I should have kept my kid at Wilson; college admits are much better than the Big3

[Anonymous]

*That are not cola adjusted

[Anonymous]

Anyway....

Why do OP and others assume that just because Wilson isn't challenging these kids the same way a private school would, that they aren't being challenged? Most parents in DCPS supplement extensively if they want their kids to go to schools like the ones OP has her sights set on. And that kind of supplementing tends to lend itself well to college admissions because colleges are generally more impressed by someone who has done a lot of impressive academic activity outside of school than someone who only has good grades. It demonstrates a higher level of focus and commitment. For example, an applicant who writes a play and has it staged at a local arts organization they have been involved in since attending their summer camp for the first time in 6th grade is more impressive than a kid who just has an A in English. Even if the latter applicant was expected to do more reading and writing int their English class. It is harder to be successful in less structured settings outside of school and therefore success in these settings is more impressive.

This is honestly the downside of a super rigorous high school in general. Yes, your kid may be learning a lot. But they are learning it in a very prescribed way while working alongside other students doing the same work and with similar goals. They may not be learning how to identify their own true strengths and passions, and then gaining the resiliency and creativity necessary to pursue them. They are simply staying on track. A difficult track, yes, but a track nonetheless. Highly selective colleges these days want students who have the ability to blaze their own trail. They truly do not need another very smart kid who thinks he'll probably go to business school because his dad has mentioned several times how practical that is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Upper Class make up about 1/4 of top 1% of the greatest held wealth in this country.

But, they don't actively work to earn that wealth. Instead the money works for them and their descendants

They also serve as gate keepers on the reigns of what makes society function. Not politics per se, but the controlling interest on the boards of the most powerful Banks, Utility Companies, Weapons and Natural resource companies, Museums, Universities, Medical research institutions, the Intelligence community and the Foreign Service.

To the PP who bragged, " BUT, my husband made 2 million last year.... " well, you just proved my point. Your husband worked for that money- probably 60-90 hour weeks at that. Even billing $700/hr and closing major mergers - that is still a worker Bee. And your fixation on material possessions as a marker of social class distinction is the hallmark of the upper middle class that aspires to be more, but will always just be UMC.

Says who?

“According to a 2018 report from the Pew Research Center, 19% of American adults live in "upper-income households." The median income of that group was $187,872 in 2016. Pew defines the upper class as adults whose annual household income is more than double the national median. That's after incomes have been adjusted for household size, since smaller households require less money to support the same lifestyle as larger ones.”

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2019/09/14/how-many-americans-are-considered-upper-class.html

Don’t post generic studies that are cost of living adjust by City or region. Seriously. You just discredit yourself, even in a HS math or stats class.

A high schooler could see you don’t have a cite for your 0.25% of wealth figure, you just made that up. Give me Pew over some rando on the internet.

You’re creating a false and unnecessary distinction between income and wealth. Why? Academia isn’t on your side about this, and common sense isn’t on your side either.

Are you the poster from the BB gun thread in OT who thinks the upper classes spend all their time shooting ducks? Some of you have a fascination with the upper classes that’s tinged with ignorance because you’re seeing it from such a distance. For example, to correct your post, you sit in a board but you have a “controlling interest” in a company’s stocks. No individual has a controlling interest in public utility companies—that’s not how public utilities work, but maybe you meant big oil or the private energy sector or something. And why are you capitalizing everything, that’s a marker of a bad education.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Anyway....

Why do OP and others assume that just because Wilson isn't challenging these kids the same way a private school would, that they aren't being challenged? Most parents in DCPS supplement extensively if they want their kids to go to schools like the ones OP has her sights set on. And that kind of supplementing tends to lend itself well to college admissions because colleges are generally more impressed by someone who has done a lot of impressive academic activity outside of school than someone who only has good grades. It demonstrates a higher level of focus and commitment. For example, an applicant who writes a play and has it staged at a local arts organization they have been involved in since attending their summer camp for the first time in 6th grade is more impressive than a kid who just has an A in English. Even if the latter applicant was expected to do more reading and writing int their English class. It is harder to be successful in less structured settings outside of school and therefore success in these settings is more impressive.

This is honestly the downside of a super rigorous high school in general. Yes, your kid may be learning a lot. But they are learning it in a very prescribed way while working alongside other students doing the same work and with similar goals. They may not be learning how to identify their own true strengths and passions, and then gaining the resiliency and creativity necessary to pursue them. They are simply staying on track. A difficult track, yes, but a track nonetheless. Highly selective colleges these days want students who have the ability to blaze their own trail. They truly do not need another very smart kid who thinks he'll probably go to business school because his dad has mentioned several times how practical that is.

For all your efforts to supposedly champion a Free Range Adolescence, your ideal representation of that is just as much Adolescence on steroids as the AP chain gang many DC area parents sign their kids up for

Yeah, sure a 15 year old is gonna “ blaze their own trail “ and write a play about it at 16- better yet- an opera . That is the rare 25 year old , not HS teen

When were kids back when the banks and USNW report weren’t working together to stoke the college debt money train, it was enough proof of being “ genuinely you “ to have a few hobbies, do well in school , be nice to grand in and be polite to adults - and of course a real summer job like mowing lawns or being a lifeguard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's this odd touch of naivete running through this thread: Do you think the admissions folks at HYPSM aren't well familiar with the Big-3, W schools (including Wilson!), TJ, Blair Magnet, et al? Do you think they don't know that the entire educational experiences at the Big3 and the publics are profoundly different?

Do you imagine some faceless automaton looking at college applications saying to themselves, "Ah, I see an A at Sidwell, and an A at Wilson -- and these are exactly the same!"

Don't kid yourselves: The people reviewing your child's application know a great deal about all of the schools mentioned here.

And for those troubled by grade inflation, you can ease your troubled minds: I have heard from more than one admissions officer at Top-20 schools that they can usually tell if a student is a good candidate for admission without ever looking at their GPAs and test scores. Awards, honors, ec's, essays, connections, recommendations... You can tell a lot about who a student is from their application and resume, without ever examining their transcript.

Students with unremarkable resumes do not get admitted to HYPSM these days no matter how high their stats are, inflated or no. And truly remarkable students will be considered for those schools so long as their GPA / test scores do not diverge wildly from the picture painted by the rest of the application.

Aside from the naivete, there's also an overinflated belief that what you know about another student and their family is all there is to know. College applications can be wonderfully confessional: Students bare their souls and tell secrets to admissions officers they'll never tell YOU. Sure, you may know this one is a concert pianist and that one rowed at this or that regatta: But you don't know about the student who was raped at 13 by their step-father and then called the police when he moved on their younger sister -- and then wrote the most soul-crushing poetry about it, and also an essay exploring legal mechanisms that both protect minors from abuse while also preventing recidivism. Or the quiet nerdy one who has been drawing comics since they were 9, posted some images online, and eventually found themselves co-moderating a massive online community. Their application included not only a thoughtful essay considering the whether the development and methods of policing behavioral norms in online forums with regard to pronoun usage and gender expression might have applicability offline, as well -- and also a link to their portfolio of beautifully-inked, brilliant, edgy comics.

But you think A's and APs and stats and sports and music are the whole deal? Don't get me wrong: they can matter. But it's the resume that makes plain who is climbing the ladder, and who is climbing *exceptionally* well -- and who is actually so good at ladder-climbing that they need to add rungs. The resume shows who is helping others up. Or creating an altogether new way to climb.

In considering whether to send to Wilson or the Big3 or making any other choices, my advice is this: Engage your child in the process of deciding. The extent of their agency and their level of engagement will almost certainly turn out to be greater differentiators than whether they jumped through GDS hoops or Wilson hoops. We know they're different. What we want to know is not how the curricula compare, but who the students are. That's what matters, at the end of the day.

You are wrong when it comes to both the Big3 schools and Wilson.

I have daughters who left DCPS for NCS. The top 15-20 or so girls at NCS (out of 80) will go to the Ivy League each year. It's already happening this year with approx. 15 ED admits. Going to NCS and doing well is what makes them stand out. It is the main point on their "resume". NCS is among the top 5 girls schools in the US. There are 80 girls per class. Do well and you are in a very small pool of top applicants nationally from "top girls schools". You have put yourself in a national pool of 40 such girls. It becomes what distinguishes them in admissions. The girls who succeed at getting Ivy spots not winning the Intel science prize or founding internationally known non-profits. They are simply doing well in school and participating in every-day extracurriculars: member of the math club, writer for the literary journal, etc. Maybe they do one thing city-wide (winning an award or similar). But they are by-in-large not doing remarkable things outside of the classroom. (Some are---this year's Special Olympian and fencer as examples) but many simply are not. They don't have to.

The same thing goes for Wilson kids who succeed. They are also in an exceptionally small pool and their school becomes the distinguishing factor on their resume. There is ONE good comprehensive high school in the District of Columbia (Wilson). It may graduate 500 kids per year but a good portion of it's students are not aiming high academically. Let's say in a typical year there are 100 very good students and a pool of 50 that are applying to top schools. The ones succeeding at the Ivys are very good students but again, they are not doing things like winning at Intel or doing internationally known extracurriculars. They are perhaps an editor of the school paper (maybe Chief editor but maybe not--there are many different editors each year). They probably do some volunteer work. They may do debate and succeed at going to nationals (not winning at nationals but going to compete).

I know I'm probably going to get crucified for typing this but I have seen it play out time and time again over the past 5 years. I know these kids personally. They are regular kids (i.e. not kids with any particularly unique story) who are succeeding in their small pools but they are both pools that the Ivy league (and similar) very much care about having representation from. I do think it is MUCH harder to achieve an Ivy (or similar) admit from a DMV suburban public. There you are one of 50 (maybe 100? 200? more?) qualified kids in your high school and there are 30 high schools in your district (Fairfax) or 15 (Loudoun) or 31 (Mont. Co). Sure, a school may take more kids total than they do from Wilson or NCS but the competition numbers are far greater. These kids are having to do truly interesting and often spectacular things to set themselves apart.

OP, the top kids at Wilson are doing truly interesting and often spectacular things. In my experience, much more so than the boring vanilla kids at suburban high schools in Fairfax or Montgomery Counties, or the pampered rich kids at area privates.

No one should try to reason with this PP . The mind of a bigot is like the pupil of the eye - the more light you shine into it, the more in constricts

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Upper Class make up about 1/4 of top 1% of the greatest held wealth in this country.

But, they don't actively work to earn that wealth. Instead the money works for them and their descendants

They also serve as gate keepers on the reigns of what makes society function. Not politics per se, but the controlling interest on the boards of the most powerful Banks, Utility Companies, Weapons and Natural resource companies, Museums, Universities, Medical research institutions, the Intelligence community and the Foreign Service.

To the PP who bragged, " BUT, my husband made 2 million last year.... " well, you just proved my point. Your husband worked for that money- probably 60-90 hour weeks at that. Even billing $700/hr and closing major mergers - that is still a worker Bee. And your fixation on material possessions as a marker of social class distinction is the hallmark of the upper middle class that aspires to be more, but will always just be UMC.

You’ve been watching too much Succession, and even those guys have day jobs. By your standards, Bezos and Musk aren’t “upper class” because they show up to work.

That’s right, they aren’t Upper Class . Of the late 90’s wealth onwards to present “ new money “ probably the only candidates to possibly enter the Upper Class are the Gates family - not Bill and Malinda, but possibly their Grandchildren

This is largely due to their foundation and charitable works world wide financed by Bill’s unique contributions to computer science and creating the modern world.

And there are many members of the Upper Class who have only moderate allowance income. Anderson Cooper, for example, is a member of the Upper Class despite the fact that the Comadore’s money has run dry . Why ? Because his family still has its University , Grand Central station and Union Pacific rail still serve the country and his independent and understated bearing

He is simply a Vanderbilt. And, if you don’t believe me, why isn’t your lawyer friend being asked to sit on the Board of the Met ?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Upper Class make up about 1/4 of top 1% of the greatest held wealth in this country.

But, they don't actively work to earn that wealth. Instead the money works for them and their descendants

They also serve as gate keepers on the reigns of what makes society function. Not politics per se, but the controlling interest on the boards of the most powerful Banks, Utility Companies, Weapons and Natural resource companies, Museums, Universities, Medical research institutions, the Intelligence community and the Foreign Service.

To the PP who bragged, " BUT, my husband made 2 million last year.... " well, you just proved my point. Your husband worked for that money- probably 60-90 hour weeks at that. Even billing $700/hr and closing major mergers - that is still a worker Bee. And your fixation on material possessions as a marker of social class distinction is the hallmark of the upper middle class that aspires to be more, but will always just be UMC.

You’ve been watching too much Succession, and even those guys have day jobs. By your standards, Bezos and Musk aren’t “upper class” because they show up to work.

That’s right, they aren’t Upper Class . Of the late 90’s wealth onwards to present “ new money “ probably the only candidates to possibly enter the Upper Class are the Gates family - not Bill and Malinda, but possibly their Grandchildren

This is largely due to their foundation and charitable works world wide financed by Bill’s unique contributions to computer science and creating the modern world.

And there are many members of the Upper Class who have only moderate allowance income. Anderson Cooper, for example, is a member of the Upper Class despite the fact that the Comadore’s money has run dry . Why ? Because his family still has its University , Grand Central station and Union Pacific rail still serve the country and his independent and understated bearing

He is simply a Vanderbilt. And, if you don’t believe me, why isn’t your lawyer friend being asked to sit on the Board of the Met ?

Sure but he is also famous from his CNN gig.

If he was working as a barista at Starbucks, he wouldn’t be on the Met board.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's this odd touch of naivete running through this thread: Do you think the admissions folks at HYPSM aren't well familiar with the Big-3, W schools (including Wilson!), TJ, Blair Magnet, et al? Do you think they don't know that the entire educational experiences at the Big3 and the publics are profoundly different?

Do you imagine some faceless automaton looking at college applications saying to themselves, "Ah, I see an A at Sidwell, and an A at Wilson -- and these are exactly the same!"

Don't kid yourselves: The people reviewing your child's application know a great deal about all of the schools mentioned here.

And for those troubled by grade inflation, you can ease your troubled minds: I have heard from more than one admissions officer at Top-20 schools that they can usually tell if a student is a good candidate for admission without ever looking at their GPAs and test scores. Awards, honors, ec's, essays, connections, recommendations... You can tell a lot about who a student is from their application and resume, without ever examining their transcript.

Students with unremarkable resumes do not get admitted to HYPSM these days no matter how high their stats are, inflated or no. And truly remarkable students will be considered for those schools so long as their GPA / test scores do not diverge wildly from the picture painted by the rest of the application.

Aside from the naivete, there's also an overinflated belief that what you know about another student and their family is all there is to know. College applications can be wonderfully confessional: Students bare their souls and tell secrets to admissions officers they'll never tell YOU. Sure, you may know this one is a concert pianist and that one rowed at this or that regatta: But you don't know about the student who was raped at 13 by their step-father and then called the police when he moved on their younger sister -- and then wrote the most soul-crushing poetry about it, and also an essay exploring legal mechanisms that both protect minors from abuse while also preventing recidivism. Or the quiet nerdy one who has been drawing comics since they were 9, posted some images online, and eventually found themselves co-moderating a massive online community. Their application included not only a thoughtful essay considering the whether the development and methods of policing behavioral norms in online forums with regard to pronoun usage and gender expression might have applicability offline, as well -- and also a link to their portfolio of beautifully-inked, brilliant, edgy comics.

But you think A's and APs and stats and sports and music are the whole deal? Don't get me wrong: they can matter. But it's the resume that makes plain who is climbing the ladder, and who is climbing *exceptionally* well -- and who is actually so good at ladder-climbing that they need to add rungs. The resume shows who is helping others up. Or creating an altogether new way to climb.

In considering whether to send to Wilson or the Big3 or making any other choices, my advice is this: Engage your child in the process of deciding. The extent of their agency and their level of engagement will almost certainly turn out to be greater differentiators than whether they jumped through GDS hoops or Wilson hoops. We know they're different. What we want to know is not how the curricula compare, but who the students are. That's what matters, at the end of the day.

You are wrong when it comes to both the Big3 schools and Wilson.

I have daughters who left DCPS for NCS. The top 15-20 or so girls at NCS (out of 80) will go to the Ivy League each year. It's already happening this year with approx. 15 ED admits. Going to NCS and doing well is what makes them stand out. It is the main point on their "resume". NCS is among the top 5 girls schools in the US. There are 80 girls per class. Do well and you are in a very small pool of top applicants nationally from "top girls schools". You have put yourself in a national pool of 40 such girls. It becomes what distinguishes them in admissions. The girls who succeed at getting Ivy spots not winning the Intel science prize or founding internationally known non-profits. They are simply doing well in school and participating in every-day extracurriculars: member of the math club, writer for the literary journal, etc. Maybe they do one thing city-wide (winning an award or similar). But they are by-in-large not doing remarkable things outside of the classroom. (Some are---this year's Special Olympian and fencer as examples) but many simply are not. They don't have to.

The same thing goes for Wilson kids who succeed. They are also in an exceptionally small pool and their school becomes the distinguishing factor on their resume. There is ONE good comprehensive high school in the District of Columbia (Wilson). It may graduate 500 kids per year but a good portion of it's students are not aiming high academically. Let's say in a typical year there are 100 very good students and a pool of 50 that are applying to top schools. The ones succeeding at the Ivys are very good students but again, they are not doing things like winning at Intel or doing internationally known extracurriculars. They are perhaps an editor of the school paper (maybe Chief editor but maybe not--there are many different editors each year). They probably do some volunteer work. They may do debate and succeed at going to nationals (not winning at nationals but going to compete).

I know I'm probably going to get crucified for typing this but I have seen it play out time and time again over the past 5 years. I know these kids personally. They are regular kids (i.e. not kids with any particularly unique story) who are succeeding in their small pools but they are both pools that the Ivy league (and similar) very much care about having representation from. I do think it is MUCH harder to achieve an Ivy (or similar) admit from a DMV suburban public. There you are one of 50 (maybe 100? 200? more?) qualified kids in your high school and there are 30 high schools in your district (Fairfax) or 15 (Loudoun) or 31 (Mont. Co). Sure, a school may take more kids total than they do from Wilson or NCS but the competition numbers are far greater. These kids are having to do truly interesting and often spectacular things to set themselves apart.

OP, the top kids at Wilson are doing truly interesting and often spectacular things. In my experience, much more so than the boring vanilla kids at suburban high schools in Fairfax or Montgomery Counties, or the pampered rich kids at area privates.

No one should try to reason with this PP . The mind of a bigot is like the pupil of the eye - the more light you shine into it, the more in constricts

The PP is actually very much correct in their assessment. I’m sorry for you that it disturbs you so much.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The initial premise of this tread that is horrified that Wilson kids should be qualified or allowed to go to top colleges is clearly provocative. There are so many layers here!
By definition sending kids to elite big 3-5 schools is elitist. It comes with an attitude that those kids are more special and entitled to go to better colleges. The higher cost comes with lots of homework and constant stress to excel - and paid for the ability to cope much better during a global pandemic by having money to throw at the problem and smaller sizes of cherry picked kids to deal with. College admissions are used to nearly all the kids from these schools to get As and Bs. There’s a forced culture of achievement - and grade inflation. The amount of homework and stress aren’t proven to do much that’s really positive for kids. Proportionately these kids will always get into great colleges and do fine in life. Most of the kids are born on third base and think they hit a triple.
Wilson has for generations been “Yale or jail” - a reflection mostly of having higher income and low income families. The kids from higher income families at Wilson are very similar to those at the big 3-5 but the private school parents are so bought into the value of the schools they are paying for, they need to believe those kids won’t be able to cut it in college. Which is ridiculous. Yes many of the parents are just as insufferable as those at privates. But the private parents have chosen an intentionally elitist path. The demographics at Wilson have also changed in the recent 10-15 years and is continuing to change in make up. More and more kids are from higher income families are at Wilson than before. So the numbers applying for top schools and getting in will go up. Grade inflation has become a thing. The W schools in MoCo and the McLean and Fairfax schools have been doing it for while, with about 1/3 of classes getting all A’s.
Just a rant that private school parents can just feel happy with your privilege without kicking down at Wilson.

You lost all credibility in your post when you said that the Big3 have grade inflation. There is marked grade deflation over public and many Bs and Cs are given. The top student at my kid's Big3 last year had a 3.9.

Nearly every kid gets all As and Bs. The parents paying demand no less. You can call that grading on a curve or you can call that grade inflation. A small percentage or kids get Cs with any regularity and those parents go apoplectic that their kid has to settle for Tulane or Wisconsin.

You are so bought into the private culture you can’t see straight.

Say a kid who goes to Wilson gets a 5 in calculus and tests out of 2 semesters of calc at an Ivy - but did about half the homework at Wilson as a Big 3 kid. (True story by the way) are they still less than?

There is so much academic pressure theater at the Big 3s to justify the price tag and feeling of elitism it really warps any perspective.

Talk about not seeing straight. 58% of B-CC graduates have weighted GPAs > 4.00. That’s 300 kids per year graduating from one school with GPAs > 4.0. The amount of grade inflation in MCPS is crazy.

That’s because an A in AP and IB classes counts as a 5. Colleges don’t look at weighted GPAs anyway, they look at unweighted grades. Many even take apart your kid’s transcript and rebuild it with their own proprietary weighting systems. So enough about the weighed grades already, thanks.

Okay. So 55% of B-CC graduates have unweighted cumulative GPAs of 3.51 or better.

It’s funny how area public schools sound eerily familiar to your idea of the problems with the “elitist” private schools.

I’m a private school teacher and there definitely is grade inflation at private schools. The administration is not happy if we give out too many Cs and Ds. They want to see majority As and Bs. Parent complaints are taken very seriously as admin want to keep parents happy

Sure. But it sure is interesting that area public schools don’t give out Cs or Ds either.

Oh, they definitely do. You kind of have to work to get one, but my neurodivergent rebel children are not to be deterred!

One of my children actually FAILED a class at B-CC during the pandemic. It was impressive, really, what he was able to do with depression and ADHD. No easy feat!

Ooof. Sorry to hear that PP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Upper Class make up about 1/4 of top 1% of the greatest held wealth in this country.

But, they don't actively work to earn that wealth. Instead the money works for them and their descendants

They also serve as gate keepers on the reigns of what makes society function. Not politics per se, but the controlling interest on the boards of the most powerful Banks, Utility Companies, Weapons and Natural resource companies, Museums, Universities, Medical research institutions, the Intelligence community and the Foreign Service.

To the PP who bragged, " BUT, my husband made 2 million last year.... " well, you just proved my point. Your husband worked for that money- probably 60-90 hour weeks at that. Even billing $700/hr and closing major mergers - that is still a worker Bee. And your fixation on material possessions as a marker of social class distinction is the hallmark of the upper middle class that aspires to be more, but will always just be UMC.

Says who?

“According to a 2018 report from the Pew Research Center, 19% of American adults live in "upper-income households." The median income of that group was $187,872 in 2016. Pew defines the upper class as adults whose annual household income is more than double the national median. That's after incomes have been adjusted for household size, since smaller households require less money to support the same lifestyle as larger ones.”

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2019/09/14/how-many-americans-are-considered-upper-class.html

Don’t post generic studies that are cost of living adjust by City or region. Seriously. You just discredit yourself, even in a HS math or stats class.

A high schooler could see you don’t have a cite for your 0.25% of wealth figure, you just made that up. Give me Pew over some rando on the internet.

You’re creating a false and unnecessary distinction between income and wealth. Why? Academia isn’t on your side about this, and common sense isn’t on your side either.

Are you the poster from the BB gun thread in OT who thinks the upper classes spend all their time shooting ducks? Some of you have a fascination with the upper classes that’s tinged with ignorance because you’re seeing it from such a distance. For example, to correct your post, you sit in a board but you have a “controlling interest” in a company’s stocks. No individual has a controlling interest in public utility companies—that’s not how public utilities work, but maybe you meant big oil or the private energy sector or something. And why are you capitalizing everything, that’s a marker of a bad education.

You don’t know the difference between the wealth, income and income tax rates of the top 0.1% versus the top 1.0%~0.1% (ie don’t include the top 0.1% which totally skews the information).

Look it up. You’re still fixated on average or medians, which isn’t informative and frankly hides what’s really going on. Too bad the average American and Dac person is so easily fooled by generalized information.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's this odd touch of naivete running through this thread: Do you think the admissions folks at HYPSM aren't well familiar with the Big-3, W schools (including Wilson!), TJ, Blair Magnet, et al? Do you think they don't know that the entire educational experiences at the Big3 and the publics are profoundly different?

Do you imagine some faceless automaton looking at college applications saying to themselves, "Ah, I see an A at Sidwell, and an A at Wilson -- and these are exactly the same!"

Don't kid yourselves: The people reviewing your child's application know a great deal about all of the schools mentioned here.

And for those troubled by grade inflation, you can ease your troubled minds: I have heard from more than one admissions officer at Top-20 schools that they can usually tell if a student is a good candidate for admission without ever looking at their GPAs and test scores. Awards, honors, ec's, essays, connections, recommendations... You can tell a lot about who a student is from their application and resume, without ever examining their transcript.

Students with unremarkable resumes do not get admitted to HYPSM these days no matter how high their stats are, inflated or no. And truly remarkable students will be considered for those schools so long as their GPA / test scores do not diverge wildly from the picture painted by the rest of the application.

Aside from the naivete, there's also an overinflated belief that what you know about another student and their family is all there is to know. College applications can be wonderfully confessional: Students bare their souls and tell secrets to admissions officers they'll never tell YOU. Sure, you may know this one is a concert pianist and that one rowed at this or that regatta: But you don't know about the student who was raped at 13 by their step-father and then called the police when he moved on their younger sister -- and then wrote the most soul-crushing poetry about it, and also an essay exploring legal mechanisms that both protect minors from abuse while also preventing recidivism. Or the quiet nerdy one who has been drawing comics since they were 9, posted some images online, and eventually found themselves co-moderating a massive online community. Their application included not only a thoughtful essay considering the whether the development and methods of policing behavioral norms in online forums with regard to pronoun usage and gender expression might have applicability offline, as well -- and also a link to their portfolio of beautifully-inked, brilliant, edgy comics.

But you think A's and APs and stats and sports and music are the whole deal? Don't get me wrong: they can matter. But it's the resume that makes plain who is climbing the ladder, and who is climbing *exceptionally* well -- and who is actually so good at ladder-climbing that they need to add rungs. The resume shows who is helping others up. Or creating an altogether new way to climb.

In considering whether to send to Wilson or the Big3 or making any other choices, my advice is this: Engage your child in the process of deciding. The extent of their agency and their level of engagement will almost certainly turn out to be greater differentiators than whether they jumped through GDS hoops or Wilson hoops. We know they're different. What we want to know is not how the curricula compare, but who the students are. That's what matters, at the end of the day.

You are wrong when it comes to both the Big3 schools and Wilson.

I have daughters who left DCPS for NCS. The top 15-20 or so girls at NCS (out of 80) will go to the Ivy League each year. It's already happening this year with approx. 15 ED admits. Going to NCS and doing well is what makes them stand out. It is the main point on their "resume". NCS is among the top 5 girls schools in the US. There are 80 girls per class. Do well and you are in a very small pool of top applicants nationally from "top girls schools". You have put yourself in a national pool of 40 such girls. It becomes what distinguishes them in admissions. The girls who succeed at getting Ivy spots not winning the Intel science prize or founding internationally known non-profits. They are simply doing well in school and participating in every-day extracurriculars: member of the math club, writer for the literary journal, etc. Maybe they do one thing city-wide (winning an award or similar). But they are by-in-large not doing remarkable things outside of the classroom. (Some are---this year's Special Olympian and fencer as examples) but many simply are not. They don't have to.

The same thing goes for Wilson kids who succeed. They are also in an exceptionally small pool and their school becomes the distinguishing factor on their resume. There is ONE good comprehensive high school in the District of Columbia (Wilson). It may graduate 500 kids per year but a good portion of it's students are not aiming high academically. Let's say in a typical year there are 100 very good students and a pool of 50 that are applying to top schools. The ones succeeding at the Ivys are very good students but again, they are not doing things like winning at Intel or doing internationally known extracurriculars. They are perhaps an editor of the school paper (maybe Chief editor but maybe not--there are many different editors each year). They probably do some volunteer work. They may do debate and succeed at going to nationals (not winning at nationals but going to compete).

I know I'm probably going to get crucified for typing this but I have seen it play out time and time again over the past 5 years. I know these kids personally. They are regular kids (i.e. not kids with any particularly unique story) who are succeeding in their small pools but they are both pools that the Ivy league (and similar) very much care about having representation from. I do think it is MUCH harder to achieve an Ivy (or similar) admit from a DMV suburban public. There you are one of 50 (maybe 100? 200? more?) qualified kids in your high school and there are 30 high schools in your district (Fairfax) or 15 (Loudoun) or 31 (Mont. Co). Sure, a school may take more kids total than they do from Wilson or NCS but the competition numbers are far greater. These kids are having to do truly interesting and often spectacular things to set themselves apart.

OP, the top kids at Wilson are doing truly interesting and often spectacular things. In my experience, much more so than the boring vanilla kids at suburban high schools in Fairfax or Montgomery Counties, or the pampered rich kids at area privates.

No one should try to reason with this PP . The mind of a bigot is like the pupil of the eye - the more light you shine into it, the more in constricts

The PP is actually very much correct in their assessment. I’m sorry for you that it disturbs you so much.

I think the leftist and activist virtual signaling to leftist small slacs and most of the Ivy League from coming from a leftist, activist DC based private school really helps with fit and mission.

[Anonymous]

In addition they can continues their soft subjects and Studies majors. No skills needed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Upper Class make up about 1/4 of top 1% of the greatest held wealth in this country.

But, they don't actively work to earn that wealth. Instead the money works for them and their descendants

They also serve as gate keepers on the reigns of what makes society function. Not politics per se, but the controlling interest on the boards of the most powerful Banks, Utility Companies, Weapons and Natural resource companies, Museums, Universities, Medical research institutions, the Intelligence community and the Foreign Service.

To the PP who bragged, " BUT, my husband made 2 million last year.... " well, you just proved my point. Your husband worked for that money- probably 60-90 hour weeks at that. Even billing $700/hr and closing major mergers - that is still a worker Bee. And your fixation on material possessions as a marker of social class distinction is the hallmark of the upper middle class that aspires to be more, but will always just be UMC.

You’ve been watching too much Succession, and even those guys have day jobs. By your standards, Bezos and Musk aren’t “upper class” because they show up to work.

That’s right, they aren’t Upper Class . Of the late 90’s wealth onwards to present “ new money “ probably the only candidates to possibly enter the Upper Class are the Gates family - not Bill and Malinda, but possibly their Grandchildren

This is largely due to their foundation and charitable works world wide financed by Bill’s unique contributions to computer science and creating the modern world.

And there are many members of the Upper Class who have only moderate allowance income. Anderson Cooper, for example, is a member of the Upper Class despite the fact that the Comadore’s money has run dry . Why ? Because his family still has its University , Grand Central station and Union Pacific rail still serve the country and his independent and understated bearing

He is simply a Vanderbilt. And, if you don’t believe me, why isn’t your lawyer friend being asked to sit on the Board of the Met ?

Crazy is easily determined with the unnecessary capitalization and misspellings

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Upper Class make up about 1/4 of top 1% of the greatest held wealth in this country.

But, they don't actively work to earn that wealth. Instead the money works for them and their descendants

They also serve as gate keepers on the reigns of what makes society function. Not politics per se, but the controlling interest on the boards of the most powerful Banks, Utility Companies, Weapons and Natural resource companies, Museums, Universities, Medical research institutions, the Intelligence community and the Foreign Service.

To the PP who bragged, " BUT, my husband made 2 million last year.... " well, you just proved my point. Your husband worked for that money- probably 60-90 hour weeks at that. Even billing $700/hr and closing major mergers - that is still a worker Bee. And your fixation on material possessions as a marker of social class distinction is the hallmark of the upper middle class that aspires to be more, but will always just be UMC.

Says who?

“According to a 2018 report from the Pew Research Center, 19% of American adults live in "upper-income households." The median income of that group was $187,872 in 2016. Pew defines the upper class as adults whose annual household income is more than double the national median. That's after incomes have been adjusted for household size, since smaller households require less money to support the same lifestyle as larger ones.”

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2019/09/14/how-many-americans-are-considered-upper-class.html

Don’t post generic studies that are cost of living adjust by City or region. Seriously. You just discredit yourself, even in a HS math or stats class.

A high schooler could see you don’t have a cite for your 0.25% of wealth figure, you just made that up. Give me Pew over some rando on the internet.

You’re creating a false and unnecessary distinction between income and wealth. Why? Academia isn’t on your side about this, and common sense isn’t on your side either.

Are you the poster from the BB gun thread in OT who thinks the upper classes spend all their time shooting ducks? Some of you have a fascination with the upper classes that’s tinged with ignorance because you’re seeing it from such a distance. For example, to correct your post, you sit in a board but you have a “controlling interest” in a company’s stocks. No individual has a controlling interest in public utility companies—that’s not how public utilities work, but maybe you meant big oil or the private energy sector or something. And why are you capitalizing everything, that’s a marker of a bad education.

You don’t know the difference between the wealth, income and income tax rates of the top 0.1% versus the top 1.0%~0.1% (ie don’t include the top 0.1% which totally skews the information).

Look it up. You’re still fixated on average or medians, which isn’t informative and frankly hides what’s really going on. Too bad the average American and Dac person is so easily fooled by generalized information.

So you really don’t have a cite, and you clearly don’t know the income, wealth or tax cutoffs either. And you have no answer to the criticism of your understanding of how boards, stocks, and public utilities work.

But for some reason you’re fixated on making up your own, arbitrary cutoff points.

I do this for a living (and I’m the beneficiary of 3 family trusts). A ratio to the median, like the ratio Pew uses, is the standard way of doing this.

[Anonymous]

I attended Brown after graduating from a mediocre high school from which only about half of the students went to college. After struggling for a few weeks, I figured things out and finished the first semester with good grades. None of my public school friends at Brown had any academic issues either. In fact, the truly academically outstanding classmates I knew were all public school graduates.