Wouldn't it be easier for your child to stand out in an average/low rated school vs a high rated?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I heard it would be easier for a student with a high GPA graduating from a low rated school than it is the other way around

This can be true, but with a big caveat. The problem with being the kid with a high GPA from a lower performing school is that colleges know that students from lower performing schools are less likely to be prepared for college, even with a high GPA, so the high GPA isn't enough; you need other corroborating achievements to demonstrate a high level of college readiness. A kid with a slightly lower GPA from a more rigorous high school will have already demonstrated college readiness by their performance in the context of their school so they don't need as much corroboration; they will instead have to find other achievements as a way to stand out.

...and they will have a large cohort also competing against them. Yes, schools like Lee and Stuart have small percentages of students going to competitive schools, but it’s easier to be in that group. Any admissions officer will tell you this. Also, they are looking for geographic diversity. The over saturation of competitive students is working against you- really from any high school in nova.

If they are looking for geographic diversity, they aren't going to care if it comes from George Mason or Marshall, rather than Stuart. They probably don't care if it comes from Falls Church, either, rather than Fairfax. It's all NoVa.

It really is BS to think kids at the better schools are disadvantaged. If it were otherwise, you'd see people trying to take advantage of the system by grooming their kid to be the top kid at Lee. Does. Not. Happen.

Because people are afraid. Parents are genuinely worried about what happens at a school like Lee. Which is understandable. It’s still easier to be in the top 2% at Lee as opposed to Mclean. It’s not personal. Just Math.
You roll the dice no matter what you do with your kids. The best idea is to pay attention and make a change if needed. Most people aren’t clairvoyant. Looking back many people realize their children would have been fine almost anywhere, but it’s understandable people want assurances when kids are little. Picking a GS 8 is simple and reassuring to people.

Not sure about Lee, but the top schools for Annandale HS last year were NoVa and George Mason. For Langley, they were Virginia Tech and JMU. Langley also had 37 kids going to UVA or W&M. Annandale had 13, and only one going to W&M.

Or we can look at the Ivies + Stanford. Langley had eight kids going to those schools; Annandale had none.

So go ahead and tell me it's better to be in the top 2% at Annandale or Lee, but I'm not buying it.

Wait. You are telling me the very best school any Annandale student was admitted to was GMU?

The best schools seemed to be UVA (12), W&M (1) and Carnegie-Mellon (1).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I heard it would be easier for a student with a high GPA graduating from a low rated school than it is the other way around

This can be true, but with a big caveat. The problem with being the kid with a high GPA from a lower performing school is that colleges know that students from lower performing schools are less likely to be prepared for college, even with a high GPA, so the high GPA isn't enough; you need other corroborating achievements to demonstrate a high level of college readiness. A kid with a slightly lower GPA from a more rigorous high school will have already demonstrated college readiness by their performance in the context of their school so they don't need as much corroboration; they will instead have to find other achievements as a way to stand out.

...and they will have a large cohort also competing against them. Yes, schools like Lee and Stuart have small percentages of students going to competitive schools, but it’s easier to be in that group. Any admissions officer will tell you this. Also, they are looking for geographic diversity. The over saturation of competitive students is working against you- really from any high school in nova.

If they are looking for geographic diversity, they aren't going to care if it comes from George Mason or Marshall, rather than Stuart. They probably don't care if it comes from Falls Church, either, rather than Fairfax. It's all NoVa.

It really is BS to think kids at the better schools are disadvantaged. If it were otherwise, you'd see people trying to take advantage of the system by grooming their kid to be the top kid at Lee. Does. Not. Happen.

Because people are afraid. Parents are genuinely worried about what happens at a school like Lee. Which is understandable. It’s still easier to be in the top 2% at Lee as opposed to Mclean. It’s not personal. Just Math.
You roll the dice no matter what you do with your kids. The best idea is to pay attention and make a change if needed. Most people aren’t clairvoyant. Looking back many people realize their children would have been fine almost anywhere, but it’s understandable people want assurances when kids are little. Picking a GS 8 is simple and reassuring to people.

Not sure about Lee, but the top schools for Annandale HS last year were NoVa and George Mason. For Langley, they were Virginia Tech and JMU. Langley also had 37 kids going to UVA or W&M. Annandale had 13, and only one going to W&M.

Or we can look at the Ivies + Stanford. Langley had eight kids going to those schools; Annandale had none.

So go ahead and tell me it's better to be in the top 2% at Annandale or Lee, but I'm not buying it.

Wait. You are telling me the very best school any Annandale student was admitted to was GMU?

The best schools seemed to be UVA (12), W&M (1) and Carnegie-Mellon (1).

Cool. So it’s a very small cohort, but basically confirms that a great student would excell at Annandale. Thank you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Not sure about Lee, but the top schools for Annandale HS last year were NoVa and George Mason. For Langley, they were Virginia Tech and JMU. Langley also had 37 kids going to UVA or W&M. Annandale had 13, and only one going to W&M.

Or we can look at the Ivies + Stanford. Langley had eight kids going to those schools; Annandale had none.

So go ahead and tell me it's better to be in the top 2% at Annandale or Lee, but I'm not buying it.

At least part of this comes down to bad advising and parents not knowing what the possibilities are. A student with an ambitious courseload, good ECs, good scores, and excellent grades has a very strong chance at Lee and Annandale. My kids went to a similarly ranked and similarly disparaged FFX school and were accepted to UVA and W&M, as well as excellent out of state schools. Our experience was that the counseling advice was atrocious and had they not had knowledgeable parents they would not have been encouraged to apply or understood what courseload was needed, etc.

Compare that, then, to a higher-ranked school where this information is well-known by parents, students, and counselors. It makes a difference when this is part of the school’s DNA. At schools like Lee and Annandale the primary focus is on keeping kids on track to pass SOLs and graduate. It’s great if a few kids ace their IB exams, but it’s the pass/graduation rates of the kids who barely speak English that determine whether the schools remain accredited and whether the principal eventually lands a cushy job at Gatehouse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I heard it would be easier for a student with a high GPA graduating from a low rated school than it is the other way around

This can be true, but with a big caveat. The problem with being the kid with a high GPA from a lower performing school is that colleges know that students from lower performing schools are less likely to be prepared for college, even with a high GPA, so the high GPA isn't enough; you need other corroborating achievements to demonstrate a high level of college readiness. A kid with a slightly lower GPA from a more rigorous high school will have already demonstrated college readiness by their performance in the context of their school so they don't need as much corroboration; they will instead have to find other achievements as a way to stand out.

...and they will have a large cohort also competing against them. Yes, schools like Lee and Stuart have small percentages of students going to competitive schools, but it’s easier to be in that group. Any admissions officer will tell you this. Also, they are looking for geographic diversity. The over saturation of competitive students is working against you- really from any high school in nova.

If they are looking for geographic diversity, they aren't going to care if it comes from George Mason or Marshall, rather than Stuart. They probably don't care if it comes from Falls Church, either, rather than Fairfax. It's all NoVa.

It really is BS to think kids at the better schools are disadvantaged. If it were otherwise, you'd see people trying to take advantage of the system by grooming their kid to be the top kid at Lee. Does. Not. Happen.

Because people are afraid. Parents are genuinely worried about what happens at a school like Lee. Which is understandable. It’s still easier to be in the top 2% at Lee as opposed to Mclean. It’s not personal. Just Math.
You roll the dice no matter what you do with your kids. The best idea is to pay attention and make a change if needed. Most people aren’t clairvoyant. Looking back many people realize their children would have been fine almost anywhere, but it’s understandable people want assurances when kids are little. Picking a GS 8 is simple and reassuring to people.

Not sure about Lee, but the top schools for Annandale HS last year were NoVa and George Mason. For Langley, they were Virginia Tech and JMU. Langley also had 37 kids going to UVA or W&M. Annandale had 13, and only one going to W&M.

Or we can look at the Ivies + Stanford. Langley had eight kids going to those schools; Annandale had none.

So go ahead and tell me it's better to be in the top 2% at Annandale or Lee, but I'm not buying it.

Wait. You are telling me the very best school any Annandale student was admitted to was GMU?

The best schools seemed to be UVA (12), W&M (1) and Carnegie-Mellon (1).

Cool. So it’s a very small cohort, but basically confirms that a great student would excell at Annandale. Thank you.

It is definitely a small number, and you should infer what you wish. Some have suggested such students don’t need to excel, as long as they are in the top 2% at their school (which translates into about 10 kids at Annandale).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s a hard fact to swallow when we all pay so much more to cluster around a few schools. Your umc, high achieving, ambitious, competitive kid; would also be all of those things at ... Annandale, Stuart, TC, Wakefield, Lee...
They aren’t going to join a gang. They will still have the opportunity to be on debate team, or sing in choir. I always assume posters disparaging the lower rated schools, are from elsewhere and just don’t understand that NOVA isn’t Newark.

I agree that top flight kids will do well at either type of school....but....by definition, most kids are not "top flight". So if you have a kid who is not super motivated or talented, should you put that kid in a school where the admin might be attending more to the needier kids (behavior, economic needs, academically behind), or do you put you child in a school where the admin and students are all focussed on achieving with the hope that that influences your kid?

That's the question parents have to answer if your kid isn't super impressive heading into MS or HS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I agree that top flight kids will do well at either type of school....but....by definition, most kids are not "top flight". So if you have a kid who is not super motivated or talented, should you put that kid in a school where the admin might be attending more to the needier kids (behavior, economic needs, academically behind), or do you put you child in a school where the admin and students are all focussed on achieving with the hope that that influences your kid?

That's the question parents have to answer if your kid isn't super impressive heading into MS or HS.

It's a gamble whether the more competitive, driven environment will motivate vs discourage a not super motivated kid. One thing is sure:
if you are on this board having this conversation, your kid will be fine. Your kid already has parents who are motivated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I agree that top flight kids will do well at either type of school....but....by definition, most kids are not "top flight". So if you have a kid who is not super motivated or talented, should you put that kid in a school where the admin might be attending more to the needier kids (behavior, economic needs, academically behind), or do you put you child in a school where the admin and students are all focussed on achieving with the hope that that influences your kid?

That's the question parents have to answer if your kid isn't super impressive heading into MS or HS.

It's a gamble whether the more competitive, driven environment will motivate vs discourage a not super motivated kid. One thing is sure:
if you are on this board having this conversation, your kid will be fine. Your kid already has parents who are motivated.

Well, or at least insecure about whether they are doing the right thing...

[Anonymous]

Interesting that Wilson HS in the district has similar Ivy admit rate to McLean HS. Not sure what to make of that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Interesting that Wilson HS in the district has similar Ivy admit rate to McLean HS. Not sure what to make of that.

You could always start with a source. In any event, Wilson isn't in NoVa. It's essentially the flagship public school in DCPS, with over 40% of the students transferring from their base schools.

If you want to post the full set of college destinations for Wilson students, I'll chase down McLean's.

[Anonymous]

We are at a highly rated elementary school. my children are average and my 9 year old feels like she's "not one of the smart kids." In hindsight, a lower rated school would have been better for us. I want my children to do their best, they don't have to be the best, and while average would horrify some of the parents in our school, we are perfectly fine with that. This is a great question OP. DH and I are conflicted about whether we should move.

[Anonymous]

Why do you assume that a poor school rating is solely based on the students? What if the teachers are horrible?

[Anonymous]

Working hard enough to be at the tippy-top academically has a lot to do with personality. Few students want to shine, to that degree, and be noticed.

[Anonymous]

Highly rated is misleading. See this thread - http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/686371.page

And specifically this, re Great Schools-
"his is also why other schools in the area have dropped in the Great Schools ranking. They recently adjusted the ranking methodology to factor how minorities fair at the school. McLean HS is a good example - as the GS ranking is now 7/10. Funny how in US News and other rankings claim schools like these are among the top 1% of High School's in the NATION (that's out of roughly 32,000 PUBLIC High Schools) based on test scores etc and then Great Schools says "Meh, you're a 7/10" because a small portion of the student body under performs the majority (though I'm certain some will take offense to putting it that bluntly). Great Schools also ranks based on state/region which not everyone realizes - so they mistakenly think a 9/10 school in Montana is the same effectively as a 9/10 school in Northern Virginia. As someone who has taught at pubic schools in MD and VA I find the Great Schools rating rather misleading to the uninformed. "


and this: "All Arlington schools are quite good in a bigger sense. Compare, for example, Great Falls HS in Montana vs Wakefield. Great Falls has a 7 to Wakefield's 3. Wakefield students are 80ish% proficient on state tests, which is below the state average and therefore a negative to the overall score. Great Falls students are 48% proficient which is sadly, above the state average, so this boosts GS score. All down the list, GF students are above the state average (which is abysmal!) but this boosts the overall score. Students at Wakefield are doing far better overall by this measure, but bc they are slightly below the state average they get a bad score. Yes, Yorktown has better scores than Wakefield. But lets keep some perspective here."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Why do you assume that a poor school rating is solely based on the students? What if the teachers are horrible?

That would be terrible!
But not relevant to a discussion about FCPS/ APS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We are at a highly rated elementary school. my children are average and my 9 year old feels like she's "not one of the smart kids." In hindsight, a lower rated school would have been better for us. I want my children to do their best, they don't have to be the best, and while average would horrify some of the parents in our school, we are perfectly fine with that. This is a great question OP. DH and I are conflicted about whether we should move.

OP here. I'm thinking the same for my kids, at least for elementary. Not too low of a rating, just average.