Bullis school

[Anonymous]

Bullis and Good Counsel are both good schools. Academics and sports are a great combination, and it's pretty much the standard for DC area privates. All schools are not like Sidwell, and.....that's ok.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How was college placement in 2012?

Did it improve over years' past?

30% of the Bullis class of 2012 are attending top 35 (USNWR) liberal arts schools or national universities including: Brown, Carnegie Mellon, Cornell (2), Dartmouth, Georgetown (4), Hamilton, Haverford, Michigan (5), NYU (2), UNC Chapel Hill, Princeton, Trinity, Tufts, Vanderbilt (2), UVA (4), Washington and Lee, Wash U (2), Wesleyan and Yale.

College matriculation for class of 2011 was quite good but there weren't as many Ivies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How was college placement in 2012?

Did it improve over years' past?

30% of the Bullis class of 2012 are attending top 35 (USNWR) liberal arts schools or national universities including: Brown, Carnegie Mellon, Cornell (2), Dartmouth, Georgetown (4), Hamilton, Haverford, Michigan (5), NYU (2), UNC Chapel Hill, Princeton, Trinity, Tufts, Vanderbilt (2), UVA (4), Washington and Lee, Wash U (2), Wesleyan and Yale.

College matriculation for class of 2011 was quite good but there weren't as many Ivies.

The USNW rankings for national universities and liberal arts schools are separate -- 35 schools in each category. So 30% of Bullis students are attending the top 70 schools. If you flip the stat, 70% of the graduating class are NOT attending the top 70 college destinations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How was college placement in 2012?

Did it improve over years' past?

30% of the Bullis class of 2012 are attending top 35 (USNWR) liberal arts schools or national universities including: Brown, Carnegie Mellon, Cornell (2), Dartmouth, Georgetown (4), Hamilton, Haverford, Michigan (5), NYU (2), UNC Chapel Hill, Princeton, Trinity, Tufts, Vanderbilt (2), UVA (4), Washington and Lee, Wash U (2), Wesleyan and Yale.

College matriculation for class of 2011 was quite good but there weren't as many Ivies.

The USNW rankings for national universities and liberal arts schools are separate -- 35 schools in each category. So 30% of Bullis students are attending the top 70 schools. If you flip the stat, 70% of the graduating class are NOT attending the top 70 college destinations.

Your statement is incoherent.

Any of the schools I've listed are in the top 35 of their respective rankings - either Liberal Arts Colleges or National Universities. A third of the class attending top 35 schools is impressive in anyone's book except yours maybe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How was college placement in 2012?

Did it improve over years' past?

30% of the Bullis class of 2012 are attending top 35 (USNWR) liberal arts schools or national universities including: Brown, Carnegie Mellon, Cornell (2), Dartmouth, Georgetown (4), Hamilton, Haverford, Michigan (5), NYU (2), UNC Chapel Hill, Princeton, Trinity, Tufts, Vanderbilt (2), UVA (4), Washington and Lee, Wash U (2), Wesleyan and Yale.

College matriculation for class of 2011 was quite good but there weren't as many Ivies.

The USNW rankings for national universities and liberal arts schools are separate -- 35 schools in each category. So 30% of Bullis students are attending the top 70 schools. If you flip the stat, 70% of the graduating class are NOT attending the top 70 college destinations.

Your statement is incoherent.

Any of the schools I've listed are in the top 35 of their respective rankings - either Liberal Arts Colleges or National Universities. A third of the class attending top 35 schools is impressive in anyone's book except yours maybe.

Let's restate. There are two lists: Liberal Arts Colleges and National Universities. You appear to have counted the 70 total colleges/universities that make into the top 35 on either list, and then are trumpeting that 30% of Bullis students were able to get into these 70 schools. That also means 70% of Bullis couldn't get into the top 70 colleges/universities in the US. Quite underwhelming.

[Anonymous]

Where are the stats on how many of them have parents that are alumni of the school?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How was college placement in 2012?

Did it improve over years' past?

30% of the Bullis class of 2012 are attending top 35 (USNWR) liberal arts schools or national universities including: Brown, Carnegie Mellon, Cornell (2), Dartmouth, Georgetown (4), Hamilton, Haverford, Michigan (5), NYU (2), UNC Chapel Hill, Princeton, Trinity, Tufts, Vanderbilt (2), UVA (4), Washington and Lee, Wash U (2), Wesleyan and Yale.

College matriculation for class of 2011 was quite good but there weren't as many Ivies.

The USNW rankings for national universities and liberal arts schools are separate -- 35 schools in each category. So 30% of Bullis students are attending the top 70 schools. If you flip the stat, 70% of the graduating class are NOT attending the top 70 college destinations.

Your statement is incoherent.

Any of the schools I've listed are in the top 35 of their respective rankings - either Liberal Arts Colleges or National Universities. A third of the class attending top 35 schools is impressive in anyone's book except yours maybe.

Let's restate. There are two lists: Liberal Arts Colleges and National Universities. You appear to have counted the 70 total colleges/universities that make into the top 35 on either list, and then are trumpeting that 30% of Bullis students were able to get into these 70 schools. That also means 70% of Bullis couldn't get into the top 70 colleges/universities in the US. Quite underwhelming.

Repeating the same thing over and over iand flawed logic s a sign of Alzheimer's Disease.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How was college placement in 2012?

Did it improve over years' past?

30% of the Bullis class of 2012 are attending top 35 (USNWR) liberal arts schools or national universities including: Brown, Carnegie Mellon, Cornell (2), Dartmouth, Georgetown (4), Hamilton, Haverford, Michigan (5), NYU (2), UNC Chapel Hill, Princeton, Trinity, Tufts, Vanderbilt (2), UVA (4), Washington and Lee, Wash U (2), Wesleyan and Yale.

College matriculation for class of 2011 was quite good but there weren't as many Ivies.

The USNW rankings for national universities and liberal arts schools are separate -- 35 schools in each category. So 30% of Bullis students are attending the top 70 schools. If you flip the stat, 70% of the graduating class are NOT attending the top 70 college destinations.

Your statement is incoherent.

Any of the schools I've listed are in the top 35 of their respective rankings - either Liberal Arts Colleges or National Universities. A third of the class attending top 35 schools is impressive in anyone's book except yours maybe.

Let's restate. There are two lists: Liberal Arts Colleges and National Universities. You appear to have counted the 70 total colleges/universities that make into the top 35 on either list, and then are trumpeting that 30% of Bullis students were able to get into these 70 schools. That also means 70% of Bullis couldn't get into the top 70 colleges/universities in the US. Quite underwhelming.

Repeating the same thing over and over iand flawed logic s a sign of Alzheimer's Disease.

Not sure why you think the logic is flawed. The fact that a significant majority of the kids at Bullis can't even get into one of the top 70 colleges or universities in the USA is clear. What's funny is that the poster thinks that 30% of students getting into 70 colleges is some sort of great record. Also not sure why someone would make an Alzheimer's crack -- that is an awfully nasty way to go. Low level, Bullis mom, very low level.

[Anonymous]

I understood 20:42's post just fine. Bullis's college admissions record seems fine, nothing special--and looking at the inverse of the original stat did highlight that for me. But private schools in general no longer have a huge inside advantage in college admissions (although I'd argue that kids in small classes may get edges in preparation, at least in some subjects).

I did hear that Bullis may be moving towards the model of watching video of math instruction at night and doing the problems in class with a teacher circulating to help. I've read about this trend but don't recall the name for it. I'm curious as to when Bullis will implement this and in what range of subjects (I can't quite understand how this would play out in non-STEM subjects). I understand this will be paired with intensive use of computers at school. The changes sound intriguing, does anyone know more?

[Anonymous]

http://www.thedailyriff.com/articles/the-best-way-to-reach-each-student-private-school-flips-learning-547.php

[Anonymous]

Thanks for the link, it is quite interesting. It sounds like the term is "flipped classroom." Bullis also talks a little bit on its website about its "one-to-one laptop program" although without much specifics (understandably). As they implement it I will look forward to hearing more about how they envision laptop use in more discussion-based classes like English/history, and if they will be giving teachers some flexibility on how much screen time they must incorporate in class.

By way of comparison, I think I've heard that Sidwell has a one-to-one laptop type program in their Middle School, and there has been some controversy within their Upper School faculty about whether they will be made to incorporate technology for technology's sake even if they don't believe it advances educational objectives in their discipline.

Interesting times in education!

[Anonymous]

Holton does this as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Holton does this as well.

The Flipped classroom or the laptops? If the flipped classroom, do they do it in math only; STEM subjects only; or ll subjects? (If you know -- and thank you.)

[Anonymous]

"Flipped Classroom" methodology is an unmitigated disaster when practiced in the classroom. Imagine students viewing videos in the evening about math and science concepts in which they have never once before been exposed, then in the next class they are immediately given problems to solve without any further instruction. "Flip Instruction" is pure pedagogical madness. Theoretically, the teachers are circulating around the classroom helping students solve these problems, but this does not occur. Part of the program is to have the students solve the problems themselves. Secondly, students are reluctant to admit that they need help, and finally if they did admit they needed personalized attention the teacher could not possibly help that number of confused students in a single class period.

The "Flipped Classroom" is the absolute high water mark in fad teaching methodology. It's also a great gig for teachers. All they need do is to create one set of video lectures and then for the rest of their careers they'll only have to show up to class and answer a few questions. Flipping Classess only creates classroom environments where teachers place greater learning demands on their students while increasingly disengaging from the teaching process themselves.

When teachers disengage in the classroom it is interpreted as apathy by their students. When teachers fail to demonstrate passion for the material they teach it is nearly impossible to motivate students to strive for excellence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"Flipped Classroom" methodology is an unmitigated disaster when practiced in the classroom. Imagine students viewing videos in the evening about math and science concepts in which they have never once before been exposed, then in the next class they are immediately given problems to solve without any further instruction. "Flip Instruction" is pure pedagogical madness. Theoretically, the teachers are circulating around the classroom helping students solve these problems, but this does not occur. Part of the program is to have the students solve the problems themselves. Secondly, students are reluctant to admit that they need help, and finally if they did admit they needed personalized attention the teacher could not possibly help that number of confused students in a single class period.

The "Flipped Classroom" is the absolute high water mark in fad teaching methodology. It's also a great gig for teachers. All they need do is to create one set of video lectures and then for the rest of their careers they'll only have to show up to class and answer a few questions. Flipping Classess only creates classroom environments where teachers place greater learning demands on their students while increasingly disengaging from the teaching process themselves.

When teachers disengage in the classroom it is interpreted as apathy by their students. When teachers fail to demonstrate passion for the material they teach it is nearly impossible to motivate students to strive for excellence.

The above rant is completely ridiculous and the PP has no idea what he/she is talking about.

I am a teacher and while I don't use a flipped classroom approach, I know of several teachers who use it successfully. Plenty of teachers will assign reading on a topic that hasn't been covered in class yet in order to expose students to it prior to the lesson. This is a similar approach, except instead of reading out of a textbook, students watch a lecture. This does NOT mean that the teacher does NO whole class instruction ever again. It gives teachers an opportunity to give more FOCUSED whole class instruction, and also leaves more time for teachers to work with students individually. If anything it allows teachers to be MORE engaged with their students during class time, not less. Also, this is one tool in the toolbox. To use this approach exclusively would be practically impossible. There's more to a math class than sitting around doing problems.