Big 3 College Placement 2018-19 Cycle

[Anonymous]

The SFS college counseling office is a mere three-legged stool, and one of the legs has been broken for a while. Now the whole stool is unstable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes and not in a good way sometimes. They are all for diversity but when their kid does not get into their college of choice, the support for diversity suddenly evaporates and they claim unfair URM advantage.

They also say ugly things about Asian-American kids and parents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes and not in a good way sometimes. They are all for diversity but when their kid does not get into their college of choice, the support for diversity suddenly evaporates and they claim unfair URM advantage.

They also say ugly things about Asian-American kids and parents.

Please just stop. This is absurd.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes and not in a good way sometimes. They are all for diversity but when their kid does not get into their college of choice, the support for diversity suddenly evaporates and they claim unfair URM advantage.

They also say ugly things about Asian-American kids and parents.

The "liberal elites" are the worst.

[Anonymous]

The post about crazy parents driving out the good people isn’t Sidwell specific at all. Sidwell actually keeps its parent community at arms length. I work in another private that gets mentioned here a lot and our admin doesn’t impose as much “discipline”—parents can basically command teachers to do things and then complain if we don’t jump high enough. There’s a very high burnout rate, and it's the teachers with choices (ie. a working spouse, independently wealthy, other job offers etc.) who leave. We are professionals who act in the best interest of the students, so when parents second-guess our methods/philosophy/grading etc., the heads of school/asst heads need to back us up. Sure, there will be exceptions, but they should be jut that —exceptions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes and not in a good way sometimes. They are all for diversity but when their kid does not get into their college of choice, the support for diversity suddenly evaporates and they claim unfair URM advantage.

They also say ugly things about Asian-American kids and parents.

The "liberal elites" are the worst.

Yeah. At least conservatives are in your face about their white supremacy.

[Anonymous]

Hey don’t feel so bad,prior poster is same who attacked the Flint Hill students as “white supremacists” as well (see What’s Wrong with Flint Hill thread).Obsessive compulsive no doubt.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes and not in a good way sometimes. They are all for diversity but when their kid does not get into their college of choice, the support for diversity suddenly evaporates and they claim unfair URM advantage.

They also say ugly things about Asian-American kids and parents.

Please just stop. This is absurd.

I'm a Sidwell parent and I've had other SFS parents tell me that my kid wouldn't like UCLA because there are too many Asians there.

[Anonymous]

Why doesn’t your kid like Asians?

[Anonymous]

STA did well with ED. But most of what I’ve heard are the tippy top kids who were destined to land at HYP or the kids who played it smart by stretching reasonably. The boys who aimed unreasonably high (or I should say whose parents aimed unreasonably high) are still in a state of shell shock.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:STA did well with ED. But most of what I’ve heard are the tippy top kids who were destined to land at HYP or the kids who played it smart by stretching reasonably. The boys who aimed unreasonably high (or I should say whose parents aimed unreasonably high) are still in a state of shell shock.

No complaints at GDS either. EA-ED results are on par with recent years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Legacy status is way overrated.

This.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think anyone is in denial. Most of the posters say it helps. It’s a question of whether you can draw any general conclusions about the legacy pool or claim that you must be hooked to be admitted.

Exactly. It's the folks dismissing certain admit as merely "legacies" who are, without any evidence, implying that these students were somehow less qualified or deserving on the merits. When in fact the opposite is generally true.

Schools would be a lot less white if they didn't take legacy status into account. Just look at schools where legacies matter (Harvard) and ones where they don't matter (MIT).

Jesus. These schools already boast that they’re at 50 percent “people of color”? What do you want? Eighty percent?! Let’s get rid of racial preferences and admit based on merit. Period.

If they did that schools would be 80% people of color. They’d all be Asian and white people would still complain and try to find a new way to rig the system. Face it, all white people want is a system where their less qualified kid gets in. You throw around the word merit but that’s not what you want.

I disagree that they would all be Asian. They are building well rounded and diverse classes. Diversity is more than race or religion. They are trying to build a well rounded class full of exceptional students, scholar-athletes, geographical differences, personality differences.

Oh - so not merit after all. You want to scream merit because you think it will mean more white people, but then when it becomes apparent that it doesn't, then we start in with 'personality'. I see - when you say a well rounded and diverse class, you mean Germans and Italians.

You want to see what true merit admissions looks like? Stuyvesant High School in NYC uses a single test to determine admissions. It's 75% Asian/18% white.

I think that's the breakdown of Blair and TJ too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The SFS college counseling office is a mere three-legged stool, and one of the legs has been broken for a while. Now the whole stool is unstable.

Sidwell needs to benchmark how its senior classes have done over the past three years versus STA, Cathedral, Maret and GDS for the same period. They should also benchmark the capabilities and operations of its college office versus the those of other schools. If there are gaps or capacity challenges, then SFS should act to address them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The SFS college counseling office is a mere three-legged stool, and one of the legs has been broken for a while. Now the whole stool is unstable.

Sidwell needs to benchmark how its senior classes have done over the past three years versus STA, Cathedral, Maret and GDS for the same period. They should also benchmark the capabilities and operations of its college office versus the those of other schools. If there are gaps or capacity challenges, then SFS should act to address them.

+1000, hope someone’s listening.