SWW - when do notices go out about interviews?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What sort of data IS SWW required to provide? Anything? Weird that the letter telling us our kid doesn't get an interview couldn't even be bothered to tell us how many applicants there were.

That number will be public, eventually. It will come out in the lottery data later this cycle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The way admissions are being handled this year will not ensure a class of 150 high achieving, on grade level students.

My kid didn't get a spot either, but please don't rain on a bunch of hard working middle school kids who got an opportunity.

+100

Comments like PP are just gross. You can be upset your kid didn’t get an interview and think the process is unfair. Fine. Claiming that the kids who did get an interview are not high achieving makes you an a**hole.

"Below grade level" is not some kind of slur. If SWW didn't want to accept kids who were below grade level, they would reinstate the test score requirement. It is not some kind of personal insult to say that SWW is turning down very high-achieving kids in favor of kids who are not at grade level. It's actually just a description of their admissions process.

Do you know this to be true? While I understand from this thread that some high achieving kids didn’t get invited, I don’t know if it’s fair to say it was because of kids who are performing below grade level (at least at this point or without some sort insider info). That seems like a leap.

FWIW, my kid did get shortlisted for an interview, tests well and is “above grade level” on all the standardized tests.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The way admissions are being handled this year will not ensure a class of 150 high achieving, on grade level students.

My kid didn't get a spot either, but please don't rain on a bunch of hard working middle school kids who got an opportunity.

+100

Comments like PP are just gross. You can be upset your kid didn’t get an interview and think the process is unfair. Fine. Claiming that the kids who did get an interview are not high achieving makes you an a**hole.

Notably, PP didn't say this. PP didn't say none of the kids who got interviews are high-achieving. Just that the process does not ensure a class of 150 high achieving, on grade level students. It doesn't. It is likely that many of the kids being interviewed (and who will eventually take places at the school) are in fact high-achieving, but the process does nothing to exclude kids who are below grade level, and it doesn't necessarily result in the 300 highest achieving students in the applicant pool being interviewed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The way admissions are being handled this year will not ensure a class of 150 high achieving, on grade level students.

My kid didn't get a spot either, but please don't rain on a bunch of hard working middle school kids who got an opportunity.

+100

Comments like PP are just gross. You can be upset your kid didn’t get an interview and think the process is unfair. Fine. Claiming that the kids who did get an interview are not high achieving makes you an a**hole.

"Below grade level" is not some kind of slur. If SWW didn't want to accept kids who were below grade level, they would reinstate the test score requirement. It is not some kind of personal insult to say that SWW is turning down very high-achieving kids in favor of kids who are not at grade level. It's actually just a description of their admissions process.

Do you know this to be true? While I understand from this thread that some high achieving kids didn’t get invited, I don’t know if it’s fair to say it was because of kids who are performing below grade level (at least at this point or without some sort insider info). That seems like a leap.

FWIW, my kid did get shortlisted for an interview, tests well and is “above grade level” on all the standardized tests.

The admissions people don't have even access to test score data as part of the process. How do you think they're perfectly filtering out kids who are below grade level if they can't even see that data? You'd have to think that either kids are totally self selecting out or that teacher recommendations or GPA proxy perfectly for being at grade level. Which we know they don't, unless you think that the middle schools with virtually no kids at grade level also don't have kids with As or teachers who won't write any of their kids good recommendations. We can also see that SWW has kids testing profoundly below grade level. Not a lot, but some.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We can argue about what is and is not fair until the cows come home. However, no reasonable person can make a serious argument that SWW's current admission policy favors those applicants who will obtain the greatest benefit (relative to attending another DC high school) from attending a school focused on academic enrichment. Moreover, it's unclear what the admission policy is designed to do, except - as someone else said - to limit the probability for any scrutiny of individual admissions decisions. The policy certainly would not give any comfort to any parent in DC that a child who obtains good grades and tests well can stand a reasonable chance of admission.

That's Banneker not Walls....

[Anonymous]

It will be interesting to track the testing data of the cohort selected for the class of 2028 down the road. Will it be on par with previous 9th grade classes or will there be high percentages of students below grade level. Its only 150 students per grade, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The way admissions are being handled this year will not ensure a class of 150 high achieving, on grade level students.

My kid didn't get a spot either, but please don't rain on a bunch of hard working middle school kids who got an opportunity.

+100

Comments like PP are just gross. You can be upset your kid didn’t get an interview and think the process is unfair. Fine. Claiming that the kids who did get an interview are not high achieving makes you an a**hole.

Notably, PP didn't say this. PP didn't say none of the kids who got interviews are high-achieving. Just that the process does not ensure a class of 150 high achieving, on grade level students. It doesn't. It is likely that many of the kids being interviewed (and who will eventually take places at the school) are in fact high-achieving, but the process does nothing to exclude kids who are below grade level, and it doesn't necessarily result in the 300 highest achieving students in the applicant pool being interviewed.

Doens't necessarily? It absolutely does not and it hasn't for the past 4 admissions cycles. My older kid is in class of 2025 (the first non-test class). Most of the smartest and highest achievers that year were not admitted to Walls. My kid was in the Deal Algebra 2 class that year. A good 75% of the class who applied to Walls were not admitted. Dont' worry though--the top privates were happy to take them and these kids are now kiling it (most on aid) at Sidwell, GDS, STA, and NCS.
Same thing this year. My younger one is at Deal and did get an interview but most of the smartest kids she knows did not. These are smart, kind, social kids who have never had less than a A in any quarter at Deal. They're not obnoxious or trouble makers. A bunch of them all came from the same ELA or math classes at Deal with teacher(s) who probably gave them less than perfect rec scores (not knowing that perfect scores were needed to get the kids an interview).
It's been a crazily flawed process for years now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We can argue about what is and is not fair until the cows come home. However, no reasonable person can make a serious argument that SWW's current admission policy favors those applicants who will obtain the greatest benefit (relative to attending another DC high school) from attending a school focused on academic enrichment. Moreover, it's unclear what the admission policy is designed to do, except - as someone else said - to limit the probability for any scrutiny of individual admissions decisions. The policy certainly would not give any comfort to any parent in DC that a child who obtains good grades and tests well can stand a reasonable chance of admission.

That's Banneker not Walls....

Then what is Walls supposed to be doing?

[Anonymous]

Every time I see the logo for school without walls I think it's the logo for the well dressed burrito, that awesome alleyway burrito joint off of 19th St. That's been around forever.

https://www.swwhs.org/
https://thewelldressedburrito.com/#

[Anonymous]

Is there not a 2nd round of interviews like in years past? Or has everyone gotten notice one way or the other? Just curious...we went through this last year and the interviews were offered in at least 2 different rounds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The way admissions are being handled this year will not ensure a class of 150 high achieving, on grade level students.

My kid didn't get a spot either, but please don't rain on a bunch of hard working middle school kids who got an opportunity.

+100

Comments like PP are just gross. You can be upset your kid didn’t get an interview and think the process is unfair. Fine. Claiming that the kids who did get an interview are not high achieving makes you an a**hole.

Notably, PP didn't say this. PP didn't say none of the kids who got interviews are high-achieving. Just that the process does not ensure a class of 150 high achieving, on grade level students. It doesn't. It is likely that many of the kids being interviewed (and who will eventually take places at the school) are in fact high-achieving, but the process does nothing to exclude kids who are below grade level, and it doesn't necessarily result in the 300 highest achieving students in the applicant pool being interviewed.

And I would argue the admissions test did not ensure the 300 highest achieving students were interviewed. Or that the class was 150 high achieving students. There were years when the test cutoff for an interview was 50% on the math test.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The way admissions are being handled this year will not ensure a class of 150 high achieving, on grade level students.

My kid didn't get a spot either, but please don't rain on a bunch of hard working middle school kids who got an opportunity.

+100

Comments like PP are just gross. You can be upset your kid didn’t get an interview and think the process is unfair. Fine. Claiming that the kids who did get an interview are not high achieving makes you an a**hole.

Notably, PP didn't say this. PP didn't say none of the kids who got interviews are high-achieving. Just that the process does not ensure a class of 150 high achieving, on grade level students. It doesn't. It is likely that many of the kids being interviewed (and who will eventually take places at the school) are in fact high-achieving, but the process does nothing to exclude kids who are below grade level, and it doesn't necessarily result in the 300 highest achieving students in the applicant pool being interviewed.

Doens't necessarily? It absolutely does not and it hasn't for the past 4 admissions cycles. My older kid is in class of 2025 (the first non-test class). Most of the smartest and highest achievers that year were not admitted to Walls. My kid was in the Deal Algebra 2 class that year. A good 75% of the class who applied to Walls were not admitted. Dont' worry though--the top privates were happy to take them and these kids are now kiling it (most on aid) at Sidwell, GDS, STA, and NCS.
Same thing this year. My younger one is at Deal and did get an interview but most of the smartest kids she knows did not. These are smart, kind, social kids who have never had less than a A in any quarter at Deal. They're not obnoxious or trouble makers. A bunch of them all came from the same ELA or math classes at Deal with teacher(s) who probably gave them less than perfect rec scores (not knowing that perfect scores were needed to get the kids an interview).
It's been a crazily flawed process for years now.

Nothing is flawed... Just maybe SWW is tired of being the backup plan for kids that were always going to private schools. It's a nightmare to manage a waitlist. They want families that really want to be there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The way admissions are being handled this year will not ensure a class of 150 high achieving, on grade level students.

My kid didn't get a spot either, but please don't rain on a bunch of hard working middle school kids who got an opportunity.

+100

Comments like PP are just gross. You can be upset your kid didn’t get an interview and think the process is unfair. Fine. Claiming that the kids who did get an interview are not high achieving makes you an a**hole.

Notably, PP didn't say this. PP didn't say none of the kids who got interviews are high-achieving. Just that the process does not ensure a class of 150 high achieving, on grade level students. It doesn't. It is likely that many of the kids being interviewed (and who will eventually take places at the school) are in fact high-achieving, but the process does nothing to exclude kids who are below grade level, and it doesn't necessarily result in the 300 highest achieving students in the applicant pool being interviewed.

Doens't necessarily? It absolutely does not and it hasn't for the past 4 admissions cycles. My older kid is in class of 2025 (the first non-test class). Most of the smartest and highest achievers that year were not admitted to Walls. My kid was in the Deal Algebra 2 class that year. A good 75% of the class who applied to Walls were not admitted. Dont' worry though--the top privates were happy to take them and these kids are now kiling it (most on aid) at Sidwell, GDS, STA, and NCS.
Same thing this year. My younger one is at Deal and did get an interview but most of the smartest kids she knows did not. These are smart, kind, social kids who have never had less than a A in any quarter at Deal. They're not obnoxious or trouble makers. A bunch of them all came from the same ELA or math classes at Deal with teacher(s) who probably gave them less than perfect rec scores (not knowing that perfect scores were needed to get the kids an interview).
It's been a crazily flawed process for years now.

Nothing is flawed... Just maybe SWW is tired of being the backup plan for kids that were always going to private schools. It's a nightmare to manage a waitlist. They want families that really want to be there.

I don’t think that’s the reason (or if it’s the reason, it’s been a failure). The number of seats SWW has to offer to fill a freshman class has been going up since they dropped the exam, not down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The way admissions are being handled this year will not ensure a class of 150 high achieving, on grade level students.

My kid didn't get a spot either, but please don't rain on a bunch of hard working middle school kids who got an opportunity.

+100

Comments like PP are just gross. You can be upset your kid didn’t get an interview and think the process is unfair. Fine. Claiming that the kids who did get an interview are not high achieving makes you an a**hole.

Notably, PP didn't say this. PP didn't say none of the kids who got interviews are high-achieving. Just that the process does not ensure a class of 150 high achieving, on grade level students. It doesn't. It is likely that many of the kids being interviewed (and who will eventually take places at the school) are in fact high-achieving, but the process does nothing to exclude kids who are below grade level, and it doesn't necessarily result in the 300 highest achieving students in the applicant pool being interviewed.

Doens't necessarily? It absolutely does not and it hasn't for the past 4 admissions cycles. My older kid is in class of 2025 (the first non-test class). Most of the smartest and highest achievers that year were not admitted to Walls. My kid was in the Deal Algebra 2 class that year. A good 75% of the class who applied to Walls were not admitted. Dont' worry though--the top privates were happy to take them and these kids are now kiling it (most on aid) at Sidwell, GDS, STA, and NCS.
Same thing this year. My younger one is at Deal and did get an interview but most of the smartest kids she knows did not. These are smart, kind, social kids who have never had less than a A in any quarter at Deal. They're not obnoxious or trouble makers. A bunch of them all came from the same ELA or math classes at Deal with teacher(s) who probably gave them less than perfect rec scores (not knowing that perfect scores were needed to get the kids an interview).
It's been a crazily flawed process for years now.

Can’t imagine that there would be well-qualified students outside of Deal…. 🙄

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The way admissions are being handled this year will not ensure a class of 150 high achieving, on grade level students.

My kid didn't get a spot either, but please don't rain on a bunch of hard working middle school kids who got an opportunity.

+100

Comments like PP are just gross. You can be upset your kid didn’t get an interview and think the process is unfair. Fine. Claiming that the kids who did get an interview are not high achieving makes you an a**hole.

Notably, PP didn't say this. PP didn't say none of the kids who got interviews are high-achieving. Just that the process does not ensure a class of 150 high achieving, on grade level students. It doesn't. It is likely that many of the kids being interviewed (and who will eventually take places at the school) are in fact high-achieving, but the process does nothing to exclude kids who are below grade level, and it doesn't necessarily result in the 300 highest achieving students in the applicant pool being interviewed.

Doens't necessarily? It absolutely does not and it hasn't for the past 4 admissions cycles. My older kid is in class of 2025 (the first non-test class). Most of the smartest and highest achievers that year were not admitted to Walls. My kid was in the Deal Algebra 2 class that year. A good 75% of the class who applied to Walls were not admitted. Dont' worry though--the top privates were happy to take them and these kids are now kiling it (most on aid) at Sidwell, GDS, STA, and NCS.
Same thing this year. My younger one is at Deal and did get an interview but most of the smartest kids she knows did not. These are smart, kind, social kids who have never had less than a A in any quarter at Deal. They're not obnoxious or trouble makers. A bunch of them all came from the same ELA or math classes at Deal with teacher(s) who probably gave them less than perfect rec scores (not knowing that perfect scores were needed to get the kids an interview).
It's been a crazily flawed process for years now.

Can’t imagine that there would be well-qualified students outside of Deal…. 🙄

The Post covered this a few years ago. Dropping the test did not successfully pull in kids from the wards that DCPS was hoping it would. So they're still taking kids from Deal, just a lot more randomly as opposed to the kids who would benefit the most academically.