Lottery Results - High School

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Our child wasn't interviewed at SWW, was "ineligible" at Banneker, and got horrible numbers at Latin (long shot), MacArthur, DCI, and others. The only school she got into was McKinley. Does anyone know if they do shadow days?

I don't know but last night after my son got into McKinley we looked at what they have on YouTube and there are several videos that can give you a sense of what that school is like.

FWIW we went to the Open House and I was very impressed in the students, facilities and organization. I didn't really get to meet teachers but the students spoke highly of them.

[Anonymous]

Our son got into Banneker. We had to think hard to decide whether Banneker or Walls was the top choice. Banneker was more our family’s style based on student body, staff, curriculum, location, and the open house and interview experiences. I am sure that Walls would have been great as well, and several other choices would have been great for him.

And as Banneker was his top choice, we don’t find out if he could have been accepted at his other choices. This is a great student (he got a B+ last year from a teacher who we were not surprised was not at the school this year) with good relationships with the teachers who offered recommendations and we are also kind of a unique family in that we went through dual language schools all the way on a path not many families choose. (If you’ve done this you might even know who we are. Hope applications went well.) Our son acts and talks like a leader, reads people well, and has also always been a good essay writer. So I think he was pretty well suited to the process.

So I have a lot of sympathy for those with children who are academically strong but don’t necessarily stand out to their teachers or interview well, or might have a tough time with essays. It’s tough to think that your child is going to grow into all that but didn’t have it at 13 or 14, and that decided how their high school career unfolded.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just don’t understand the process. For Walls, you have 1000+ applicants that are whittled down somehow (unclear) to 350 who get interviews for 170 (?) seats. I suppose some could be a hard no (let’s say 50) and get rejected. Do the remaining 300 get spun into a random lottery? Or do they take the 170 they want, and run a lottery for the waitlist? Why does it all have to be a mystery.

At the open house, they seemed to say that each applicant was given a number of points based on the rubric (x points for interview, y for essay etc) and the “lottery” was a not a true lottery but rather a ranking representing the scores of applicants. Not sure what they did for applicants with the same scores though—you’d think there would be some! But they definitely went out of their way to say that no part of the process was an actual lottery. Not super clear beyond that.

My understanding was that part was the true lottery. So if 20 kids tied with 50 pts and there were only 7 seats left, the lottery would spit out 7 kids to get the seats and rank the others 1-13 on the WL. I assume the lottery would they rank the kids who scored a 49 14-???

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:1. SWW no interview/ineligible
2. Banneker interview/ineligible
3. McKinley interview/accepted

inbound was Dunbar. Private was not an option $$$$.

I really would like to have a more detailed explanation regarding the acceptance criteria. But this is DC, you never get answers.

Our son is attending McKinley Tech and we are happy.

I agree that the admissions decisions seem rather random. The hardest working nicest kid we know (not our kid, he's very nice but not as hard working) didn't get into SWW or Banneker because she had gone to BASIS and didn't have straight A's. They would have been lucky to have her. She's seriously a dream candidate: kind to kids, great at talking to adults, always gets great grades, motivated. She's going to go far. But the admissions process currently in place at these schools simply didn't identify her as a great candidate, which she was. Obviously there are far more great candidates than spaces, but I can't help wishing that there was some kind of objective standard. Like a test as there once was, perhaps.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just don’t understand the process. For Walls, you have 1000+ applicants that are whittled down somehow (unclear) to 350 who get interviews for 170 (?) seats. I suppose some could be a hard no (let’s say 50) and get rejected. Do the remaining 300 get spun into a random lottery? Or do they take the 170 they want, and run a lottery for the waitlist? Why does it all have to be a mystery.

At the open house, they seemed to say that each applicant was given a number of points based on the rubric (x points for interview, y for essay etc) and the “lottery” was a not a true lottery but rather a ranking representing the scores of applicants. Not sure what they did for applicants with the same scores though—you’d think there would be some! But they definitely went out of their way to say that no part of the process was an actual lottery. Not super clear beyond that.

My understanding was that part was the true lottery. So if 20 kids tied with 50 pts and there were only 7 seats left, the lottery would spit out 7 kids to get the seats and rank the others 1-13 on the WL. I assume the lottery would they rank the kids who scored a 49 14-???

Yes, this is how Walls does it. According to their rubric Banneker gives all eligible students the same score and lets the lottery sort out matches/WL.

[Anonymous]

The rubric is trash and does not explain anything specific. Over 1500 applicants for Walls. Child had a 3.9 with "Highly Recommended Letters" from both Math and English teachers. Some kids had 4.0 and didn't get an interview. Multiple pages of posts on another DCUM thread about Walls interviews. I know of other kids with lower GPAs that did get an interview. All DCPS have honor roll assemblies that show students GPAs. There is nothing logical about this process, it's a lottery.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just don’t understand the process. For Walls, you have 1000+ applicants that are whittled down somehow (unclear) to 350 who get interviews for 170 (?) seats. I suppose some could be a hard no (let’s say 50) and get rejected. Do the remaining 300 get spun into a random lottery? Or do they take the 170 they want, and run a lottery for the waitlist? Why does it all have to be a mystery.

At the open house, they seemed to say that each applicant was given a number of points based on the rubric (x points for interview, y for essay etc) and the “lottery” was a not a true lottery but rather a ranking representing the scores of applicants. Not sure what they did for applicants with the same scores though—you’d think there would be some! But they definitely went out of their way to say that no part of the process was an actual lottery. Not super clear beyond that.

My understanding was that part was the true lottery. So if 20 kids tied with 50 pts and there were only 7 seats left, the lottery would spit out 7 kids to get the seats and rank the others 1-13 on the WL. I assume the lottery would they rank the kids who scored a 49 14-???

Yes, this is how Walls does it. According to their rubric Banneker gives all eligible students the same score and lets the lottery sort out matches/WL.

Really helpful. Thanks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just don’t understand the process. For Walls, you have 1000+ applicants that are whittled down somehow (unclear) to 350 who get interviews for 170 (?) seats. I suppose some could be a hard no (let’s say 50) and get rejected. Do the remaining 300 get spun into a random lottery? Or do they take the 170 they want, and run a lottery for the waitlist? Why does it all have to be a mystery.

At the open house, they seemed to say that each applicant was given a number of points based on the rubric (x points for interview, y for essay etc) and the “lottery” was a not a true lottery but rather a ranking representing the scores of applicants. Not sure what they did for applicants with the same scores though—you’d think there would be some! But they definitely went out of their way to say that no part of the process was an actual lottery. Not super clear beyond that.

My understanding was that part was the true lottery. So if 20 kids tied with 50 pts and there were only 7 seats left, the lottery would spit out 7 kids to get the seats and rank the others 1-13 on the WL. I assume the lottery would they rank the kids who scored a 49 14-???

Yes, this is how Walls does it. According to their rubric Banneker gives all eligible students the same score and lets the lottery sort out matches/WL.

I don’t think so. Per my reading of the rubric, they use GPA, letters, and the essay to determine who gets an interview.

However, the decision on which interviewees get accepted seems to entirely depend on the interview (scored out of 15), although they probably use a lottery to rank students who got the same lottery score.

My kid got accepted into Banneker but I’m not sure how fair it is to base the decision (among those who got an interview) entirely on the interview.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1. SWW no interview/ineligible
2. Banneker interview/ineligible
3. McKinley interview/accepted

inbound was Dunbar. Private was not an option $$$$.

I really would like to have a more detailed explanation regarding the acceptance criteria. But this is DC, you never get answers.

Our son is attending McKinley Tech and we are happy.

I agree that the admissions decisions seem rather random. The hardest working nicest kid we know (not our kid, he's very nice but not as hard working) didn't get into SWW or Banneker because she had gone to BASIS and didn't have straight A's. They would have been lucky to have her. She's seriously a dream candidate: kind to kids, great at talking to adults, always gets great grades, motivated. She's going to go far. But the admissions process currently in place at these schools simply didn't identify her as a great candidate, which she was. Obviously there are far more great candidates than spaces, but I can't help wishing that there was some kind of objective standard. Like a test as there once was, perhaps.

We'll see you at Tech this fall then. Congratulations to your son! I wondered why I prematurely received McKinley tech open house invitation before the lottery results were released. No other school did this that I'm aware of, now I know.

[Anonymous]

We are pretty happy in my house:

1. SWW no interview/ineligible
2. Banneker interview/match!

Sorry for those of you not getting the news you had hoped for.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Our son got into Banneker. We had to think hard to decide whether Banneker or Walls was the top choice. Banneker was more our family’s style based on student body, staff, curriculum, location, and the open house and interview experiences. I am sure that Walls would have been great as well, and several other choices would have been great for him.

And as Banneker was his top choice, we don’t find out if he could have been accepted at his other choices. This is a great student (he got a B+ last year from a teacher who we were not surprised was not at the school this year) with good relationships with the teachers who offered recommendations and we are also kind of a unique family in that we went through dual language schools all the way on a path not many families choose. (If you’ve done this you might even know who we are. Hope applications went well.) Our son acts and talks like a leader, reads people well, and has also always been a good essay writer. So I think he was pretty well suited to the process.

So I have a lot of sympathy for those with children who are academically strong but don’t necessarily stand out to their teachers or interview well, or might have a tough time with essays. It’s tough to think that your child is going to grow into all that but didn’t have it at 13 or 14, and that decided how their high school career unfolded.

I think you're reading a lot into who got selected and who didn't. My kid has almost all of the qualities you've described--except the dual language thing, but he has some other very strong and unusual qualities including excellent writing and speaking skills, and better grades--and was "ineligible." We have no idea why and probably never will.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Our son got into Banneker. We had to think hard to decide whether Banneker or Walls was the top choice. Banneker was more our family’s style based on student body, staff, curriculum, location, and the open house and interview experiences. I am sure that Walls would have been great as well, and several other choices would have been great for him.

And as Banneker was his top choice, we don’t find out if he could have been accepted at his other choices. This is a great student (he got a B+ last year from a teacher who we were not surprised was not at the school this year) with good relationships with the teachers who offered recommendations and we are also kind of a unique family in that we went through dual language schools all the way on a path not many families choose. (If you’ve done this you might even know who we are. Hope applications went well.) Our son acts and talks like a leader, reads people well, and has also always been a good essay writer. So I think he was pretty well suited to the process.

So I have a lot of sympathy for those with children who are academically strong but don’t necessarily stand out to their teachers or interview well, or might have a tough time with essays. It’s tough to think that your child is going to grow into all that but didn’t have it at 13 or 14, and that decided how their high school career unfolded.

This seems like such a brag, not a sympathy post. You can say you have sympathy without bragging about your "beyond extraordinary" child. Choosing dual education makes your family unique? Really? Also, the teacher who gave your precious child a B+ is rightfully so no longer at the school? and he talks and acts like a leader! Wow! This kind of posts explains why some kids are such show offs jerks.

[Anonymous]

It really is a complete mystery. My kid is none of those things (great kid, but not a standout in this way) and got an interview at Walls when kids at his school who are all those things did not. It makes zero sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Our son got into Banneker. We had to think hard to decide whether Banneker or Walls was the top choice. Banneker was more our family’s style based on student body, staff, curriculum, location, and the open house and interview experiences. I am sure that Walls would have been great as well, and several other choices would have been great for him.

And as Banneker was his top choice, we don’t find out if he could have been accepted at his other choices. This is a great student (he got a B+ last year from a teacher who we were not surprised was not at the school this year) with good relationships with the teachers who offered recommendations and we are also kind of a unique family in that we went through dual language schools all the way on a path not many families choose. (If you’ve done this you might even know who we are. Hope applications went well.) Our son acts and talks like a leader, reads people well, and has also always been a good essay writer. So I think he was pretty well suited to the process.

So I have a lot of sympathy for those with children who are academically strong but don’t necessarily stand out to their teachers or interview well, or might have a tough time with essays. It’s tough to think that your child is going to grow into all that but didn’t have it at 13 or 14, and that decided how their high school career unfolded.

Hopefully your kid is more humble than you. Good lord.

[Anonymous]

Look yes, my child is more humble than I am. The truth is that I am impressed by my own child. I would have been the child who no teacher could remember being in their classes. This kind of process would have wrecked me. I only mentioned the courses my child too to try to guess at what could be the basis for distinguishing between many good candidates, not to say my child is better than yours. Sorry that things don’t go well for so many.