Sidwell college advisor leaves

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm the parent of a current Sidwell junior and I'm much more anxious now than I was yesterday about the college admissions process. We're in the early stages of the process, so hearing that 2 of the 3 people in the CC office are leaving is very upsetting news. But if the college counselors were being mistreated by parents, then I can't blame them for wanting to leave the school. The behavior that was described or any similar behavior shouldn't be tolerated....ever.

At some schools a parent calling the Admissions Dept at a University to bad mouth their DC's classmate and fellow community member would be grounds to not renew that family's contract moving forward.

Does this parent have younger children in the school ?

If so, the family should be shown the door

Agreed. But that would mean Bryan Garman would have to possess the strength and morals to take a stand.
It wasn't just this year that pushed Patrick out the door. There were douchebag parents in the past 2 years who cursed and screamed at him because their kid "only" got into Yale but not Harvard. Seriously. Others who were indignant when the counseling office would suggest a non Ivy as an option, and refused to understand that "fit" is much more important than a "name brand" school". Another parent was in the parking lot one year asking students where they got in early to understand why her DC didn't get in. These people have lost all perspective. Why work with such a community, even if it's only a few bad apples? I have no idea if this happens elsewhere and don't care. As a member of the SFS community, I know that 99% of the families are great, but that 1% is toxic and you can imagine how much energy they demand from the college counselors. If Bryan Garman and SFS really believe the school's values of respect for others, these people should be shown the door. There are plenty of other families who would love to be there and could contribute in a more positive way.

WOW . Plus 1000 !

Seems Sidwell is suffering under the adage : if you marry for money , you better believe in the end you will earn every dollar.....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:99.9% of the SFS parents are fantastic —- having had kids at SFS over the past 6 years, I can attest that every class has one loon who thinks their child is candycorn and rainbows. This kind of parental delusion is not unique to Sidwell, it’s everywhere, public and private. And not just related to academics. Think about all the crazy sports Dads you’ve known over the years. Unfortunately, college admissions is a stressful scene and the 1-2 loony voices can drown out the majority of the sane parents and families and can wear down the people who are trying to support their kids. Having had kids in multiple privates, trust me, there are those types everywhere. It’s truly sad to see Patrick leave, no doubt as he is a great guy that the kids really loved, but I don’t think you’ll find one DMV private that doesn’t have a taste of the crazy. I wish Patrick all the best.

True that the 2 % PITAs suck up the life blood out of teahers, Admin and counsellors everywhere.... key is HOS must have a frickin' back bone and examples need to be made


This is the JOB of Admin to lead . LEAD

And, no HOS is not part of the DC Power circuit ... they are viewed by these parents as tools, nothing more and they should get wise and back their Faculty/ Staff

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's somewhat difficult to judge this whole situation without knowing the specific nature of what the parent communicated to the college, whether the information was true/relevant, and whether the school had suppressed the information in the interest of protecting its own reputation.

Nope, there is NEVER a time when someone should be anonymously sending notes to colleges to disparage other kids. Never. That is just batsh1t crazy.

Given all that’s come out in the last few days, I’m no longer willing to be that definitive in condemning the parent (even if I’d never do it myself). It all depends. Admissions and outplacement have been corrupted, so how can an applicant know that relevant negative information about competing applicants isn’t being suppressed?

When a corrupted person is so highly regarded that they are giving Sasha and Malia private tennis lessons at the WH (what is more vetted than that?), how can a parent believe that they should just relax and trust the process?

Oh, Good Grief... so the Obama's found a tennis coach that they could trust and it happened to be a Sidwell employee

Who gives F **k

There is NO quid pro Quo here,,,, the Obama girls ceased needing any help getting into Harvard on a Tues night November in December 2008.. and that was a beautiful night

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At least now SFS has an opportunity to rethink and revamp the college counseling office. The turnover of two positions is a good start but just the initial step. SFS has been underinvesting in the office for a long time. It’s also the case that college admission has become more complex and challenging in recent years. Sidwell needs to add one or two more front line counselors to lower the student to counselor ratio.

Dont lose sight of this.

Why can’t parents help? You really have to pay someone to do this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

On another note, these private schools need to increase the number of counselors. The ratio is just too high.

Lecturing people about ethics while adopting an openly misogynistic tone. Well played!

New poster. "Honey" is not misogynistic. It's condescending -- probably deliberately used that way -- and can be applied to either sex, male or female.

Of course it is... just as calling someone "boy" is meant to invoke racial imagery, using "honey" as a condescending expression is meant to invoke the stereotype of the uneducated and helpless female, whether it's directed at a male or female.

If directed towards a male, it's not really different to saying to a straight person that their dump POV is "gay."

So, yes, it's misogynistic. Incidentally, the US government calls it out as an example of sexual harassment: https://www.doi.gov/pmb/eeo/Sexual-Harassment

Per that link, Biden is in deeeeep trouble.

"Examples of Sexual Harassment
Any of these elements may constitute sexual harassment or discrimination. These examples are not meant to be all inclusive.

Physical contact
Squeezing a worker's shoulders or putting a hand around his or her waist..."

Thanks for posting, Sen. Gillibrand. Your tactics may have worked with Al Franken, but it won’t work with Biden. America now sees you for the craven hypocrite that you are. Trump was perhaps right about one thing: you will do anything for money and to get ahead in politics. You’re a loser.

Honey, that's what the US government says.

I agree, it's way overboard, and can't wait for Trump to deregulate this too so that my esteemed friend Joe can keep squeezing our shoulders in his lovely fashion and also telling those fun off-color jokes (also considered to be sexual harassment down in the list).

Honey, I’ve put my hands on my colleagues’ shoulders - to praise, comfort, bond. I’m female and have done this with both male and female colleagues. Calling it sexual harassment is what morons in government with no common sense call it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

On another note, these private schools need to increase the number of counselors. The ratio is just too high.

Lecturing people about ethics while adopting an openly misogynistic tone. Well played!

New poster. "Honey" is not misogynistic. It's condescending -- probably deliberately used that way -- and can be applied to either sex, male or female.

Of course it is... just as calling someone "boy" is meant to invoke racial imagery, using "honey" as a condescending expression is meant to invoke the stereotype of the uneducated and helpless female, whether it's directed at a male or female.

If directed towards a male, it's not really different to saying to a straight person that their dump POV is "gay."

So, yes, it's misogynistic. Incidentally, the US government calls it out as an example of sexual harassment: https://www.doi.gov/pmb/eeo/Sexual-Harassment

Per that link, Biden is in deeeeep trouble.

"Examples of Sexual Harassment
Any of these elements may constitute sexual harassment or discrimination. These examples are not meant to be all inclusive.

Physical contact
Squeezing a worker's shoulders or putting a hand around his or her waist..."

Thanks for posting, Sen. Gillibrand. Your tactics may have worked with Al Franken, but it won’t work with Biden. America now sees you for the craven hypocrite that you are. Trump was perhaps right about one thing: you will do anything for money and to get ahead in politics. You’re a loser.

Honey, that's what the US government says.

I agree, it's way overboard, and can't wait for Trump to deregulate this too so that my esteemed friend Joe can keep squeezing our shoulders in his lovely fashion and also telling those fun off-color jokes (also considered to be sexual harassment down in the list).

Honey, I’ve put my hands on my colleagues’ shoulders - to praise, comfort, bond. I’m female and have done this with both male and female colleagues. Calling it sexual harassment is what morons in government with no common sense call it.

np: Honey, being blind to the fact that quite a few people don’t want to be touched that way in a work setting is obtuse and disrespectful to your colleagues.

Generally, I think intent is a big part of how an action is perceived, but just because you think being handsy is warm, not everyone agrees. Now that is common sense.

[Anonymous]

Let's create a separate thread for "workplace touching: affectionate or predatory?"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

On another note, these private schools need to increase the number of counselors. The ratio is just too high.

Lecturing people about ethics while adopting an openly misogynistic tone. Well played!

New poster. "Honey" is not misogynistic. It's condescending -- probably deliberately used that way -- and can be applied to either sex, male or female.

Of course it is... just as calling someone "boy" is meant to invoke racial imagery, using "honey" as a condescending expression is meant to invoke the stereotype of the uneducated and helpless female, whether it's directed at a male or female.

If directed towards a male, it's not really different to saying to a straight person that their dump POV is "gay."

So, yes, it's misogynistic. Incidentally, the US government calls it out as an example of sexual harassment: https://www.doi.gov/pmb/eeo/Sexual-Harassment

Per that link, Biden is in deeeeep trouble.

"Examples of Sexual Harassment
Any of these elements may constitute sexual harassment or discrimination. These examples are not meant to be all inclusive.

Physical contact
Squeezing a worker's shoulders or putting a hand around his or her waist..."

Thanks for posting, Sen. Gillibrand. Your tactics may have worked with Al Franken, but it won’t work with Biden. America now sees you for the craven hypocrite that you are. Trump was perhaps right about one thing: you will do anything for money and to get ahead in politics. You’re a loser.

Honey, that's what the US government says.

I agree, it's way overboard, and can't wait for Trump to deregulate this too so that my esteemed friend Joe can keep squeezing our shoulders in his lovely fashion and also telling those fun off-color jokes (also considered to be sexual harassment down in the list).

Honey, I’ve put my hands on my colleagues’ shoulders - to praise, comfort, bond. I’m female and have done this with both male and female colleagues. Calling it sexual harassment is what morons in government with no common sense call it.

np: Honey, being blind to the fact that quite a few people don’t want to be touched that way in a work setting is obtuse and disrespectful to your colleagues.

Generally, I think intent is a big part of how an action is perceived, but just because you think being handsy is warm, not everyone agrees. Now that is common sense.

Honey, part of common and social sense is knowing when someone is comfortable with a certain type of interaction and when they’re not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At least now SFS has an opportunity to rethink and revamp the college counseling office. The turnover of two positions is a good start but just the initial step. SFS has been underinvesting in the office for a long time. It’s also the case that college admission has become more complex and challenging in recent years. Sidwell needs to add one or two more front line counselors to lower the student to counselor ratio.

Dont lose sight of this.

Why can’t parents help? You really have to pay someone to do this?

What exactly are you saying? That school college counselors don’t matter?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:99.9% of the SFS parents are fantastic —- having had kids at SFS over the past 6 years, I can attest that every class has one loon who thinks their child is candycorn and rainbows. This kind of parental delusion is not unique to Sidwell, it’s everywhere, public and private. And not just related to academics. Think about all the crazy sports Dads you’ve known over the years. Unfortunately, college admissions is a stressful scene and the 1-2 loony voices can drown out the majority of the sane parents and families and can wear down the people who are trying to support their kids. Having had kids in multiple privates, trust me, there are those types everywhere. It’s truly sad to see Patrick leave, no doubt as he is a great guy that the kids really loved, but I don’t think you’ll find one DMV private that doesn’t have a taste of the crazy. I wish Patrick all the best.[/quote

I wish both of them the best. Patrick will be missed in part, but the other one’s exit can’t come fast enough.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At least now SFS has an opportunity to rethink and revamp the college counseling office. The turnover of two positions is a good start but just the initial step. SFS has been underinvesting in the office for a long time. It’s also the case that college admission has become more complex and challenging in recent years. Sidwell needs to add one or two more front line counselors to lower the student to counselor ratio.

Dont lose sight of this.

Why can’t parents help? You really have to pay someone to do this?

DP, the main thing, there is information that the parents have no right to about other students - grade point, hooks etc, that weigh into decisions by classmates. If there are two schools my DC likes as an unhooked ED candidate and there are 10 hooked classmates applying to one and 3 hooked applying to the other, then obviously DC should apply to the one that has 3 applicants, or better yet, see if there is a 3rd option that has zero or one other potential applicant. A parent cannot and should not have that information.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Editing an essay 10X is not that different than re-writing it. It seems like you don’t see there isn’t much of a distinction at that point...giving feedback 1-2x is fine, 10 times??

Agree. Don’t see much real difference between this and paying someone to “coach” my kid through a few tough SAT questions. The entire system sucks, and we all know it yet continue to support it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

On another note, these private schools need to increase the number of counselors. The ratio is just too high.

Lecturing people about ethics while adopting an openly misogynistic tone. Well played!

New poster. "Honey" is not misogynistic. It's condescending -- probably deliberately used that way -- and can be applied to either sex, male or female.

Of course it is... just as calling someone "boy" is meant to invoke racial imagery, using "honey" as a condescending expression is meant to invoke the stereotype of the uneducated and helpless female, whether it's directed at a male or female.

If directed towards a male, it's not really different to saying to a straight person that their dump POV is "gay."

So, yes, it's misogynistic. Incidentally, the US government calls it out as an example of sexual harassment: https://www.doi.gov/pmb/eeo/Sexual-Harassment

Per that link, Biden is in deeeeep trouble.

"Examples of Sexual Harassment
Any of these elements may constitute sexual harassment or discrimination. These examples are not meant to be all inclusive.

Physical contact
Squeezing a worker's shoulders or putting a hand around his or her waist..."

Thanks for posting, Sen. Gillibrand. Your tactics may have worked with Al Franken, but it won’t work with Biden. America now sees you for the craven hypocrite that you are. Trump was perhaps right about one thing: you will do anything for money and to get ahead in politics. You’re a loser.

Honey, that's what the US government says.

I agree, it's way overboard, and can't wait for Trump to deregulate this too so that my esteemed friend Joe can keep squeezing our shoulders in his lovely fashion and also telling those fun off-color jokes (also considered to be sexual harassment down in the list).

Honey, I’ve put my hands on my colleagues’ shoulders - to praise, comfort, bond. I’m female and have done this with both male and female colleagues. Calling it sexual harassment is what morons in government with no common sense call it.

np: Honey, being blind to the fact that quite a few people don’t want to be touched that way in a work setting is obtuse and disrespectful to your colleagues.

Generally, I think intent is a big part of how an action is perceived, but just because you think being handsy is warm, not everyone agrees. Now that is common sense.

+1

[Anonymous]

Back to the actual point of this thread. Is Bryan Garman going to meet with rising senior families to discuss the state of the counseling office and address concerns?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Back to the actual point of this thread. Is Bryan Garman going to meet with rising senior families to discuss the state of the counseling office and address concerns?

How about meeting with the parents of the 2019 seniors to "clarify" the alleged terrible behavior of some of the parents? Personally, I think less than 5 of the 260 parents have done anything "wrong" --- Blaming -all- the parents is misleading and diversionary...