Now that it's over, tell me about the good and bad experiences you had with admissions offices

[Anonymous]

Burke was the worst. SSFS was the best.

[Anonymous]

Good experience with Flint Hill. Dealt with multiple AOs and all were very helpful, informative, accessible, and friendly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Burke was the worst. SSFS was the best.

Really? Burke seemed to pay the most attention to my DC. They'd read the application, had great questions to ask in the interview, and our tours there were thorough and helpful. The staff was very responsive and lovely to us during the process.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We applied Potomac (only) and got WL x2. Found them to be helpful and communicative throughout the process. Only thing that surprised us quite a bit was the 1:1 session with our K was extremely basic, with exercises on the order of drawing a shape using the right color crayon. I know it wasn't supposed to be an entirely academic evaluation, but still it was just surprised they weren't asking at least SOME questions to get a better handle on where DC was at in terms of math, reading, writing, etc.

That’s not the Potomac MO to have super advanced kids in elementary/lower school. They want emotionally well adjusted kids who are well suited for the SEL learning, etc

To other poster : It’s not based on wealth either, some super wealthy families with academically advanced K kids got waitlisted (no spot). A lot of sibling and legacy entries for K this year

[Anonymous]

We had positive experiences with all the schools to which our DCs applied, including GDS, Maret, NPS, Sheridan, and Sidwell. We really clicked with the GDS AO for first kid and loved the teams @ NPS and Sidwell. Probably less of a connection @ Maret (the school was just too quiet for us, but that's our own idiosyncrasy and not a criticism of the school - first DC loved that little white house!) and DH said something really awkward in the Sheridan interview and I could hear our DC's application shriveling up while we still sat in the meeting.

Ideally some AOs are on here, reading the feedback on the various touchpoints and can make course corrections for next year if the critiques resonate.

GL to everyone's DC!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We applied Potomac (only) and got WL x2. Found them to be helpful and communicative throughout the process. Only thing that surprised us quite a bit was the 1:1 session with our K was extremely basic, with exercises on the order of drawing a shape using the right color crayon. I know it wasn't supposed to be an entirely academic evaluation, but still it was just surprised they weren't asking at least SOME questions to get a better handle on where DC was at in terms of math, reading, writing, etc.

That's not really what a school like Potomac is looking for in a K applicant. If you are interested in that kind of assessment, you should seek out schools with more traditional approaches to pedagogy.

[Anonymous]

We ended up pick a different school, but SSSAS admissions team was personable and engaged, with just the right amount of communication.

[Anonymous]

Lowell didn’t respond to my emails. Not impressed!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Burke was the worst. SSFS was the best.

+ 1 SSFS was amazing and accommodating!

[Anonymous]

Holton was the worst. Nothing went right from forgetting our interview, sent the wrong link for the assessment and seemed generally disinterested.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We ended up pick a different school, but SSSAS admissions team was personable and engaged, with just the right amount of communication.

For us as well. All of the schools our soon-to-be 9th grader applied to had really engaged, helpful and kind admissions staff. I truly felt bad telling the ones that we didn't choose that our student wouldn't be coming. Even there, they were engaged and asked questions as to why we chose the school we did and what their school might have done different to have changed the decision. One made a point to say that if our selected school doesn't work out that they hope we might reapply as a transfer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Burke was the worst. SSFS was the best.

+ 1 SSFS was amazing and accommodating!

What was up with Burke? The contact I interacted with was kind of rude I thought. Then I felt maybe I was taking things the wrong way.

Was Burke hard getting into this year?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Burke was the worst. SSFS was the best.

+ 1 SSFS was amazing and accommodating!

What was up with Burke? The contact I interacted with was kind of rude I thought. Then I felt maybe I was taking things the wrong way.

Was Burke hard getting into this year?

I agree they seemed a bit “cold” but we ended up accepting as the school is definitely the right fit for our child. I felt the in person visits, once they finally held them, were better that the virtual admissions interactions. I think doing a lot online took away from some of the personal feel of the process.

[Anonymous]

Holton was the worst for us- terrible guide, barely with-it interviewer, lost our interview transcript (they requested another interview!) Sidwell was a close second for a bad experience- so full of themselves.

Lovely interview at NCS, Maret, and Bullis!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We applied Potomac (only) and got WL x2. Found them to be helpful and communicative throughout the process. Only thing that surprised us quite a bit was the 1:1 session with our K was extremely basic, with exercises on the order of drawing a shape using the right color crayon. I know it wasn't supposed to be an entirely academic evaluation, but still it was just surprised they weren't asking at least SOME questions to get a better handle on where DC was at in terms of math, reading, writing, etc.

That's not really what a school like Potomac is looking for in a K applicant. If you are interested in that kind of assessment, you should seek out schools with more traditional approaches to pedagogy.

I'm really curious about this. I've always thought very highly about PS, but never thought of them as outside the traditional pedagogical mainstream. OK, maybe a little too much to the HYP legacies and jocks. That pulls them down quite a bit, but still they seem like the definition of 'traditional approaches to pedagogy'.

So what is their approach to pedagogy? Do they/can they articulate it? OP, can you help us understand it?