GDS and Sidwell comparison?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
As someone with a high-stats/topmathtrack/unhooked kid who will be facing this soon, this is precisely what I want. One would assume that it is in the school's and the counselors' interest to place as many students as highly as possible; what might be affected by the various hooks and ladders people bring to the process is which schools a kid like mine would have the best shot at. "Penn is going to be hard to ED this year, maybe place your bet on X or Y" and so on is all one can ask for. I mean, what benefit would they derive from not passing that info along? My assumption is that the parents are likely to be the stubborn ones in these scenarios, insisting on EDing a particular school despite the odds being clearly laid out by a counselor?

Because no college guidance counselor is going to know what school is going to be tough in any given year. Add to it, for the types of schools discussed on DCUM, ALL of the schools are tough EVERY year. So you take your best shot and let the dust falls where it does,.

Yeah - but if there are 5 legacies applying early for school X, and those legacies include athletes and/or other very strong academic kids....the counselors should know that your kid is less likely to get in early there than at school y where there other applicants don't include legacies, URM, athletes applying.

They do know this, and they can advise you accordingly if they view that as part of their job. At Sidwell, they don't view it as part of their job and they won't do it. We have friends at comparable schools in other cities around the country where the counselor definitely gives this type of advice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
The top 10% gets in to top schools not all that different from most good public high schools (not magnets).

Either way, 1 kid going to MIT from Sidwell and GDS in three years isn’t impressive.

Given that neither are STEM schools, I am not sure why that would be a litmus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Thanks for your comments, but I assure you that I don't need you to make me feel better about my kid's future prospects of success, either in college applications or in life. But I do remain confident that you really don't have sufficient information to assert that a small group in a class of 120 comprise "the top academic kids in the school." It doesn't hurt my feelings, it's just incredibly arrogant and uninformed about your child's classmates and their in-class academic accomplishments.

It's also scary that you think it's OK to stalk these kids and their achievements in this way, and that you think you are qualified to make public pronouncements about who the top academic kids are among a group of exceedingly smart teenagers.

No stalking done, thanks for the assumptions. You make a lot of assumptions and protest far too much for someone who feels ok.

To be clear - I never said that the small group of top STEM kids are the only top academic kids. I posed a suggestion as an answer to another post as to why (as that person claimed) top STEM kids did not do well in ED (I personally have no idea whether that was the case).

I still assert that that top STEM group has a large concentration of academic high fliers who are very likely to be applying to a single uber-competitive school in the ED round. It is not surprising that acceptance rate in that ED group will be lower than the rest of Sidwell ED. But in the end, many kids applying to uber competitive schools from Sidwell from that group (and from outside of that group) will land at a very competitive school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can look up Sidwell and GDS at Polarislist.com which ranks high schools by how many kids they sent to Harvard, Princeton and MIT in 2018-2020.

Sidwell sent 9, ranked 148
GDS sent 16, ranked 66

Notably MIT which doesn’t give legacy preference accepted 1 kid and that was from Sidwell.

Sidwell kids generally don't apply to either Princeton or MIT, so if that is what the ranking is based on, then it is pretty self-selective.

It’s only a numerical number of kids who attend (not accepted but enrolled) at those three schools: Harvard, Princeton and MIT.

What differentiates SFS from GDS is that GDS sent 13 kids to Harvard while SFS sent only 7. This seems like a weird comparison because GDS is pretty widely known for having a lot of Harvard legacies and I believe SFS sends more to Yale.

until you overlap that with legacy, athletics and UrM status the stats are useless. Love to know what department was applied to as well (not that some students don’t switch or transfer later).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can look up Sidwell and GDS at Polarislist.com which ranks high schools by how many kids they sent to Harvard, Princeton and MIT in 2018-2020.

Sidwell sent 9, ranked 148
GDS sent 16, ranked 66

Notably MIT which doesn’t give legacy preference accepted 1 kid and that was from Sidwell.

Sidwell kids generally don't apply to either Princeton or MIT, so if that is what the ranking is based on, then it is pretty self-selective.

+1. Most kids don’t apply to Princeton or MIT (bc they don’t have any chance of getting in) so yeah, it is a self selective.

But if the Sidwell STEM kids are so amazing, why don’t they have any chance at getting in to those schools?

There is at least 1 Sidwell senior who got in early do Princeton, don’t believe there was a hook.

Because they don’t live and breathe math and stem like those in the TJ or Blair program do. If half your upper school time is social studies and SJ literature and speakers and no mix of econ, capitalism, labs, science field trips, research projects, and stem career assemblies, you’ll be a weaker stem candidate. Maybe stick to Gender Studies or Inequality blogs. Just yell about how we need more diversity in stem but no one wants to take higher levels math classes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Thanks for your comments, but I assure you that I don't need you to make me feel better about my kid's future prospects of success, either in college applications or in life. But I do remain confident that you really don't have sufficient information to assert that a small group in a class of 120 comprise "the top academic kids in the school." It doesn't hurt my feelings, it's just incredibly arrogant and uninformed about your child's classmates and their in-class academic accomplishments.

It's also scary that you think it's OK to stalk these kids and their achievements in this way, and that you think you are qualified to make public pronouncements about who the top academic kids are among a group of exceedingly smart teenagers.

No stalking done, thanks for the assumptions. You make a lot of assumptions and protest far too much for someone who feels ok.

To be clear - I never said that the small group of top STEM kids are the only top academic kids. I posed a suggestion as an answer to another post as to why (as that person claimed) top STEM kids did not do well in ED (I personally have no idea whether that was the case).

I still assert that that top STEM group has a large concentration of academic high fliers who are very likely to be applying to a single uber-competitive school in the ED round. It is not surprising that acceptance rate in that ED group will be lower than the rest of Sidwell ED. But in the end, many kids applying to uber competitive schools from Sidwell from that group (and from outside of that group) will land at a very competitive school.

Maybe they weren't yours, but the original statements described this small group of kids as "the cream of the crop" (yuck) and "the top academic kids." That is far different from describing them as "among the top kids" which is what you seem to be asserting. If that's your view, then fine, I will even agree with you. So while I "feel OK," you are darn right that I am going to protest when someone arrogantly and ignorantly describes their kid's little group of STEM kids as comprising the "cream of the crop." That is not something that they can even possibly know, and it would in fact be rather stalker-ish if they did. Also, IMO, it is not a way to talk that is in keeping with Sidwell's culture and values. No assumptions being made here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
As someone with a high-stats/topmathtrack/unhooked kid who will be facing this soon, this is precisely what I want. One would assume that it is in the school's and the counselors' interest to place as many students as highly as possible; what might be affected by the various hooks and ladders people bring to the process is which schools a kid like mine would have the best shot at. "Penn is going to be hard to ED this year, maybe place your bet on X or Y" and so on is all one can ask for. I mean, what benefit would they derive from not passing that info along? My assumption is that the parents are likely to be the stubborn ones in these scenarios, insisting on EDing a particular school despite the odds being clearly laid out by a counselor?

Because no college guidance counselor is going to know what school is going to be tough in any given year. Add to it, for the types of schools discussed on DCUM, ALL of the schools are tough EVERY year. So you take your best shot and let the dust falls where it does,.

Yeah - but if there are 5 legacies applying early for school X, and those legacies include athletes and/or other very strong academic kids....the counselors should know that your kid is less likely to get in early there than at school y where there other applicants don't include legacies, URM, athletes applying.

They do know this, and they can advise you accordingly if they view that as part of their job. At Sidwell, they don't view it as part of their job and they won't do it. We have friends at comparable schools in other cities around the country where the counselor definitely gives this type of advice.

+1 for GDS. Kids suss it out by themselves, though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sidwell college admissions a disaster this year in the early round...parents are up in arms. For some reason GDS and St Albans are doing better, not great but OK. It's a strange year but worth noting Sidwell College admissions have been in flux for several years.

Really? I know of at least 30 kids from the grade who got in to their ED's. How is that a disaster?

Most kids who took the most challenge math and science courses didn't get in to their ED/EA.

Why? I don’t get why this group would not do well at ED vs the other kids?

Because as the cream of the school, they are reaching for the stars and applying ED a single school with insanely low admit rates if you aren't legacy, URM, athlete. My guess is they will do fine in RD when they apply to several of such schools....one will bite.

They’re not “the cream of the school.” They’re kids who are very strong in science and math and who enjoy those subjects. There are other kids who are very strong students in other areas.

Well, the kids I know who are in these classes are also excelling in English/Language/History ...so I am talking about the ones who are academically they are the top of the class.

“The kids I know...”

These kids are in high school. If you really know as much as you claim to know about them, you’re a frightening busybody. And even then, there’s still no way you know enough about the entire class to proclaim a small group as “the cream of the school.”

Sounds like you have a chip on your shoulder to me....

Yeah, I don’t like mothers who arrogantly claim to know everything about a group of 120 kids and ignorantly proclaim some of them as “the best.” I try to be a bit more humble than that and embrace the SPICES. Some chip...

Step back - I'm not saying they are the best of the school - there are clearly many dimensions colleges are looking for and Sidwell does the same in it's admissions. What I'm saying these are the academic high-fliers at the school whose goal will more likely to be to get into one of the Uber competitive schools. There are other Sidwell kids who have this goal too but the % of these top math/top science track kids with this goal is likely higher than the % who have this goal among other kids at Sidwell. I suspect other students at Sidwell (not all) may have a more broad approach to admissions - and while they could also be Ivy material - they are happy to choose an SLAC instead.

Therefore if these top math/science track kids are predominantly applying Restricted Early to one of the HYPSM schools, there's a much higher chance that these kids are shut out in the ED cycle than other kids at Sidwell. That's it. No judging them to be better....but given their choice in courses and getting high grades across all disciplines, they are the top academic kids in the school. But that won't guarantee them Dec admission to HYPSM or other uber competitive programs.

But you keep referring to them as the top academic kids in the school. You have no way to know about that, and I think you're both wrong and exceedingly arrogant to say that.

Are you dense? The top math/science kids know who the top math/science kids are because they've been in small classes with them since 9th grade. Let's say the highest math level is honors algebra 2 in 9th grade. At my kid's school this is a cohort of 10 kids. They will go on to take honors pre-calc together in 10th grade. It's not like there is a stealth 9th grader who is taking honors algebra 2 in his own private section in 9th grade an no-one knows about him.

No. But are you dense? The top math and science kids are not necessarily the top academic kids in the school. You are committing numerous logical fallacies to assert otherwise.

FYI - you are talking to two different posters. I'm "step back" and did not post "are you dense". That was a different person. I don't agree with their tone, but I do think you must not have a child in these classes - it's a small group and they know how well each other is doing. It just isn't the case that these kids don't also excel in humanities. In fact, they excel despite spending tons more time on math work than their classmates could fathom.

I have a Sidwell senior. The part you are leaving out is that, as you acknowledge, it is a small group in those classes. The problem with your assertions is that you don't know anything about how well the other 100-110 kids in the class do in humanities classes, who also take the math/science classes a level below. Certainly you don't know about all of them. So you can't know that your small group comprise the top academic kids in the school, you're just applying a STEM bias to your thinking.

If you look at the list of NMSF, more than half of them are form that small group. Less than 15 kids tops half of NMSF list (total 16 this year). It is easy to compare Apple to Apple using PSAT.

Sorry, now you are acknowledging that you're using PSAT scores as the basis for determining who the top academic kids in the school are? You are undermining your own conclusions.

DP here but in fairness to the PPP, among that NMSF list includes a kid who got a 1590 SAT. I have no idea and I’m not going to pretend to know if they were successful in ED. However, the idea that success in ED is meaningful for that kid is ridiculous. That kid will end up at an Ivy or equivalent regardless.

The Ivy or equivalent isn't necessarily a slam dunk or at least for DD's friend who is an NMSF, 36 ACT, 5 800 SAT subject tests, 4.0 u/w GPA (no APs, only intensives in language/math/science with kid in all), published science research, EC leadership, etc. Deferred ED at an Ivy.

[Anonymous]

Okay, my laptop is really glitchy today so I have had a hard time getting through this thread. Question/comment:

1 - a group of Sidwell parents sued the school's college office? If so, when and why?

2 - who comes on a message board and describes STEM students at one school as rejects of another? Just why?

I guess that was two questions....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sidwell college admissions a disaster this year in the early round...parents are up in arms. For some reason GDS and St Albans are doing better, not great but OK. It's a strange year but worth noting Sidwell College admissions have been in flux for several years.

Really? I know of at least 30 kids from the grade who got in to their ED's. How is that a disaster?

Most kids who took the most challenge math and science courses didn't get in to their ED/EA.

Why? I don’t get why this group would not do well at ED vs the other kids?

Because as the cream of the school, they are reaching for the stars and applying ED a single school with insanely low admit rates if you aren't legacy, URM, athlete. My guess is they will do fine in RD when they apply to several of such schools....one will bite.

They’re not “the cream of the school.” They’re kids who are very strong in science and math and who enjoy those subjects. There are other kids who are very strong students in other areas.

Well, the kids I know who are in these classes are also excelling in English/Language/History ...so I am talking about the ones who are academically they are the top of the class.

“The kids I know...”

These kids are in high school. If you really know as much as you claim to know about them, you’re a frightening busybody. And even then, there’s still no way you know enough about the entire class to proclaim a small group as “the cream of the school.”

Sounds like you have a chip on your shoulder to me....

Yeah, I don’t like mothers who arrogantly claim to know everything about a group of 120 kids and ignorantly proclaim some of them as “the best.” I try to be a bit more humble than that and embrace the SPICES. Some chip...

Step back - I'm not saying they are the best of the school - there are clearly many dimensions colleges are looking for and Sidwell does the same in it's admissions. What I'm saying these are the academic high-fliers at the school whose goal will more likely to be to get into one of the Uber competitive schools. There are other Sidwell kids who have this goal too but the % of these top math/top science track kids with this goal is likely higher than the % who have this goal among other kids at Sidwell. I suspect other students at Sidwell (not all) may have a more broad approach to admissions - and while they could also be Ivy material - they are happy to choose an SLAC instead.

Therefore if these top math/science track kids are predominantly applying Restricted Early to one of the HYPSM schools, there's a much higher chance that these kids are shut out in the ED cycle than other kids at Sidwell. That's it. No judging them to be better....but given their choice in courses and getting high grades across all disciplines, they are the top academic kids in the school. But that won't guarantee them Dec admission to HYPSM or other uber competitive programs.

But you keep referring to them as the top academic kids in the school. You have no way to know about that, and I think you're both wrong and exceedingly arrogant to say that.

Are you dense? The top math/science kids know who the top math/science kids are because they've been in small classes with them since 9th grade. Let's say the highest math level is honors algebra 2 in 9th grade. At my kid's school this is a cohort of 10 kids. They will go on to take honors pre-calc together in 10th grade. It's not like there is a stealth 9th grader who is taking honors algebra 2 in his own private section in 9th grade an no-one knows about him.

No. But are you dense? The top math and science kids are not necessarily the top academic kids in the school. You are committing numerous logical fallacies to assert otherwise.

FYI - you are talking to two different posters. I'm "step back" and did not post "are you dense". That was a different person. I don't agree with their tone, but I do think you must not have a child in these classes - it's a small group and they know how well each other is doing. It just isn't the case that these kids don't also excel in humanities. In fact, they excel despite spending tons more time on math work than their classmates could fathom.

I have a Sidwell senior. The part you are leaving out is that, as you acknowledge, it is a small group in those classes. The problem with your assertions is that you don't know anything about how well the other 100-110 kids in the class do in humanities classes, who also take the math/science classes a level below. Certainly you don't know about all of them. So you can't know that your small group comprise the top academic kids in the school, you're just applying a STEM bias to your thinking.

If you look at the list of NMSF, more than half of them are form that small group. Less than 15 kids tops half of NMSF list (total 16 this year). It is easy to compare Apple to Apple using PSAT.

Sorry, now you are acknowledging that you're using PSAT scores as the basis for determining who the top academic kids in the school are? You are undermining your own conclusions.

DP here but in fairness to the PPP, among that NMSF list includes a kid who got a 1590 SAT. I have no idea and I’m not going to pretend to know if they were successful in ED. However, the idea that success in ED is meaningful for that kid is ridiculous. That kid will end up at an Ivy or equivalent regardless.

The Ivy or equivalent isn't necessarily a slam dunk or at least for DD's friend who is an NMSF, 36 ACT, 5 800 SAT subject tests, 4.0 u/w GPA (no APs, only intensives in language/math/science with kid in all), published science research, EC leadership, etc. Deferred ED at an Ivy.

You have been caught in a lie, Mr. Troll.
SAT subject tests are no longer offered.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

The Ivy or equivalent isn't necessarily a slam dunk or at least for DD's friend who is an NMSF, 36 ACT, 5 800 SAT subject tests, 4.0 u/w GPA (no APs, only intensives in language/math/science with kid in all), published science research, EC leadership, etc. Deferred ED at an Ivy.

Why would you post so much detail about a specific child on a public board like this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sidwell college admissions a disaster this year in the early round...parents are up in arms. For some reason GDS and St Albans are doing better, not great but OK. It's a strange year but worth noting Sidwell College admissions have been in flux for several years.

Really? I know of at least 30 kids from the grade who got in to their ED's. How is that a disaster?

Most kids who took the most challenge math and science courses didn't get in to their ED/EA.

Why? I don’t get why this group would not do well at ED vs the other kids?

Because as the cream of the school, they are reaching for the stars and applying ED a single school with insanely low admit rates if you aren't legacy, URM, athlete. My guess is they will do fine in RD when they apply to several of such schools....one will bite.

They’re not “the cream of the school.” They’re kids who are very strong in science and math and who enjoy those subjects. There are other kids who are very strong students in other areas.

Well, the kids I know who are in these classes are also excelling in English/Language/History ...so I am talking about the ones who are academically they are the top of the class.

“The kids I know...”

These kids are in high school. If you really know as much as you claim to know about them, you’re a frightening busybody. And even then, there’s still no way you know enough about the entire class to proclaim a small group as “the cream of the school.”

Sounds like you have a chip on your shoulder to me....

Yeah, I don’t like mothers who arrogantly claim to know everything about a group of 120 kids and ignorantly proclaim some of them as “the best.” I try to be a bit more humble than that and embrace the SPICES. Some chip...

Step back - I'm not saying they are the best of the school - there are clearly many dimensions colleges are looking for and Sidwell does the same in it's admissions. What I'm saying these are the academic high-fliers at the school whose goal will more likely to be to get into one of the Uber competitive schools. There are other Sidwell kids who have this goal too but the % of these top math/top science track kids with this goal is likely higher than the % who have this goal among other kids at Sidwell. I suspect other students at Sidwell (not all) may have a more broad approach to admissions - and while they could also be Ivy material - they are happy to choose an SLAC instead.

Therefore if these top math/science track kids are predominantly applying Restricted Early to one of the HYPSM schools, there's a much higher chance that these kids are shut out in the ED cycle than other kids at Sidwell. That's it. No judging them to be better....but given their choice in courses and getting high grades across all disciplines, they are the top academic kids in the school. But that won't guarantee them Dec admission to HYPSM or other uber competitive programs.

But you keep referring to them as the top academic kids in the school. You have no way to know about that, and I think you're both wrong and exceedingly arrogant to say that.

Are you dense? The top math/science kids know who the top math/science kids are because they've been in small classes with them since 9th grade. Let's say the highest math level is honors algebra 2 in 9th grade. At my kid's school this is a cohort of 10 kids. They will go on to take honors pre-calc together in 10th grade. It's not like there is a stealth 9th grader who is taking honors algebra 2 in his own private section in 9th grade an no-one knows about him.

No. But are you dense? The top math and science kids are not necessarily the top academic kids in the school. You are committing numerous logical fallacies to assert otherwise.

FYI - you are talking to two different posters. I'm "step back" and did not post "are you dense". That was a different person. I don't agree with their tone, but I do think you must not have a child in these classes - it's a small group and they know how well each other is doing. It just isn't the case that these kids don't also excel in humanities. In fact, they excel despite spending tons more time on math work than their classmates could fathom.

I have a Sidwell senior. The part you are leaving out is that, as you acknowledge, it is a small group in those classes. The problem with your assertions is that you don't know anything about how well the other 100-110 kids in the class do in humanities classes, who also take the math/science classes a level below. Certainly you don't know about all of them. So you can't know that your small group comprise the top academic kids in the school, you're just applying a STEM bias to your thinking.

If you look at the list of NMSF, more than half of them are form that small group. Less than 15 kids tops half of NMSF list (total 16 this year). It is easy to compare Apple to Apple using PSAT.

Sorry, now you are acknowledging that you're using PSAT scores as the basis for determining who the top academic kids in the school are? You are undermining your own conclusions.

DP here but in fairness to the PPP, among that NMSF list includes a kid who got a 1590 SAT. I have no idea and I’m not going to pretend to know if they were successful in ED. However, the idea that success in ED is meaningful for that kid is ridiculous. That kid will end up at an Ivy or equivalent regardless.

The Ivy or equivalent isn't necessarily a slam dunk or at least for DD's friend who is an NMSF, 36 ACT, 5 800 SAT subject tests, 4.0 u/w GPA (no APs, only intensives in language/math/science with kid in all), published science research, EC leadership, etc. Deferred ED at an Ivy.

You have been caught in a lie, Mr. Troll.
SAT subject tests are no longer offered.

You either do not have a kid in cycle or, if you do, the kid did not take subject tests. While the SAT no longer offers them in the United States, students "will still be able to get and submit Subject Test scores from previous administrations...."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The Ivy or equivalent isn't necessarily a slam dunk or at least for DD's friend who is an NMSF, 36 ACT, 5 800 SAT subject tests, 4.0 u/w GPA (no APs, only intensives in language/math/science with kid in all), published science research, EC leadership, etc. Deferred ED at an Ivy.

Why would you post so much detail about a specific child on a public board like this?

Because this is not a kid in the DMV and not the only kid I know with similar stats.

[Anonymous]

[quoteYou either do not have a kid in cycle or, if you do, the kid did not take subject tests. While the SAT no longer offers them in the United States, students "will still be able to get and submit Subject Test scores from previous administrations...."

This class was in 10th grade spring when the pandemic started, and subject tests were announced as eliminated January of their junior year. Interesting choice and priorities to take 5 subject tests in that window, much less find open testing sites where it would have been possible...

[Anonymous]

So this kid took 5 SAT subject tests as a 10th grader?