Sidwell college advisor leaves

[Anonymous]

His underling was incompetent. He was quite good.

[Anonymous]

No way there were 30 Ivy admits at Sidwell —-Maybe, 15 tops (Sidwell 2019 Mom here)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/on-parenting/when-parents-are-so-desperate-to-get-their-kids-into-college-that-they-sabotage-other-students/2019/04/02/decc6b9e-5159-11e9-88a1-ed346f0ec94f_story.html?utm_term=.08f8bf40cbb2

Wow, and to think I was disappointed when my kids got waitlisted, if I knew then what I know now I would have been grateful not to have been sucked into the Sidwell vortex. What a disaster...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/on-parenting/when-parents-are-so-desperate-to-get-their-kids-into-college-that-they-sabotage-other-students/2019/04/02/decc6b9e-5159-11e9-88a1-ed346f0ec94f_story.html?utm_term=.08f8bf40cbb2

Wow, and to think I was disappointed when my kids got waitlisted, if I knew then what I know now I would have been grateful not to have been sucked into the Sidwell vortex. What a disaster...

Horrid story. Don't know facts. Way outlier for the community. Good riddance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No way there were 30 Ivy admits at Sidwell —-Maybe, 15 tops (Sidwell 2019 Mom here)

Nope. closer to 30. I don't know who you are talking to, but your info is off.

[Anonymous]

Sidwell parent here who just read that article. I think the anonymous parent who was quoted got it right—it’s shocking and doesn’t represent our community, but it’s a sign of the times. People need to get a grip and a conscience and some perspective. Glad that family is leaving.

[Anonymous]

This article is infuriating for two reasons. First, it conflates one jerk parent with parents who break the law – and please cite specific examples of other bad SFS parents. I keep hearing about this one perfect storm anecdote but only vague rumors.

Second, it ignores the fact that the SFS counselor in question sucked. Sucked. And Patrick hired him, heard complaints about him in his first year, and either didn’t do a good enough job re-training him or didn’t re-train him at all.

My kid had the counselor in question (CIQ) this year. He was terrible. He was sloppy, failed to spell-check emails, missed self-imposed deadlines, failed even to provide suggestions for reach schools, and responded to direct questions from our kid with vague, hedged bromides. But he was eager to suggest schools with profiles way below our kid’s SAT scores and in areas of the country that were of no interest! In other words the CIQ offered no sound, direct, strategic advice. He wanted our kid to do the easiest thing and aim really low to make his life easier. And, no, our kid was not shooting for Ivies.

NO parent would be happy with CIQ. Not at SFS or any public school. Patrick hired him; good riddance to both of them.

My DS and I paid more than $160,000 these past four years and, believe me, SFS ran our kid ragged. SFS even made the f!cking pottery class a graded course – yet one more thing for kids to stress about. We never expected Ivies would be a fait accompli. All we wanted was for the CIQ to do a professional job. Instead, he was literally the worst employee – the worst experience – our kid had in upper school.

One more thing. Bryan Garman needs to go as well. SFS is just bouncing from scandal to scandal – anti-Semitic kids to imploding college counseling department – and embarrassment to embarrassment. Can’t raise any money for the Washington Home which most parents think was an ill-considered acquisition anyway. And there’s still a ton of turnover among the mediocre administrative ranks (Patrick, MS principal, LS principal, AD). He can’t fundraise and he can’t run the school smoothly so he brings nothing to the table.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This article is infuriating for two reasons. First, it conflates one jerk parent with parents who break the law – and please cite specific examples of other bad SFS parents. I keep hearing about this one perfect storm anecdote but only vague rumors.

Second, it ignores the fact that the SFS counselor in question sucked. Sucked. And Patrick hired him, heard complaints about him in his first year, and either didn’t do a good enough job re-training him or didn’t re-train him at all.

My kid had the counselor in question (CIQ) this year. He was terrible. He was sloppy, failed to spell-check emails, missed self-imposed deadlines, failed even to provide suggestions for reach schools, and responded to direct questions from our kid with vague, hedged bromides. But he was eager to suggest schools with profiles way below our kid’s SAT scores and in areas of the country that were of no interest! In other words the CIQ offered no sound, direct, strategic advice. He wanted our kid to do the easiest thing and aim really low to make his life easier. And, no, our kid was not shooting for Ivies.

NO parent would be happy with CIQ. Not at SFS or any public school. Patrick hired him; good riddance to both of them.

My DS and I paid more than $160,000 these past four years and, believe me, SFS ran our kid ragged. SFS even made the f!cking pottery class a graded course – yet one more thing for kids to stress about. We never expected Ivies would be a fait accompli. All we wanted was for the CIQ to do a professional job. Instead, he was literally the worst employee – the worst experience – our kid had in upper school.

One more thing. Bryan Garman needs to go as well. SFS is just bouncing from scandal to scandal – anti-Semitic kids to imploding college counseling department – and embarrassment to embarrassment. Can’t raise any money for the Washington Home which most parents think was an ill-considered acquisition anyway. And there’s still a ton of turnover among the mediocre administrative ranks (Patrick, MS principal, LS principal, AD). He can’t fundraise and he can’t run the school smoothly so he brings nothing to the table.

Another reflection confirming why I am genuinely grateful our children did not end up at Sidwell. I’ll admit we were mesmerized by the facility and reputation but our kids ended up at their second choice and are thriving. Our school community seems without hint of scandal and benefitting from an administration and parent body committed to unified core values. I suspect that’s the hardest thing for the “big 3” to achieve as there are too many elements of self motivation and focus in the power structure of their communities. Big sigh of relief to have chosen another path...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/on-parenting/when-parents-are-so-desperate-to-get-their-kids-into-college-that-they-sabotage-other-students/2019/04/02/decc6b9e-5159-11e9-88a1-ed346f0ec94f_story.html?utm_term=.08f8bf40cbb2

Wow, and to think I was disappointed when my kids got waitlisted, if I knew then what I know now I would have been grateful not to have been sucked into the Sidwell vortex. What a disaster...

Our DC loved Sidwell and was WL in a prior year too, but I'm sure the experience there would have been great had it turned out differently. Every school can end up with an oddball situation and usually the things that grab headlines are not reflective of most people's experience of a school. I do feel for the upcoming class though, as turnover is challenging at such a critical moment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sidwell parent here who just read that article. I think the anonymous parent who was quoted got it right—it’s shocking and doesn’t represent our community, but it’s a sign of the times. People need to get a grip and a conscience and some perspective. Glad that family is leaving.

If this bad parent conduct occurred, then it should condemned. But the article wasn't exactly the sort of journalism on which the Post build it's reputation. It started off by quoting from the director's holiday note to parents (which read in part like an eggnog-fueled screed). Then it quoted an anonymous parent who confirmed that s/he heard a "rumor" about some other parents behaving badly. Then it pivoted to quoting various people (not from the Sidwell Friends community) on the record who discussed what they have observed or theorize in various other schools and contexts, not specifically Sidwell Friends. As reporting, it's pretty thin gruel. Does the Post still employ editors?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This article is infuriating for two reasons. First, it conflates one jerk parent with parents who break the law – and please cite specific examples of other bad SFS parents. I keep hearing about this one perfect storm anecdote but only vague rumors.

Second, it ignores the fact that the SFS counselor in question sucked. Sucked. And Patrick hired him, heard complaints about him in his first year, and either didn’t do a good enough job re-training him or didn’t re-train him at all.

My kid had the counselor in question (CIQ) this year. He was terrible. He was sloppy, failed to spell-check emails, missed self-imposed deadlines, failed even to provide suggestions for reach schools, and responded to direct questions from our kid with vague, hedged bromides. But he was eager to suggest schools with profiles way below our kid’s SAT scores and in areas of the country that were of no interest! In other words the CIQ offered no sound, direct, strategic advice. He wanted our kid to do the easiest thing and aim really low to make his life easier. And, no, our kid was not shooting for Ivies.

NO parent would be happy with CIQ. Not at SFS or any public school. Patrick hired him; good riddance to both of them.

My DS and I paid more than $160,000 these past four years and, believe me, SFS ran our kid ragged. SFS even made the f!cking pottery class a graded course – yet one more thing for kids to stress about. We never expected Ivies would be a fait accompli. All we wanted was for the CIQ to do a professional job. Instead, he was literally the worst employee – the worst experience – our kid had in upper school.

One more thing. Bryan Garman needs to go as well. SFS is just bouncing from scandal to scandal – anti-Semitic kids to imploding college counseling department – and embarrassment to embarrassment. Can’t raise any money for the Washington Home which most parents think was an ill-considered acquisition anyway. And there’s still a ton of turnover among the mediocre administrative ranks (Patrick, MS principal, LS principal, AD). He can’t fundraise and he can’t run the school smoothly so he brings nothing to the table.

I don't agree about Mr. Garman, but you are spot on about the CIQ. And the director was either too defensive or disengaged to recognize the issue, fix it quickly and move on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This article is infuriating for two reasons. First, it conflates one jerk parent with parents who break the law – and please cite specific examples of other bad SFS parents. I keep hearing about this one perfect storm anecdote but only vague rumors.

Second, it ignores the fact that the SFS counselor in question sucked. Sucked. And Patrick hired him, heard complaints about him in his first year, and either didn’t do a good enough job re-training him or didn’t re-train him at all.

My kid had the counselor in question (CIQ) this year. He was terrible. He was sloppy, failed to spell-check emails, missed self-imposed deadlines, failed even to provide suggestions for reach schools, and responded to direct questions from our kid with vague, hedged bromides. But he was eager to suggest schools with profiles way below our kid’s SAT scores and in areas of the country that were of no interest! In other words the CIQ offered no sound, direct, strategic advice. He wanted our kid to do the easiest thing and aim really low to make his life easier. And, no, our kid was not shooting for Ivies.

NO parent would be happy with CIQ. Not at SFS or any public school. Patrick hired him; good riddance to both of them.

My DS and I paid more than $160,000 these past four years and, believe me, SFS ran our kid ragged. SFS even made the f!cking pottery class a graded course – yet one more thing for kids to stress about. We never expected Ivies would be a fait accompli. All we wanted was for the CIQ to do a professional job. Instead, he was literally the worst employee – the worst experience – our kid had in upper school.

One more thing. Bryan Garman needs to go as well. SFS is just bouncing from scandal to scandal – anti-Semitic kids to imploding college counseling department – and embarrassment to embarrassment. Can’t raise any money for the Washington Home which most parents think was an ill-considered acquisition anyway. And there’s still a ton of turnover among the mediocre administrative ranks (Patrick, MS principal, LS principal, AD). He can’t fundraise and he can’t run the school smoothly so he brings nothing to the table.

I'm so sorry, PP. I would be livid if my child was treated that way. I hope he's found a college he and you are happy with. If not, I know many kids who took a gap year, reapplied and got into colleges that, in some cases, they were rejected by the year before.

[Anonymous]

Wow, 8:31 seems like the kind of parent that prompted the whole SFS rumor mongering mess. Our kids go to another school but we know many SFS alumni and parents and I think it is a fantastic school. I don't know the counselor she's talking about, but let's run through some of her complaints just for fun:

1) "sloppy, failed to spell-check emails" -- We all strive to be perfect in every aspect of our jobs, but everyone makes mistakes. Especially if you are bombarded by anxious students and parents with daily or hourly emails that border on the unhinged. Sometimes, speedy replies take precedence over a second reading. Maybe it's just a generational thing as proper spelling and punctuation in text messages are signs of digital incompetence.

2) "missed self-imposed deadlines"-- There are many well-established important deadlines for the college admissions process that begin with meeting 1-on-1 with each student, helping them create lists of potential reach/match/safeties, identifying teachers to write recs, etc. Almost all of the responsibility for getting these done rests with the student, not the counselor. In our experience, none of the counselor self-imposed deadlines are crucial to the process.

3) "failed even to provide suggestions for reach schools" - You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. Are there any top colleges that you've never heard of? Among the single digit admission rate schools, there are no strategic suggestions besides ED, just student preferences/dreams/wishes. These college counselors should be spending most of their time suggesting match and safety schools.

4) "eager to suggest schools with profiles way below our kid’s SAT scores" - What about grades and teacher recommendations? All the top colleges look askance at private school kids with high SATs but mediocre grades and recs. They are the poster children for over-privileged toffs.

5) "DS and I paid more than $160,000 these past four years" -- You can lead a horse to water...Did Sidwell offer your child good teachers and curricula? If you weren't satisfied, why did you keep paying? Is college admissions the only metric you use to measure the value of high school? Did you not believe the SFS when they told you that college admissions are not their measure of success?

6) "SFS even made the f!cking pottery class a graded course" -- I think art courses are graded everywhere. So are drama and music classes. Some students at SFS are exceptional artists and they deserve to be held to rigorous academic standards too. Would you just prefer a grading system that only include your DC's As on the transcript?

I think the only failure at SFS is in the admissions office for not providing enough counseling to parents like this that it is a really bad fit. Keep out these kinds of parents and you avoid the really over-the-top behaviors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This article is infuriating for two reasons. First, it conflates one jerk parent with parents who break the law – and please cite specific examples of other bad SFS parents. I keep hearing about this one perfect storm anecdote but only vague rumors.

Second, it ignores the fact that the SFS counselor in question sucked. Sucked. And Patrick hired him, heard complaints about him in his first year, and either didn’t do a good enough job re-training him or didn’t re-train him at all.

My kid had the counselor in question (CIQ) this year. He was terrible. He was sloppy, failed to spell-check emails, missed self-imposed deadlines, failed even to provide suggestions for reach schools, and responded to direct questions from our kid with vague, hedged bromides. But he was eager to suggest schools with profiles way below our kid’s SAT scores and in areas of the country that were of no interest! In other words the CIQ offered no sound, direct, strategic advice. He wanted our kid to do the easiest thing and aim really low to make his life easier. And, no, our kid was not shooting for Ivies.

NO parent would be happy with CIQ. Not at SFS or any public school. Patrick hired him; good riddance to both of them.

My DS and I paid more than $160,000 these past four years and, believe me, SFS ran our kid ragged. SFS even made the f!cking pottery class a graded course – yet one more thing for kids to stress about. We never expected Ivies would be a fait accompli. All we wanted was for the CIQ to do a professional job. Instead, he was literally the worst employee – the worst experience – our kid had in upper school.

One more thing. Bryan Garman needs to go as well. SFS is just bouncing from scandal to scandal – anti-Semitic kids to imploding college counseling department – and embarrassment to embarrassment. Can’t raise any money for the Washington Home which most parents think was an ill-considered acquisition anyway. And there’s still a ton of turnover among the mediocre administrative ranks (Patrick, MS principal, LS principal, AD). He can’t fundraise and he can’t run the school smoothly so he brings nothing to the table.

I don't agree about Mr. Garman, but you are spot on about the CIQ. And the director was either too defensive or disengaged to recognize the issue, fix it quickly and move on.

Completely agree -- spot on about CIQ (and about Patrick for hiring and defending him) but wrong about Garman. He has a lot to offer -- just a rough patch. And I think college counseling will get much better with the interim director. She gave parents the sense that she was advocating for their kids and the results showed that she did. If parents feel their kids are in good hands, they won't act out as much. CIQ was really awful. By far, our worst experience at Sidwell.

[Anonymous]

College counselors should have a Masters degree in counseling. The Head of School should be making all hiring decisions.