Sidwell vs Walls

[Anonymous]

^ Only rich people can afford to pay $55,000/year PER CHILD.

And don’t try to argue with me about this fact.

[Anonymous]

I’m sorry, but as a Walls parent I can’t imagine that Sidwell would put up with a lot of what passes for “teaching” in some of the classes at Walls. There are plenty of good teachers but so many are mediocre at best and just give loads of busy work.

Whether it’s worth it to send your child to Sidwell or not depends on how much the financial burden would impact your life but they will definitely get a superior education there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just go in Walls. Anyone else considering?

Let’s just be honest, Sidwell provides a better overall education than Walls. This should come as a surprise to no one. The real questions that you must ask yourself are:

1. Can you afford a Sidwell education for your child?
2. If yes, is Sidwell worth the cost to YOU?

If the answer to either question is “no,” then send your child to Walls. They will be fine either way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m sorry, but as a Walls parent I can’t imagine that Sidwell would put up with a lot of what passes for “teaching” in some of the classes at Walls. There are plenty of good teachers but so many are mediocre at best and just give loads of busy work.

Whether it’s worth it to send your child to Sidwell or not depends on how much the financial burden would impact your life but they will definitely get a superior education there.

In general, private schools have bad teachers too. Was surprised but Sidwell is no different.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In you are someone that looks at value, it's not close. Sidwell is not $55K better than Walls. The top kids are pretty much the same. Just don't lie to yourself and say "it's not about college admission." But four years from know you're pissed over the money you've spent.

I agree that Sidwell isn’t $55K better than Walls. It’s about $40K (max!) better—better curriculum, better/more consistent teaching, better educated/higher credentialed faculty, better campus/academic/sports facilities, better extracurricular activities, better cafeteria food, better school spirit, better alumni engagement, etc.

However, both schools will prepare you for college. Sidwell will just prepare you better—in both writing and STEM. If you can’t afford Sidwell, go to Walls. It’s like a bare-bones, “just-the-facts ma’am” Sidwell.

There’s no evidence to support prior statements that Walls has better college admissions, but I would like to see it.

I don't understand the comment that Sidwell will prepare you better for college in both writing and STEM...the amount of homework assigned is not the barometer of preparation. They will both prepare you just fine for college.

A huge difference is that Walls has none of its own facilities. If you play a sport, you are traveling somewhere for practice and games...possibly a good 45 minute+ metro ride from school depending on the sport.

Sports are the big difference. Other than that it's basically the same kids.

Another big difference: Sidwell students, on average, are richer than kids from Walls. How do I know? Only about 20% of Sidwell students receive financial aid.

Probably, but there is a lot of wealth at Walls also. But I'm sure the recruited athletes make it more than 20%. But no need to discuss that...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In you are someone that looks at value, it's not close. Sidwell is not $55K better than Walls. The top kids are pretty much the same. Just don't lie to yourself and say "it's not about college admission." But four years from know you're pissed over the money you've spent.

I agree that Sidwell isn’t $55K better than Walls. It’s about $40K (max!) better—better curriculum, better/more consistent teaching, better educated/higher credentialed faculty, better campus/academic/sports facilities, better extracurricular activities, better cafeteria food, better school spirit, better alumni engagement, etc.

However, both schools will prepare you for college. Sidwell will just prepare you better—in both writing and STEM. If you can’t afford Sidwell, go to Walls. It’s like a bare-bones, “just-the-facts ma’am” Sidwell.

There’s no evidence to support prior statements that Walls has better college admissions, but I would like to see it.

I don't understand the comment that Sidwell will prepare you better for college in both writing and STEM...the amount of homework assigned is not the barometer of preparation. They will both prepare you just fine for college.

A huge difference is that Walls has none of its own facilities. If you play a sport, you are traveling somewhere for practice and games...possibly a good 45 minute+ metro ride from school depending on the sport.

Sports are the big difference. Other than that it's basically the same kids.

Another big difference: Sidwell students, on average, are richer than kids from Walls. How do I know? Only about 20% of Sidwell students receive financial aid.

Probably, but there is a lot of wealth at Walls also. But I'm sure the recruited athletes make it more than 20%. But no need to discuss that...

Please keep up: The recruited athletes are included in the 20%. I know several families who receive financial aid at Sidwell, and they are all middle class (i.e., government attorney parent, teachers, therapists, etc). My guess is that Sidwell has very few poor families these day (those that meet federal poverty guidelines). I’m sure that Walls has more poor students (and their poor students are poorer than Sidwell’s poor students).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^ Only rich people can afford to pay $55,000/year PER CHILD.

And don’t try to argue with me about this fact.

Poor people don’t even make $50,000 per year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just go in Walls. Anyone else considering?

No it is a jungle.

Hey jungle poster that’s just embarrassing for you and your kids. I don’t think I could sleep at night if I was you. I bet you sent $10 donations to Oxfam each month and sponsor a kid from South Carolina.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ Only rich people can afford to pay $55,000/year PER CHILD.

And don’t try to argue with me about this fact.

Poor people don’t even make $50,000 per year.

True. Even if Sidwell offered a poor family a $50,000/year scholarship, the $5,000 annual difference may be too much.

[Anonymous]

If you are choosing between the two schools primarily based on expected college outcomes (which regardless of what people say on DCUM is a huge reason to select a particular school), then you should explore the college threads.

If you believe all the complaints from Sidwell parents, they will say that if your kids is not legacy, athlete or otherwise hooked, then you have essentially next to no chance for acceptance at top schools.

At Walls, you may compete against legacy (though not essentially 100% guaranteed as it is at Sidwell) but more likely not, very unlikely you compete against athletes. So, those parents will tell you to select Walls.

[Anonymous]

Walls. Your kid will be valued more.

[Anonymous]

If I'm a college admissions professional, given applicants with identical grades, extracurricular activity, interview, I would take a Walls applicant over a Sidwell applicant every time. Nothing against Sidwell, other than it (and other similar schools) reeks of privilege. Walls admission is as competitive (or more) and doesn't have sibling preference. It could also be argued that the self-directed curriculum might both attract and yield a more resilient student. And spare me the AP offerings at Sidwell. At Walls, students can take GW classes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If I'm a college admissions professional, given applicants with identical grades, extracurricular activity, interview, I would take a Walls applicant over a Sidwell applicant every time. Nothing against Sidwell, other than it (and other similar schools) reeks of privilege. Walls admission is as competitive (or more) and doesn't have sibling preference. It could also be argued that the self-directed curriculum might both attract and yield a more resilient student. And spare me the AP offerings at Sidwell. At Walls, students can take GW classes.

AP offerings?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If I'm a college admissions professional, given applicants with identical grades, extracurricular activity, interview, I would take a Walls applicant over a Sidwell applicant every time. Nothing against Sidwell, other than it (and other similar schools) reeks of privilege. Walls admission is as competitive (or more) and doesn't have sibling preference. It could also be argued that the self-directed curriculum might both attract and yield a more resilient student. And spare me the AP offerings at Sidwell. At Walls, students can take GW classes.

You’re not a “college admissions professional,” so move along. Your opinion, rooted in envy, doesn’t matter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ Only rich people can afford to pay $55,000/year PER CHILD.

And don’t try to argue with me about this fact.

Poor people don’t even make $50,000 per year.

True. Even if Sidwell offered a poor family a $50,000/year scholarship, the $5,000 annual difference may be too much.

What do you mean by annual difference? Are you saying tuition is $55,000?