Reputation of St. John's College HS and other "normal" privates

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unnecessary to correct misstatements of fact?

You should know you’re not allowed to say anything about Sidwell that can remotely be perceived as a compliment. If you dare, someone will race to the post to put you “snobby Sidwell parents” in your place!

Please. The thread is expressly NOT about Sidwell. Second, it wasn't a misstatement. PP offered an average range among a group of schools for a broad comparison. So yes, unnecessary to point out this year's actual number for one of those schools. Nobody cares if it's 10, 11, or zero.

[Anonymous]

Back to reality.

SJC is a great school, and it is well worth visiting and learning about its various programs (Benile and Scholars). As noted, it's larger many of the others, which is a plus to some and a negative to others. They recruit heavily for key sports so unless your child is truly exceptional keep that in mind. That said, they have lots of other sports and activities to consider, as well. Talk to some of the parents who have kids there (we know many), and they'll give it a big thumbs up. We know families whose kids got into GP, Gonzaga, Visi and SR and opted for SJC, so treating it like a second-class citizen is misguided.

And no, I don't have a child there (opted to go to a smaller school) or work there...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where to begin?

First, the Catholic locals, which is a large group of people here, would be offended by your identifying Gonzaga or Prep or even St John’s “second tier”. For this group, the Catholic schools are the top tier and they very rarely even consider sending their kids to non-Catholic private schools including the Big 3 or Big 5. These schools are where the Catholic lawyers, doctors, etc. send their kids.

From what I see, St John’s appeals to several groups:

Legacies – St Johns has a large group of alumni who have strong feelings about the school even though the St Johns of today is vastly different from the one they attended through 2000. It used to be all boys with a significant military presence. The school went into a deep dive in the 1990’s and alumni helped resurrect it. The new buildings and athletic fields bear the names of some of these people.

Catholics from local Parish schools – Who want to continue at a Catholic high school and 90%+ of them do. Many of these parishes are located in NW DC and Montgomery County. St John’s does very, very well attracting students from these parishes. The school now even challenges Gonzaga and Prep for the best students and athletes including those from families that could pay the sky-high tuition at other schools.

DC Residents looking for an alternative to DCPS.

Non-Catholics looking for a safety school or for a lower-priced alternative to most other private schools. (You appear to be in this group)

Through the years, St John's has done all sorts of things to make itself more attractive. They went co-ed, they have all sorts of academic programs for different kinds of students, and they have invested huge amounts of donated money in athletic fields and the sports programs

I don’t know where you are from, but most areas have large, co-ed Catholic schools that have excellent sports teams and that have a range of students attending. That's what St Johns has become.

If you live close by, go to a St, John's football game this Fall. You'll see the student body and the alumni and get a sense of the energy of the place. The experience will answer questions you wouldn't even think af asking.

OP: Gotcha, thanks. Definitely didn't mean to offend anyone so glad to know that categorizing these schools as second tier could come off as insulting. We're non-practicing Catholics from the Midwest where most of the Catholic schools are single sex. We're in DCPS now and probably will look at local parish schools in the next couple of years. I went to a place that seems similar to what I think I know about NCS. Academically very rigorous, bad at sports. Good idea on the football game. Probably will do that!

As I wrote above, StJohn’s went co-Ed because it had allowed itself to be driven into a ditch enrollment-wise.

While others that are chiming in about the dominance of sports there, there’s more to it than that. I am always surprised to hear that kids I felt sure would end up at one of the Catholic “Big 4” (Prep and Gonzaga for boys and Visitation and Stone Ridge for girls) instead opted for St Johns.

I marvel at what the school has been able to achieve.

I admit I had to laugh at the idea of someone suggesting that Gonzaga was a second tier school in front of a group of purple-clad moms. Sort of like hitting a hornets nest with a stick.

Good counsel also went coned around the same time. I assume same with O’Connell. There was a massive drop off in kids born in the early 70s so the school had no choice. Immaculate in dc closed entirely.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unnecessary to correct misstatements of fact?

You should know you’re not allowed to say anything about Sidwell that can remotely be perceived as a compliment. If you dare, someone will race to the post to put you “snobby Sidwell parents” in your place!

Please. The thread is expressly NOT about Sidwell. Second, it wasn't a misstatement. PP offered an average range among a group of schools for a broad comparison. So yes, unnecessary to point out this year's actual number for one of those schools. Nobody cares if it's 10, 11, or zero.

This thread may not be about Sidwell, but the OP mentioned Sidwell in his/her initial post. Since then, several other posters have invoked Sidwell’s name. In case you weren’t aware, conversations are allowed to organically evolve and include additional information.

Btw, Sidwell’s average number of NMSFs over the past 3 years is ~12 so the PP would still be wrong. You don’t have to care about the number of Sidwell’s NMSFs, but I care about accuracy. I will continue to correct the record where I see fit. You will deal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unnecessary to correct misstatements of fact?

You should know you’re not allowed to say anything about Sidwell that can remotely be perceived as a compliment. If you dare, someone will race to the post to put you “snobby Sidwell parents” in your place!

Please. The thread is expressly NOT about Sidwell. Second, it wasn't a misstatement. PP offered an average range among a group of schools for a broad comparison. So yes, unnecessary to point out this year's actual number for one of those schools. Nobody cares if it's 10, 11, or zero.

This thread may not be about Sidwell, but the OP mentioned Sidwell in his/her initial post. Since then, several other posters have invoked Sidwell’s name. In case you weren’t aware, conversations are allowed to organically evolve and include additional information.

Btw, Sidwell’s average number of NMSFs over the past 3 years is ~12 so the PP would still be wrong. You don’t have to care about the number of Sidwell’s NMSFs, but I care about accuracy. I will continue to correct the record where I see fit. You will deal.

Ok, Tracy Flick.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unnecessary to correct misstatements of fact?

You should know you’re not allowed to say anything about Sidwell that can remotely be perceived as a compliment. If you dare, someone will race to the post to put you “snobby Sidwell parents” in your place!

Please. The thread is expressly NOT about Sidwell. Second, it wasn't a misstatement. PP offered an average range among a group of schools for a broad comparison. So yes, unnecessary to point out this year's actual number for one of those schools. Nobody cares if it's 10, 11, or zero.

This thread may not be about Sidwell, but the OP mentioned Sidwell in his/her initial post. Since then, several other posters have invoked Sidwell’s name. In case you weren’t aware, conversations are allowed to organically evolve and include additional information.

Btw, Sidwell’s average number of NMSFs over the past 3 years is ~12 so the PP would still be wrong. You don’t have to care about the number of Sidwell’s NMSFs, but I care about accuracy. I will continue to correct the record where I see fit. You will deal.

Point taken. You can now f**k off.

I doubt you actually care that much about accuracy in general, so let's not pull shit like that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unnecessary to correct misstatements of fact?

You should know you’re not allowed to say anything about Sidwell that can remotely be perceived as a compliment. If you dare, someone will race to the post to put you “snobby Sidwell parents” in your place!

Sidwell?

Isn’t that where Protestants teach Jews to be good Quakers?

Aren’t you clever. 🙄

I'd like to take credit for it, but it's a characterization that's been around here for decades. It's accepted by many as being pretty much accurate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unnecessary to correct misstatements of fact?

You should know you’re not allowed to say anything about Sidwell that can remotely be perceived as a compliment. If you dare, someone will race to the post to put you “snobby Sidwell parents” in your place!

Please. The thread is expressly NOT about Sidwell. Second, it wasn't a misstatement. PP offered an average range among a group of schools for a broad comparison. So yes, unnecessary to point out this year's actual number for one of those schools. Nobody cares if it's 10, 11, or zero.

This thread may not be about Sidwell, but the OP mentioned Sidwell in his/her initial post. Since then, several other posters have invoked Sidwell’s name. In case you weren’t aware, conversations are allowed to organically evolve and include additional information.

Btw, Sidwell’s average number of NMSFs over the past 3 years is ~12 so the PP would still be wrong. You don’t have to care about the number of Sidwell’s NMSFs, but I care about accuracy. I will continue to correct the record where I see fit. You will deal.

Point taken. You can now f**k off.

I doubt you actually care that much about accuracy in general, so let's not pull shit like that.

You first.

[Anonymous]

Lacrosse.

(reflex)

SJC is nicer than a lot of colleges we toured. Have not met anyone that regretted sending their child there. Very good reputation. Lots of student support.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unnecessary to correct misstatements of fact?

You should know you’re not allowed to say anything about Sidwell that can remotely be perceived as a compliment. If you dare, someone will race to the post to put you “snobby Sidwell parents” in your place!

Please. The thread is expressly NOT about Sidwell. Second, it wasn't a misstatement. PP offered an average range among a group of schools for a broad comparison. So yes, unnecessary to point out this year's actual number for one of those schools. Nobody cares if it's 10, 11, or zero.

This thread may not be about Sidwell, but the OP mentioned Sidwell in his/her initial post. Since then, several other posters have invoked Sidwell’s name. In case you weren’t aware, conversations are allowed to organically evolve and include additional information.

Btw, Sidwell’s average number of NMSFs over the past 3 years is ~12 so the PP would still be wrong. You don’t have to care about the number of Sidwell’s NMSFs, but I care about accuracy. I will continue to correct the record where I see fit. You will deal.

Point taken. You can now f**k off.

I doubt you actually care that much about accuracy in general, so let's not pull shit like that.

You first.

I and others have been adding to the SJC discussion, while you are here to simply try to correct the record on Sidwell.

You obviously don't have anything to offer on SJC.

I am sure there is some thread about STA or GDS where someone has mistakenly attributed something or other to Sidwell. Your talents are needed elsewhere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unnecessary to correct misstatements of fact?

You should know you’re not allowed to say anything about Sidwell that can remotely be perceived as a compliment. If you dare, someone will race to the post to put you “snobby Sidwell parents” in your place!

Please. The thread is expressly NOT about Sidwell. Second, it wasn't a misstatement. PP offered an average range among a group of schools for a broad comparison. So yes, unnecessary to point out this year's actual number for one of those schools. Nobody cares if it's 10, 11, or zero.

This thread may not be about Sidwell, but the OP mentioned Sidwell in his/her initial post. Since then, several other posters have invoked Sidwell’s name. In case you weren’t aware, conversations are allowed to organically evolve and include additional information.

Btw, Sidwell’s average number of NMSFs over the past 3 years is ~12 so the PP would still be wrong. You don’t have to care about the number of Sidwell’s NMSFs, but I care about accuracy. I will continue to correct the record where I see fit. You will deal.

Point taken. You can now f**k off.

I doubt you actually care that much about accuracy in general, so let's not pull shit like that.

You first.

I and others have been adding to the SJC discussion, while you are here to simply try to correct the record on Sidwell.

You obviously don't have anything to offer on SJC.

I am sure there is some thread about STA or GDS where someone has mistakenly attributed something or other to Sidwell. Your talents are needed elsewhere.

My abundant talents will be shared when and where I see fit. You don’t have to like it.

Btw OP, SJC seems like a perfectly fine “normal” private Catholic school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s essentially IMG with weekly Mass, plus a healthy smattering of DCPS refugees whose parents prioritized a whole-house reno /addition in NWDC at some point over paying school tuitions. They kept the kids in DCPS for too long and now don’t have other HS options since Walls didn’t pan out.

IOW this PP is entirely ignorant on this subject.

It’s a troll but I laughed. Gonna work “IMG with weekly Mass” into my passive aggressive cocktail chats.

IMG with weekly Mass is the new Public School with Tuition. I don't believe either about SJC, for the record I think it's a great school, but I think this is funny.

"Wilson with tuition" was the classic taunt, but just doesn't rhyme as well since it would have to be "Jackson Reed with tuition" now.

However it would be more accurate to say "coed Gonzaga with less latin"

Or Coed Gonzaga without all the parents who are trying to relive their high school experience. "The mom's in purple.....is very sad"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unnecessary to correct misstatements of fact?

You should know you’re not allowed to say anything about Sidwell that can remotely be perceived as a compliment. If you dare, someone will race to the post to put you “snobby Sidwell parents” in your place!

Please. The thread is expressly NOT about Sidwell. Second, it wasn't a misstatement. PP offered an average range among a group of schools for a broad comparison. So yes, unnecessary to point out this year's actual number for one of those schools. Nobody cares if it's 10, 11, or zero.

This thread may not be about Sidwell, but the OP mentioned Sidwell in his/her initial post. Since then, several other posters have invoked Sidwell’s name. In case you weren’t aware, conversations are allowed to organically evolve and include additional information.

Btw, Sidwell’s average number of NMSFs over the past 3 years is ~12 so the PP would still be wrong. You don’t have to care about the number of Sidwell’s NMSFs, but I care about accuracy. I will continue to correct the record where I see fit. You will deal.

NP. You’re either terribly insecure, anal, OCD or on the spectrum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why is the class size so large at SJC? I was surprised to hear from several colleagues that just moved from Shac that their classes were the same size as many public schools.

Please let us know which local public schools have similar class sizes to SJC?

[Anonymous]

’The mom's in purple.....is very sad"

Actually, it isn’t for many of us. I supported my kid’s Catholic K8 also. I was not an outlier.

- kids at both schools and own both purple and red gear