wisconsin Avenue campus. The $75 million gym, new turf football field was put in about six years ago. In the ultimate irony on Quaker values, you should check out new high tech multi-million dollar "Meeting Room" at the Wisconsin Ave. campus.

That number is high by a couple of factors. Yes, expensive, but it also opened up additional space on campus, for the meeting house, which has become incredibly important to the community.

Sorry. I overstated the cost of the $39 million gym. The other $36 million was sprinkled around the campus including on the what must be the most expensive Quaker Meeting room in history.

[Anonymous]

They barely have any middle eastern kids, and they seem to keep letting in any of them that apply

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They barely have any middle eastern kids, and they seem to keep letting in any of them that apply

Disagree.

[Anonymous]

I don't see how a socialite is also a social climber. Frankly the former alienates the rest of the parent body.
Social climbers are wannabe socialites, but social strivers are striving for a better life for their kids, not kissing butt to the wealthy.
We nixed some very good schools due to the culture being overwhelmed by cliques and spoilt kids. It would be a shame if SFS continues no this track.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP here. In what tangible ways has the quality of the educational experienced suffered because of the changing nature of the parent population? Genuinely curious, because most of these comments relate to the parents and frankly come across as insecure.

Insecure? How so?

Manifests itself in school culture change, work ethic, motivation, drugs/alcohol, house parties where party crashers vandalize the house, privileged mean girls egging/TP'ing their frenemy's house.

As an aside: Go pull the last five graduating classes' top 10% class rank and tell us what composition was academic scholarship kids. Also tell us the composition that was 9th grade intake, 6th grade, 3rd grade and K/PK.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:it was popular WELL BEFORE Chelsea went there. In the 80s, it was very sought after as well, and i'm sure before that too. it's a good school.

yes, it was. But as PP said, the parent community has changed ENORMOUSLY. And not for the better.

NP. How would you know "the parent community has changed enormously ... and not for the better"? Surely you weren't a parent there in both the 1980s and now 30 years later, were you? Sounds to me like you're making shit up.

Everyone knows this. I'm among many who have posted about it on this thread. I was a student there in the 80s and 90s and am now a parent who knows MANY people who send their kids there. Seriously, you're arguing the sky is not blue.

Before you get too nostalgic for the 80s and 90s, I remind you that, at that time, the teachers were paid below the 50th percentile as compared to peer schools, the facilities were shabby, less than 10% of students were supported by FA (versus 25% today) and the endowment was de minimis. If a strong recession had come along in the late 90s, like the one we had in 2007-2010, who knows how the school would have fared.

I also can't shake the hypocrisy of community members who conveniently forget the fact that the school had an explicit policy of only allowing one AA child per grade after Brown v. Ed and only started graduating Black children in the 70s.

Yes, the school has changed ENORMOUSLY, and for the better!

Student body: URM UMC and URM subsidized are a couple large components of each class in addition to brilliant Academic Scholarship middle class/immigrant kids, the socialites, the faculty kids, the legacy UMC kids, and then the UMC white collar families. A normal, average intelligence UMC kid with no genius angle or athletic talent faces a tough application pool.

Wrong on several fronts:

1. The majority of URM students are not on FA
2. Less than 50% of the FA budget goes to URMs
3. There are fewer faculty children at the school proportionately than there were 30 years ago
4. Average intelligence kids of any income / ethnicity have a pretty tough time keeping their noses above water at Sidwell
5. The odds of getting in for a child of any ethnic group are long
6. There are plenty of brilliant non-immigrant kids at the school

You both said the exact same thing. Hug it out.

[Anonymous]

I couldn't deal with wading through pages 3 through 11 of the responses, so my apologies if this is duplicative and ridiculously long. I am taking the question seriously and trying to be helpful, since that's what I wanted when we were going through this last year.

To preface, we are lucky to live in a place with so many incredible choices. There are excellent public schools and also an incredible number of terrific private schools -- not just the big whatevers. Also, a school that is otherwise wonderful may just be a bad fit for your kid or not feel right for your family.

I was in your shoes last year, OP. DD was applying to K, and DH looooved Sidwell -- in large part because we had a few good friends with kids there who loved it. I didn't get it. The admissions process because seemed so cold and humorless. Asking questions seemed verboten. I also was way too influenced by what I read here and was an absolute jerk to DH about it.

We applied both because DH loved it and also because I grudgingly admitted that it might be a good fit for DD for a variety of reasons. And, to be clear, I disliked it so much that DH thought I might intentionally blow the parent interview (I did not). I figured she'd get rejected, and we'd move on.

She got into Sidwell and several other schools but did not get into my first choice (Maret). So I grudgingly went to the welcome night for parents of admitted students and finally began to get what all the fuss was about. The school that had seemed so cold when the admissions people were involved suddenly became warm, funny, and welcoming when we were interacting with the teachers, administration, and other families. Even DH said it felt like a completely different place. I'm not the only K parent who felt similarly during the admissions process and changed their mind after admissions decisions were made, either.

DD is in K there and just loves school. Her teachers are extraordinary. The focus is mainly on social and emotional development, but they also are learning a ton -- they just don't quite realize it because the learning itself is so much fun. There's a ton of room for curiosity, creativity, the K version of critical thinking, and silliness. The Exploratorium is pretty much every kid's dream, and they spend a ton of time outside, both at recess and when they need to just run around. And for DD, the Quaker aspect has been wonderful -- the loves the moment of silence and meeting for worship, and we love the focus on kindness, community, and service.

The playground does look pretty lame compared to other schools, especially Beauvoir. But at least for DD, it's better than it looks -- in part because of the teachers doing things to make sure it's engaging. For example, the science teacher buried bones in the dirt pit, so the kids have spent hours trying to identify which "dinosaur" bones they found. It might be a limitation for a kid who is more physically adventurous than DD, but the kids seem to have a blast.

I'm concerned about the academic and social pressure going forward, so we've pledged to reevaluate as we go. I also don't love the lack of economic diversity. But I feel like we made the latter choice when we decided to go private, so it's incumbent upon us to avoid getting sucked into a private school vortex in which we have no meaningful relationships with people who aren't loaded -- not hard given our friends, our families, and my job.

We applied to a ton of schools (six, I think) because I felt like I wouldn't really get a sense of the schools unless DD got into them. That wouldn't work for everyone and is the opposite of what many people recommend, but I'm glad we did because it allowed us to ask really hard questions of the schools and, as a result, changed some of my perceptions.

Whatever happens, you seem to be a caring parent who wants to do the best for her kid, so your kid is going to be fine. Doing what I did and getting super worked up about it isn't worth it, since there are a ton of great schools and great options.

[Anonymous]

What's a good alternative to sidwell for 10th grade applicants? Poor DD is trying hard to get in, but it's a non entry year, and we don't have 30k+ to donate for a spot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What's a good alternative to sidwell for 10th grade applicants? Poor DD is trying hard to get in, but it's a non entry year, and we don't have 30k+ to donate for a spot.

Sidwell.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I couldn't deal with wading through pages 3 through 11 of the responses, so my apologies if this is duplicative and ridiculously long. I am taking the question seriously and trying to be helpful, since that's what I wanted when we were going through this last year.

To preface, we are lucky to live in a place with so many incredible choices. There are excellent public schools and also an incredible number of terrific private schools -- not just the big whatevers. Also, a school that is otherwise wonderful may just be a bad fit for your kid or not feel right for your family.

I was in your shoes last year, OP. DD was applying to K, and DH looooved Sidwell -- in large part because we had a few good friends with kids there who loved it. I didn't get it. The admissions process because seemed so cold and humorless. Asking questions seemed verboten. I also was way too influenced by what I read here and was an absolute jerk to DH about it.

We applied both because DH loved it and also because I grudgingly admitted that it might be a good fit for DD for a variety of reasons. And, to be clear, I disliked it so much that DH thought I might intentionally blow the parent interview (I did not). I figured she'd get rejected, and we'd move on.

She got into Sidwell and several other schools but did not get into my first choice (Maret). So I grudgingly went to the welcome night for parents of admitted students and finally began to get what all the fuss was about. The school that had seemed so cold when the admissions people were involved suddenly became warm, funny, and welcoming when we were interacting with the teachers, administration, and other families. Even DH said it felt like a completely different place. I'm not the only K parent who felt similarly during the admissions process and changed their mind after admissions decisions were made, either.

DD is in K there and just loves school. Her teachers are extraordinary. The focus is mainly on social and emotional development, but they also are learning a ton -- they just don't quite realize it because the learning itself is so much fun. There's a ton of room for curiosity, creativity, the K version of critical thinking, and silliness. The Exploratorium is pretty much every kid's dream, and they spend a ton of time outside, both at recess and when they need to just run around. And for DD, the Quaker aspect has been wonderful -- the loves the moment of silence and meeting for worship, and we love the focus on kindness, community, and service.

The playground does look pretty lame compared to other schools, especially Beauvoir. But at least for DD, it's better than it looks -- in part because of the teachers doing things to make sure it's engaging. For example, the science teacher buried bones in the dirt pit, so the kids have spent hours trying to identify which "dinosaur" bones they found. It might be a limitation for a kid who is more physically adventurous than DD, but the kids seem to have a blast.

I'm concerned about the academic and social pressure going forward, so we've pledged to reevaluate as we go. I also don't love the lack of economic diversity. But I feel like we made the latter choice when we decided to go private, so it's incumbent upon us to avoid getting sucked into a private school vortex in which we have no meaningful relationships with people who aren't loaded -- not hard given our friends, our families, and my job.

We applied to a ton of schools (six, I think) because I felt like I wouldn't really get a sense of the schools unless DD got into them. That wouldn't work for everyone and is the opposite of what many people recommend, but I'm glad we did because it allowed us to ask really hard questions of the schools and, as a result, changed some of my perceptions.

Whatever happens, you seem to be a caring parent who wants to do the best for her kid, so your kid is going to be fine. Doing what I did and getting super worked up about it isn't worth it, since there are a ton of great schools and great options.

Why do they maintain an Admissions set-up/team that is such a turn-off? Shouldn't Admissions reflect well on the school?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What's a good alternative to sidwell for 10th grade applicants? Poor DD is trying hard to get in, but it's a non entry year, and we don't have 30k+ to donate for a spot.

There is often attrition after 9th grade. DD should apply, you never know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Why do they maintain an Admissions set-up/team that is such a turn-off? Shouldn't Admissions reflect well on the school?

I had no issues with the Admissions staff or how they conducted themselves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Why do they maintain an Admissions set-up/team that is such a turn-off? Shouldn't Admissions reflect well on the school?

I had no issues with the Admissions staff or how they conducted themselves.

Like the poster to whom I was responding, I found them humorless and guarded.