SWW - when do notices go out about interviews?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Again, McKinley manages to have the same Dress for Success message without shaming or stressing kids if they need to wear tennis shoes or jeans. It might be hard to imagine but some kids really truly don’t have the resources.

I would hope it’s not something that’s gonna count against a kid in reality if they’ve made an attempt to look presentable, but it speaks volumes about the culture at the school and the fact that this text has gone out year after year. They’re not ignorant about their messaging.

If this has really gone out year after year, then shouldn’t applicants be ready for it? PPs were making it sound like this was a total surprise on short notice. I get the consternation more if that had been the case (although still — it’s an interview!).

An interview with two days notice!

Who else does that?

That certainly suggests a broken process.

[Anonymous]

The interview dates have been posted for months.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The interview dates have been posted for months.

This true, but only helpful if you knew to keep checking for that info. It wasn’t there back when we did the visit so I wasn’t tracking. Luckily we are scheduled for March 2.

I feel for the Feb 24 folks. Definitely more stressful but the dress code shouldn’t be a big issue. I think the kids will not be evaluated based on footwear. My kid just recently outgrew his nice shoes and we decided he could wear my slightly oversized shoes if necessary. Or clean up his sneakers and balance with a button up shirt and tie to make it more business casual. call it silicon valley casual.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The interview dates have been posted for months.

So all 1800 of us were supposed to keep 2 Saturdays completely open, months in the future?

This would imply that we could count on an interview. My 4.0 kid didn't get one.

This process is just the definition of poorly run.

[Anonymous]

If the idea of an opaque admissions process or finding an outfit on short notice is too stressful for your kid (or you), I seriously would reconsider if Walls is the best fit. My older child is there now and they are very happy. But there is a lot about the school that is disorganized and kids need to learn how to roll with it. It is one of the reasons why grads get credit for having "grit" in the college application process

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If the idea of an opaque admissions process or finding an outfit on short notice is too stressful for your kid (or you), I seriously would reconsider if Walls is the best fit. My older child is there now and they are very happy. But there is a lot about the school that is disorganized and kids need to learn how to roll with it. It is one of the reasons why grads get credit for having "grit" in the college application process

“The organization is mismanaged and the admissions process is poorly run and unfair but this is good for the students who are selected because they will learn to cope with dysfunction and arbitrariness.”

Got it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If the idea of an opaque admissions process or finding an outfit on short notice is too stressful for your kid (or you), I seriously would reconsider if Walls is the best fit. My older child is there now and they are very happy. But there is a lot about the school that is disorganized and kids need to learn how to roll with it. It is one of the reasons why grads get credit for having "grit" in the college application process

Honestly, this. It's a great entree into what Walls is like. Great fit for certain kids, really not great fit for others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s been a few years since my kid interviewed and perhaps the wording is different, but I remember there being something along the lines of dress for success being suggested, as to encourage the interview being taken seriously, not a “dress code”. It’s really not a big deal.

I mean, here is the language. It seems quite explicit/prescriptive:
We also want to remind families of dress expectations of School Without Walls admission interviews. All students are expected to wear casual professional attire. We expect students to wear slacks, shirt, shoes, appropriate pants, dress, sweater, blouse/shirt, or jacket (tie, jacket, and/or suit are optional). We ask students to refrain from wearing tennis shoes, tee shirts, jeans, leggings, or any attire that does not meet the standard for a formal interview.

A kid’s ability to put together “casual professional attire” is so much more about the parents than the kid. This is strange gatekeeping.

I’m pretty flummoxed by the idea that teenagers wouldn’t have at least one professional looking outfit. What do they wear to church? Thanksgiving?

Maybe most can, maybe some can’t. I think the question is whether there is any defensible reason why admission to a public school should have anything at all to do with what a kid wears.

Most of the public schools in my area of DC have uniforms.

And the uniforms allow for tennis shoes. Seems to be that if a kid shows up to a SWW dressed in the uniform of their current school, that ought to be acceptable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the idea of an opaque admissions process or finding an outfit on short notice is too stressful for your kid (or you), I seriously would reconsider if Walls is the best fit. My older child is there now and they are very happy. But there is a lot about the school that is disorganized and kids need to learn how to roll with it. It is one of the reasons why grads get credit for having "grit" in the college application process

“The organization is mismanaged and the admissions process is poorly run and unfair but this is good for the students who are selected because they will learn to cope with dysfunction and arbitrariness.”

Got it.

More like, they'll learn what to expect from this school and if they can't handle it or don't like it then maybe it's not the school for them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Some of you are really incapable of thinking from any perspective except your own. Try considering for a moment why the school might want to ensure some consistency in the dress worn by interviewees. Before you assume they have sticks up their collective rear ends and just want to judge students on how well they dress, maybe ask yourself if there's any other possible reason. Think about what students might wear if there were no guidelines, and think about whether the *students* conducting the interviews might form an impression-positive or negative-based on the dress rather than the content of the interview. There's no perfect way to avoid that, but a minimal amount of conformity might help. I'm not saying that is the true reason it that it guarantees fair interviews, but it's at least possible the motivation is to make the process more fair, not less.

I don't take issue with the dress code, which seems pretty reasonable...I have a HUGE problem with the fact that SWW has students conducting interviews. That is beyond unacceptable--even if they don't technically get much of a say in the ranking, to have the interviewees think they did not get into a school because of a 10 minute conversation with a peer is horrible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s been a few years since my kid interviewed and perhaps the wording is different, but I remember there being something along the lines of dress for success being suggested, as to encourage the interview being taken seriously, not a “dress code”. It’s really not a big deal.

I mean, here is the language. It seems quite explicit/prescriptive:
We also want to remind families of dress expectations of School Without Walls admission interviews. All students are expected to wear casual professional attire. We expect students to wear slacks, shirt, shoes, appropriate pants, dress, sweater, blouse/shirt, or jacket (tie, jacket, and/or suit are optional). We ask students to refrain from wearing tennis shoes, tee shirts, jeans, leggings, or any attire that does not meet the standard for a formal interview.

A kid’s ability to put together “casual professional attire” is so much more about the parents than the kid. This is strange gatekeeping.

I’m pretty flummoxed by the idea that teenagers wouldn’t have at least one professional looking outfit. What do they wear to church? Thanksgiving?

Maybe most can, maybe some can’t. I think the question is whether there is any defensible reason why admission to a public school should have anything at all to do with what a kid wears.

Most of the public schools in my area of DC have uniforms.

And the uniforms allow for tennis shoes. Seems to be that if a kid shows up to a SWW dressed in the uniform of their current school, that ought to be acceptable.

It is kind of obnoxious/condescending the view of several posters on this thread that lower income students (I assume that is who they are feigning concern for?) don't have a single nice/presentable outfit to wear.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s been a few years since my kid interviewed and perhaps the wording is different, but I remember there being something along the lines of dress for success being suggested, as to encourage the interview being taken seriously, not a “dress code”. It’s really not a big deal.

I mean, here is the language. It seems quite explicit/prescriptive:
We also want to remind families of dress expectations of School Without Walls admission interviews. All students are expected to wear casual professional attire. We expect students to wear slacks, shirt, shoes, appropriate pants, dress, sweater, blouse/shirt, or jacket (tie, jacket, and/or suit are optional). We ask students to refrain from wearing tennis shoes, tee shirts, jeans, leggings, or any attire that does not meet the standard for a formal interview.

A kid’s ability to put together “casual professional attire” is so much more about the parents than the kid. This is strange gatekeeping.

I’m pretty flummoxed by the idea that teenagers wouldn’t have at least one professional looking outfit. What do they wear to church? Thanksgiving?

Maybe most can, maybe some can’t. I think the question is whether there is any defensible reason why admission to a public school should have anything at all to do with what a kid wears.

Most of the public schools in my area of DC have uniforms.

And the uniforms allow for tennis shoes. Seems to be that if a kid shows up to a SWW dressed in the uniform of their current school, that ought to be acceptable.

It is kind of obnoxious/condescending the view of several posters on this thread that lower income students (I assume that is who they are feigning concern for?) don't have a single nice/presentable outfit to wear.

It's cringey. My kids go to a super diverse Title 1 school (meaning we have kids that range from very low income to very high income) and some of the very best dressed kids on "dress for success" type days are the lower income kids.

[Anonymous]

Actually, the student interviewer DOES have an enormous say in the ranking. At least last year it was one student + one teacher and each of their rankings are averaged together. So for the interview portion (which was roughly 98% of the weight of the entire application last year), a hormonal teen who volunteers their time because they need community service credit ends up determining 50% of each potential student's ranking for the interview. The unimpressive teen who interviewed my kid last year was not one I would trust with such a task... but it's what we got.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s been a few years since my kid interviewed and perhaps the wording is different, but I remember there being something along the lines of dress for success being suggested, as to encourage the interview being taken seriously, not a “dress code”. It’s really not a big deal.

I mean, here is the language. It seems quite explicit/prescriptive:
We also want to remind families of dress expectations of School Without Walls admission interviews. All students are expected to wear casual professional attire. We expect students to wear slacks, shirt, shoes, appropriate pants, dress, sweater, blouse/shirt, or jacket (tie, jacket, and/or suit are optional). We ask students to refrain from wearing tennis shoes, tee shirts, jeans, leggings, or any attire that does not meet the standard for a formal interview.

A kid’s ability to put together “casual professional attire” is so much more about the parents than the kid. This is strange gatekeeping.

I’m pretty flummoxed by the idea that teenagers wouldn’t have at least one professional looking outfit. What do they wear to church? Thanksgiving?

Maybe most can, maybe some can’t. I think the question is whether there is any defensible reason why admission to a public school should have anything at all to do with what a kid wears.

Most of the public schools in my area of DC have uniforms.

And the uniforms allow for tennis shoes. Seems to be that if a kid shows up to a SWW dressed in the uniform of their current school, that ought to be acceptable.

It is kind of obnoxious/condescending the view of several posters on this thread that lower income students (I assume that is who they are feigning concern for?) don't have a single nice/presentable outfit to wear.

It's more than obnoxious, it's racist. I know a lot of parents with expensive *name brand* fleeces and organic everything and ski trips and beach houses whose children look uncouth and rarely bathed. We are a family of "URMs" and "low income!" (1) I am offended by all of this "the poor children without proper shoes" talk and (2) my babies always look nice AND are bathed daily (I didn't know yall didn't bathe your babies daily until I met more white parents). Good luck to everyone tomorrow and next week!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Actually, the student interviewer DOES have an enormous say in the ranking. At least last year it was one student + one teacher and each of their rankings are averaged together. So for the interview portion (which was roughly 98% of the weight of the entire application last year), a hormonal teen who volunteers their time because they need community service credit ends up determining 50% of each potential student's ranking for the interview. The unimpressive teen who interviewed my kid last year was not one I would trust with such a task... but it's what we got.

That's crazy!!