do college admissions get ugly at the Big3 when all the parents are Ivy grads?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

People have explained this already and why they believe it would be helpful to them. If you disagree, that’s fine. But can you explain why you think the school should not publish a list, or why you think publishing a list would actually be a negative or bad thing?

It is not up to the school to provide you with a list of where current seniors are going to be matriculating or where the class of 2021 ended up etc.

So if you want to know that Larla went to Harvard and Larlo went to Chicago, that is none of your business. If you are friends with Larlo or Larla's parents, they will tell you. If your kid is friends with them, they will tell your kid. Otherwise, it just isn't your concern.

Add to it, if what you want is "here is where the class of 2021 went to college" and it is just a list of schools, how does that help you or your kid? Or how is it any different than the aggregate list the school already provides?

If you perceive that your kid is like Bobby and are interested where Bobby went to school, and you find out he is at Michigan, but your kid only wants to go to a SLAC, then what difference does it make knowing where Bobby went?

*** If you perceive that your kid is like Bobby and are interested where Bobby went to school ***

The above is exactly why the list would be useful.

But the list isn't going to tell you it was Bobby. You'd have to know that on your own, in which case you didn't need the list.

Some independent schools publish in their magazine a list with the graduates' names and their college destination. Both my spouse's and my school do this; one of them actually has a nice write-up about each student that includes their college destination. It's not viewed as a cut-throat thing, as opposed to celebrating and honoring the graduates and their achievements with the entire community, which includes where they are going to college. And I know that students have gotten offers of help and/or advice from alumni of the high school who also went to the same college, which have led to internship offers and other connections, as a result of these write-ups. I've also seen schools publish such a list in the "senior edition" of the school newspaper at the end of the year, which friends have shared with me.

Someone pointed out earlier that Sidwell profiles in their magazine the student-athletes including where they are going to college. And they just had a huge thing for Kiki about her college choice. Really, what's the difference between profiling the athletes and identifying where others are going to college? If a student wanted to opt out of course they could do so.

Sure - some schools do those lists, but plenty don't. I don't see what the big deal is if a school chooses not to do it.

Regarding the athletes, presumably they have the student's consent when they do the profile, and in the case of high-profile recruits, that information is public already.

either way, if Sidwell isn't doing it, probably makes more sense to ask Sidwell why they don't do it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:After 20 pages, OP, I think you have your answer.

Actually list still not helpful bc how do you really know how your kid compares to Bobby. Bobby’s hard stats are really only 50% of the equation. You don’t know the rest, which might include great recommendations, or amazing extracurriculars, etc. Also, you are compared only to your own individual class. Just because someone gets into Amherst one year, doesn’t guarantee that a similar kid will get in the following year. The profile of what a college wants changes.

As does the profile of the kids applying each year. For example, maybe there was only 1 "Bobby" applying to that college in that year, but your kid's class has 3 kids like Bobby all applying to the same school. You never know who Bobby was competing against in his class or who your child is competing against either. All you know is enrollment (and for some kids you know well, acceptances). Enrollment lists aren't enough, you need to know applications, acceptances, enrollment. And even that isn't helpful if the same kid is counted in acceptances of all the top schools.

But this information is better than a shot in the dark? And 1 of the many datapoints the senior will use to guide him or her? Don't you agree?

Transparency in any process is useful, unless the school is trying to manipulate who goes where.

Exactly right.

PP, some of the commenters on this thread—including those you responded to—are defending Sidwell’s lack of transparency by building straw man arguments. You are saying “more information is good and would be helpful as another piece in the puzzle” and they are characterizing your comments as assets g “more information will tell me exactly where my kid will get in to college and provide me with guarantees.” And so then they tell you that you’re wrong, because no information can satisfy the nonexistent need that they have falsely concocted for you. They defend lack of transparency without explaining why it is necessary or why Sidwell providing more information would be a bad thing.

There isn't a lack of transparency. The aggregate data is more useful than a single year. Many other schools also do not share a single year because there is no meaning to it in a vacuum for the purposes the "pro-list" poster seems to think it will provide.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP is explaining why information would be helpful to them, and in response you are saying “actually, pp, you are wrong, that information would not be helpful to you.” How can you know that? Who are you to say what would, or wouldn’t, be helpful to them? Maybe the info wouldn’t be helpful for you, but you’re not the pp. Or others who have the same perspective as pp.

Because objectively speaking, where people from one class went has zero bearing on following years. There are way too many variables to simply suggest that because Larlo went to school X and Larla went to school Y that there is any correlation whatsoever to a future applicant. It borders on completely meaningless.

Yep. That’s why no one uses Naviance. Totally useless. Data are silly, just use anecdotes or, better yet, the Force.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Ok, so please educate me as to how this list helps inform anything for your child.

A list like this would actually tell me a lot and provide my student with a lot of helpful contextual information. But all the explaining in this discussion appears to be one way. So please educate me as to why Sidwell should not provide such a list and why it would be a bad thing for them to do so.

You haven’t explained how this list helps. What contextual info are you talking about?

Explanations have been provided repeatedly over the course of this discussion. You just don’t agree with them or think it would be helpful.

On the other hand, you haven’t explained why Sidwell shouldn’t provide such a list, or why it would be a bad thing for them to do so. Can you do so?

i'm not the PP, I think the list is marginally interesting from the standpoint of how the school is doing. It's probably a loose proxy for the effectiveness of the college office as well.

However, it seems that this list, absent any context is potentially misleading. They can't tell you what student got in where, so if someone was an athletic recruit, say, you have no way of knowing. It seems very easy to draw the wrong conclusions from a list like this. Then the college office is trying to steer someone towards a more realistic set of schools but they're constantly having the list thrust in their faces.

This is a good part of an explanation. I would venture a guess that Sidwell learned it's lesson along the way of the pitfalls of sharing specific lists each year. Chances are at some point in time some nutter parents (maybe like those linked in the article on page 1) ruined it for the rest of you.

*its (ugh)

I know you’ve acknowledged that you are guessing here. But if that is the reason, it would be good for any of Bryan, Mamadou, or Lauren to acknowledge it. Because a climate of secrecy and lack of transparency as a defense against or response to lowest common denominator parents is really no way to run a school, or a college counseling office. Every school has difficult and/or problematic parents. Most independent school experts would say that an environment of secrecy just encourages the more conspiracy-minded among them to engage in bad behavior. And that there are other ways that a school can create an environment that discourages and guards against bad parent behavior.

The school hasn't generated a class list in years, maybe decades. Nothing to do with the events of three years ago.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP is explaining why information would be helpful to them, and in response you are saying “actually, pp, you are wrong, that information would not be helpful to you.” How can you know that? Who are you to say what would, or wouldn’t, be helpful to them? Maybe the info wouldn’t be helpful for you, but you’re not the pp. Or others who have the same perspective as pp.

Because objectively speaking, where people from one class went has zero bearing on following years. There are way too many variables to simply suggest that because Larlo went to school X and Larla went to school Y that there is any correlation whatsoever to a future applicant. It borders on completely meaningless.

But you're not hearing what they are saying about why they think it would be helpful, for them. You're just creating your own reasons as to why you think they believe it would be helpful, and then you're shooting down the reasons that you've created.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Some independent schools publish in their magazine a list with the graduates' names and their college destination. Both my spouse's and my school do this; one of them actually has a nice write-up about each student that includes their college destination. It's not viewed as a cut-throat thing, as opposed to celebrating and honoring the graduates and their achievements with the entire community, which includes where they are going to college. And I know that students have gotten offers of help and/or advice from alumni of the high school who also went to the same college, which have led to internship offers and other connections, as a result of these write-ups. I've also seen schools publish such a list in the "senior edition" of the school newspaper at the end of the year, which friends have shared with me.

Can you name any Quaker schools that do this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP is explaining why information would be helpful to them, and in response you are saying “actually, pp, you are wrong, that information would not be helpful to you.” How can you know that? Who are you to say what would, or wouldn’t, be helpful to them? Maybe the info wouldn’t be helpful for you, but you’re not the pp. Or others who have the same perspective as pp.

Because objectively speaking, where people from one class went has zero bearing on following years. There are way too many variables to simply suggest that because Larlo went to school X and Larla went to school Y that there is any correlation whatsoever to a future applicant. It borders on completely meaningless.

Yep. That’s why no one uses Naviance. Totally useless. Data are silly, just use anecdotes or, better yet, the Force.

Naviance is basically a more detailed versions of the aggregate list.

If you had Naviance for just the class of 2021, there would not be enough data for the scattergrams to be usefuly. Get it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP is explaining why information would be helpful to them, and in response you are saying “actually, pp, you are wrong, that information would not be helpful to you.” How can you know that? Who are you to say what would, or wouldn’t, be helpful to them? Maybe the info wouldn’t be helpful for you, but you’re not the pp. Or others who have the same perspective as pp.

Because objectively speaking, where people from one class went has zero bearing on following years. There are way too many variables to simply suggest that because Larlo went to school X and Larla went to school Y that there is any correlation whatsoever to a future applicant. It borders on completely meaningless.

Yep. That’s why no one uses Naviance. Totally useless. Data are silly, just use anecdotes or, better yet, the Force.

Naviance is basically a more detailed versions of the aggregate list.

If you had Naviance for just the class of 2021, there would not be enough data for the scattergrams to be usefuly. Get it?

You’re the only one suggesting that the list would be for a single year. Others are saying Sidwell should produce a list every year. Stop erecting strawmen arguments. Get it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:After 20 pages, OP, I think you have your answer.

Actually list still not helpful bc how do you really know how your kid compares to Bobby. Bobby’s hard stats are really only 50% of the equation. You don’t know the rest, which might include great recommendations, or amazing extracurriculars, etc. Also, you are compared only to your own individual class. Just because someone gets into Amherst one year, doesn’t guarantee that a similar kid will get in the following year. The profile of what a college wants changes.

As does the profile of the kids applying each year. For example, maybe there was only 1 "Bobby" applying to that college in that year, but your kid's class has 3 kids like Bobby all applying to the same school. You never know who Bobby was competing against in his class or who your child is competing against either. All you know is enrollment (and for some kids you know well, acceptances). Enrollment lists aren't enough, you need to know applications, acceptances, enrollment. And even that isn't helpful if the same kid is counted in acceptances of all the top schools.

But this information is better than a shot in the dark? And 1 of the many datapoints the senior will use to guide him or her? Don't you agree?

Transparency in any process is useful, unless the school is trying to manipulate who goes where.

Exactly right.

PP, some of the commenters on this thread—including those you responded to—are defending Sidwell’s lack of transparency by building straw man arguments. You are saying “more information is good and would be helpful as another piece in the puzzle” and they are characterizing your comments as assets g “more information will tell me exactly where my kid will get in to college and provide me with guarantees.” And so then they tell you that you’re wrong, because no information can satisfy the nonexistent need that they have falsely concocted for you. They defend lack of transparency without explaining why it is necessary or why Sidwell providing more information would be a bad thing.

There isn't a lack of transparency. The aggregate data is more useful than a single year. Many other schools also do not share a single year because there is no meaning to it in a vacuum for the purposes the "pro-list" poster seems to think it will provide.

Once again, Sidwell does not share aggregate data. They share a list a list that covers all colleges that any graduate has attended over the prior six years, and identifies in bold those colleges that 5 or more graduates have attended over the 6 year period. That's not even aggregating data, to the extent it doesn't distinguish between 1, 2 and 4, and it doesn't distinguish between 5 and 23.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:After 20 pages, OP, I think you have your answer.

Actually list still not helpful bc how do you really know how your kid compares to Bobby. Bobby’s hard stats are really only 50% of the equation. You don’t know the rest, which might include great recommendations, or amazing extracurriculars, etc. Also, you are compared only to your own individual class. Just because someone gets into Amherst one year, doesn’t guarantee that a similar kid will get in the following year. The profile of what a college wants changes.

As does the profile of the kids applying each year. For example, maybe there was only 1 "Bobby" applying to that college in that year, but your kid's class has 3 kids like Bobby all applying to the same school. You never know who Bobby was competing against in his class or who your child is competing against either. All you know is enrollment (and for some kids you know well, acceptances). Enrollment lists aren't enough, you need to know applications, acceptances, enrollment. And even that isn't helpful if the same kid is counted in acceptances of all the top schools.

But this information is better than a shot in the dark? And 1 of the many datapoints the senior will use to guide him or her? Don't you agree?

Transparency in any process is useful, unless the school is trying to manipulate who goes where.

More importantly, a school that is (likely not) manipulating who goes where avoids any concerns about that possibilty by being transparent. Perceptions matter to morale, among other things.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP is explaining why information would be helpful to them, and in response you are saying “actually, pp, you are wrong, that information would not be helpful to you.” How can you know that? Who are you to say what would, or wouldn’t, be helpful to them? Maybe the info wouldn’t be helpful for you, but you’re not the pp. Or others who have the same perspective as pp.

Because objectively speaking, where people from one class went has zero bearing on following years. There are way too many variables to simply suggest that because Larlo went to school X and Larla went to school Y that there is any correlation whatsoever to a future applicant. It borders on completely meaningless.

Yep. That’s why no one uses Naviance. Totally useless. Data are silly, just use anecdotes or, better yet, the Force.

Naviance is basically a more detailed versions of the aggregate list.

If you had Naviance for just the class of 2021, there would not be enough data for the scattergrams to be usefuly. Get it?

You’re the only one suggesting that the list would be for a single year. Others are saying Sidwell should produce a list every year. Stop erecting strawmen arguments. Get it?

The aggregate list combined with Naviance is sufficient for what you claim to want or need.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:After 20 pages, OP, I think you have your answer.

Actually list still not helpful bc how do you really know how your kid compares to Bobby. Bobby’s hard stats are really only 50% of the equation. You don’t know the rest, which might include great recommendations, or amazing extracurriculars, etc. Also, you are compared only to your own individual class. Just because someone gets into Amherst one year, doesn’t guarantee that a similar kid will get in the following year. The profile of what a college wants changes.

As does the profile of the kids applying each year. For example, maybe there was only 1 "Bobby" applying to that college in that year, but your kid's class has 3 kids like Bobby all applying to the same school. You never know who Bobby was competing against in his class or who your child is competing against either. All you know is enrollment (and for some kids you know well, acceptances). Enrollment lists aren't enough, you need to know applications, acceptances, enrollment. And even that isn't helpful if the same kid is counted in acceptances of all the top schools.

But this information is better than a shot in the dark? And 1 of the many datapoints the senior will use to guide him or her? Don't you agree?

Transparency in any process is useful, unless the school is trying to manipulate who goes where.

Exactly right.

PP, some of the commenters on this thread—including those you responded to—are defending Sidwell’s lack of transparency by building straw man arguments. You are saying “more information is good and would be helpful as another piece in the puzzle” and they are characterizing your comments as assets g “more information will tell me exactly where my kid will get in to college and provide me with guarantees.” And so then they tell you that you’re wrong, because no information can satisfy the nonexistent need that they have falsely concocted for you. They defend lack of transparency without explaining why it is necessary or why Sidwell providing more information would be a bad thing.

There isn't a lack of transparency. The aggregate data is more useful than a single year. Many other schools also do not share a single year because there is no meaning to it in a vacuum for the purposes the "pro-list" poster seems to think it will provide.

Once again, Sidwell does not share aggregate data. They share a list a list that covers all colleges that any graduate has attended over the prior six years, and identifies in bold those colleges that 5 or more graduates have attended over the 6 year period. That's not even aggregating data, to the extent it doesn't distinguish between 1, 2 and 4, and it doesn't distinguish between 5 and 23.

So you get a sense of where some kids go and where many kids go. It still has no impact on your kid and their record or preferences.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:After 20 pages, OP, I think you have your answer.

Actually list still not helpful bc how do you really know how your kid compares to Bobby. Bobby’s hard stats are really only 50% of the equation. You don’t know the rest, which might include great recommendations, or amazing extracurriculars, etc. Also, you are compared only to your own individual class. Just because someone gets into Amherst one year, doesn’t guarantee that a similar kid will get in the following year. The profile of what a college wants changes.

As does the profile of the kids applying each year. For example, maybe there was only 1 "Bobby" applying to that college in that year, but your kid's class has 3 kids like Bobby all applying to the same school. You never know who Bobby was competing against in his class or who your child is competing against either. All you know is enrollment (and for some kids you know well, acceptances). Enrollment lists aren't enough, you need to know applications, acceptances, enrollment. And even that isn't helpful if the same kid is counted in acceptances of all the top schools.

But this information is better than a shot in the dark? And 1 of the many datapoints the senior will use to guide him or her? Don't you agree?

Transparency in any process is useful, unless the school is trying to manipulate who goes where.

Exactly right.

PP, some of the commenters on this thread—including those you responded to—are defending Sidwell’s lack of transparency by building straw man arguments. You are saying “more information is good and would be helpful as another piece in the puzzle” and they are characterizing your comments as assets g “more information will tell me exactly where my kid will get in to college and provide me with guarantees.” And so then they tell you that you’re wrong, because no information can satisfy the nonexistent need that they have falsely concocted for you. They defend lack of transparency without explaining why it is necessary or why Sidwell providing more information would be a bad thing.

There isn't a lack of transparency. The aggregate data is more useful than a single year. Many other schools also do not share a single year because there is no meaning to it in a vacuum for the purposes the "pro-list" poster seems to think it will provide.

Once again, Sidwell does not share aggregate data. They share a list a list that covers all colleges that any graduate has attended over the prior six years, and identifies in bold those colleges that 5 or more graduates have attended over the 6 year period. That's not even aggregating data, to the extent it doesn't distinguish between 1, 2 and 4, and it doesn't distinguish between 5 and 23.

So you get a sense of where some kids go and where many kids go. It still has no impact on your kid and their record or preferences.

There you go again, making up your own reasons and then shooting them down.

Why not provide actual aggregate data? Someone asked about other Quaker schools; at least Germantown Friends provides true aggregate data. They also make available their school profile, which Sidwell does not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP is explaining why information would be helpful to them, and in response you are saying “actually, pp, you are wrong, that information would not be helpful to you.” How can you know that? Who are you to say what would, or wouldn’t, be helpful to them? Maybe the info wouldn’t be helpful for you, but you’re not the pp. Or others who have the same perspective as pp.

Because objectively speaking, where people from one class went has zero bearing on following years. There are way too many variables to simply suggest that because Larlo went to school X and Larla went to school Y that there is any correlation whatsoever to a future applicant. It borders on completely meaningless.

Yep. That’s why no one uses Naviance. Totally useless. Data are silly, just use anecdotes or, better yet, the Force.

Naviance is basically a more detailed versions of the aggregate list.

If you had Naviance for just the class of 2021, there would not be enough data for the scattergrams to be usefuly. Get it?

You’re the only one suggesting that the list would be for a single year. Others are saying Sidwell should produce a list every year. Stop erecting strawmen arguments. Get it?

The aggregate list combined with Naviance is sufficient for what you claim to want or need.

I don’t have a dog in this anymore (my kids have graduated), but your dogged defense of Sidwell’s position is curious. For reasons of its own, Sidwell doesn’t produce such lists. As you probably know, Sidwell doesn’t even allow you to keep or record the Naviance data (you can only view it on screen with the admissions staff). No one but Sidwell needs to defend its decisions; and it doesn’t seem to be hurting Sidwell at all in the market for students. So be it. Still, you choose to make post after post saying that this decision is not only defensible, but correct, based on the view that more data is meaningless and even harmful. That position seems untenable.

For example, suppose you had matriculation lists for, say, the past 5 years. You could test the assumption that Sidwell seems to place well with Harvard, Yale and Penn, but not so well with Princeton and Brown. Correlation is not causation and exceptions abound, but it is relevant data to see whether some schools consistently admit a relatively large number of Sidwell grads each year.

[Anonymous]

Also, I would not say that "many kids" go to a college if it was one Sidwell grad per year. But that college would be bolded since the list covers a six-year period. On the other hand, five graduates per year at another given college is an entirely different story. Yet Sidwell's list wouldn't distinguish between the two colleges.