"Ineligible"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My child had McKinley as first choice and didn’t get in after having an interview and a 3.9 with great recs.

Uggghhhh I'm so sorry. That is terrible.

[Anonymous]

Didn't have a child applying to the selective high schools this year but I am frustrated on your behalf that they seem to have made a change in how they handle waitlists after interviews. In the past I thought that all interviewed kids got waitlist numbers, I think it is stupid of them to make this change without warning people in advance. I am sure most interviewed kids were assuming they'd either get a waitlist or an admit, and to be greeted with "ineligible" (which yes, sounds like the incorrect word since presumably all interviewed kids were "eligible" even if not selected) on a Friday morning before heading into class... ugh.

I really hate this system. Love to all your kids who I have no doubt are GREAT.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Didn't have a child applying to the selective high schools this year but I am frustrated on your behalf that they seem to have made a change in how they handle waitlists after interviews. In the past I thought that all interviewed kids got waitlist numbers, I think it is stupid of them to make this change without warning people in advance. I am sure most interviewed kids were assuming they'd either get a waitlist or an admit, and to be greeted with "ineligible" (which yes, sounds like the incorrect word since presumably all interviewed kids were "eligible" even if not selected) on a Friday morning before heading into class... ugh.

I really hate this system. Love to all your kids who I have no doubt are GREAT.

Aww- this is so sweet and true. Thank you!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Didn't have a child applying to the selective high schools this year but I am frustrated on your behalf that they seem to have made a change in how they handle waitlists after interviews. In the past I thought that all interviewed kids got waitlist numbers, I think it is stupid of them to make this change without warning people in advance. I am sure most interviewed kids were assuming they'd either get a waitlist or an admit, and to be greeted with "ineligible" (which yes, sounds like the incorrect word since presumably all interviewed kids were "eligible" even if not selected) on a Friday morning before heading into class... ugh.

I really hate this system. Love to all your kids who I have no doubt are GREAT.

I hate it, too. and that is very kind of you.

But I also just want to say that I have an 11th grader, so I know that not everyone who interviewed got waitlisted in some recent years, either. I don't know if the numbers are higher this year, so more of us are feeling the pain? Or if it was just as bad back then. I was lucky that my older kid got into one selective school and was waitlisted at another. My younger kid is apparently "ineligible," yes, completely poor choice of word!

[Anonymous]

Does ineligible post-interview basically mean that the student did really poorly on either the in-person essay or interview?

Or are there other factors in play?

I am fine with intangibles and interviewing.

If we didn't do it this way, we should just take a slice of top % grads from every school or return to testing. The top grads version would skew toward undereducated entrants and the test-in would skew toward privilege.

As it is, the process doesn't lend itself to understanding post-hoc but that isn't enough to make the alternatives I just thought of better, in my mind.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My child had McKinley as first choice and didn’t get in after having an interview and a 3.9 with great recs.

Uggghhhh I'm so sorry. That is terrible.

That really doesn't sound right. I don't know if there's anything you can do, but it sounds like they should have been admitted.

[Anonymous]

What a dumb decision by DCPS to select the word "ineligible". It's not even an accurate term in this context. "Ineligible" literally means legally or officially unable to even be considered. And it just sounds awful. Such a poor exercise in leadership by DCPS.

It would have been so easy to just have said "not admitted".

Or just given interviewee who wasn't admitted a WL. (I disagree with others who have a problem with giving everyone a WL number. Parents aren't idiots so they understand that a WL number in the multiple hundreds is basically a rejection, but at least it communicates the demand for the school without adding insult to injury.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My child had McKinley as first choice and didn’t get in after having an interview and a 3.9 with great recs.

I would try again post-Lottery. I have heard they admit students after. Maybe worth a call?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Does ineligible post-interview basically mean that the student did really poorly on either the in-person essay or interview?

Or are there other factors in play?

I am fine with intangibles and interviewing.

If we didn't do it this way, we should just take a slice of top % grads from every school or return to testing. The top grads version would skew toward undereducated entrants and the test-in would skew toward privilege.

As it is, the process doesn't lend itself to understanding post-hoc but that isn't enough to make the alternatives I just thought of better, in my mind.

I think both those alternatives are far better.

Basing admissions on test results is easy and clear. It would also be trivial to provide free test prep materials at DC middles. What we have seen from the re-adoption of the SAT trend is that this may be the fairest way for talented at-risk kids.

I’m also intrigued by the idea of admitting the top grads from each middle. They would need to devise a way to take rigor into account when deciding the top grads — you never want to incentivize taking easy classes — but it could be a great way to incentivize affluent families to stay in their neighborhood school.

[Anonymous]

I think there are 10,000 problems for judging kids for admissions to a public high school on the basis of an interview.

It should be objective, academic criteria only.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What a dumb decision by DCPS to select the word "ineligible". It's not even an accurate term in this context. "Ineligible" literally means legally or officially unable to even be considered. And it just sounds awful. Such a poor exercise in leadership by DCPS.

It would have been so easy to just have said "not admitted".

Or just given interviewee who wasn't admitted a WL. (I disagree with others who have a problem with giving everyone a WL number. Parents aren't idiots so they understand that a WL number in the multiple hundreds is basically a rejection, but at least it communicates the demand for the school without adding insult to injury.)

The schools don’t accept the kids, though. They identify them as “eligible.” Kids who are not eligible are … ineligible.

I have a kid who was “ineligible” this year, and I have an older kid who was waitlisted over 200, and I strongly prefer this approach. “They’re not going to make 200 WL offers” is an argument and a prediction, and it’s an argument you may have to have with your kid over and over again. “Ineligible” is final.

The fact is, it always hurts to see your kid rejected. And it’s always easier to say that the problem is the vocabulary word they use.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does ineligible post-interview basically mean that the student did really poorly on either the in-person essay or interview?

Or are there other factors in play?

I am fine with intangibles and interviewing.

If we didn't do it this way, we should just take a slice of top % grads from every school or return to testing. The top grads version would skew toward undereducated entrants and the test-in would skew toward privilege.

As it is, the process doesn't lend itself to understanding post-hoc but that isn't enough to make the alternatives I just thought of better, in my mind.

I think both those alternatives are far better.

Basing admissions on test results is easy and clear. It would also be trivial to provide free test prep materials at DC middles. What we have seen from the re-adoption of the SAT trend is that this may be the fairest way for talented at-risk kids.

I’m also intrigued by the idea of admitting the top grads from each middle. They would need to devise a way to take rigor into account when deciding the top grads — you never want to incentivize taking easy classes — but it could be a great way to incentivize affluent families to stay in their neighborhood school.

Agree but that would also defeat the purpose of giving the kids who aren't affluent at these schools if a handful of better off kids who would normally leave stay to grab the Walls spots. All irrelevant really but...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does ineligible post-interview basically mean that the student did really poorly on either the in-person essay or interview?

Or are there other factors in play?

I am fine with intangibles and interviewing.

If we didn't do it this way, we should just take a slice of top % grads from every school or return to testing. The top grads version would skew toward undereducated entrants and the test-in would skew toward privilege.

As it is, the process doesn't lend itself to understanding post-hoc but that isn't enough to make the alternatives I just thought of better, in my mind.

I think both those alternatives are far better.

Basing admissions on test results is easy and clear. It would also be trivial to provide free test prep materials at DC middles. What we have seen from the re-adoption of the SAT trend is that this may be the fairest way for talented at-risk kids.

I’m also intrigued by the idea of admitting the top grads from each middle. They would need to devise a way to take rigor into account when deciding the top grads — you never want to incentivize taking easy classes — but it could be a great way to incentivize affluent families to stay in their neighborhood school.

Agree but that would also defeat the purpose of giving the kids who aren't affluent at these schools if a handful of better off kids who would normally leave stay to grab the Walls spots. All irrelevant really but...

Privileged kids definitely have certain advantages at school -- and tbh, they always will -- but it's by no means a given that every privileged kid is going to out-perform every at-risk kid. And it's a net positive for everyone at a school for affluent families to buy into neighborhood schools and bring their resources there.

[Anonymous]

Same ineligible for Banneker waitlisted for walls. Here’s response I got from Banneker

Good morning,

When MYSCHOOLDC reads a status of ineligible that means that your child did not meet the cut off score for the rubric we have set for interviews that are conducted. The decision is determined by the interview panel as I do not have any specific information to give on the students' interview and how the scores are determined.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Same ineligible for Banneker waitlisted for walls. Here’s response I got from Banneker

Good morning,

When MYSCHOOLDC reads a status of ineligible that means that your child did not meet the cut off score for the rubric we have set for interviews that are conducted. The decision is determined by the interview panel as I do not have any specific information to give on the students' interview and how the scores are determined.

Brutal.