I'm not so sure the "top 3" are actually the top 3....

[Anonymous]

I am a longtime high school teacher. I taught for many years at a school that was the equivalent of Sidwell/GDS in a different city. It was a PreK-12 school. Much of what posters here are noting is accurate: specifically, at any school that has entry years for youngsters as well as middle and high-schoolers, the academic slouches typically turn out to be those who were admitted young: it is very difficult to tell the academic potential of a four- or five-year-old. Like PPs have said, when kids applied as middle and high-schoolers, it was clear who the intellectual standouts were. In addition, a lot of the academic slouches came when younger siblings were admitted under a strong sibling policy. (Obviously I'm not saying that all siblings or kids admitted young were slouches, but many were.)


Any chance that it's the school (versus the lifer kid) that is the slouch? I've heard that Sidwell's lower school is mediocre -- at least relative to its middle and high school. Perhaps the lifers aren't getting a great foundation in the lower school such that they can be intellectual standouts in middle and high school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Unfortunately, I think the odds may be a little higher than this. I was told that for a recent middle school year they had something like 115 applicants for 20 or so slots. About 10 of these slots went to siblings. So taking the siblings off the top of both numbers, you get 105 applicants for 10 "real" slots. I don't want to be a downer, but I'm pretty confident about my source on this.

Some applicants clearly aren't qualified and get dismissed straight away. But I'm guessing that the applicant pool is a pretty self-selected group, and many of the kids are equally bright, motivated, engaging, et cetera. There was an interesting thread elsewhere where an admissions person said that when schools make the decision, they need to rely on other factors to distinguish among these remaining kids.

So the question in my mind is, why do some schools have such high applicant-to-slot ratios? Is it deserved, when you could get an equal education, or better exmissions, or whatever, somewhere else? So we've come full circle, because this is actually the topic of this thread....

I know that for the K spots, there are so many applicants that are not serious, and applying elsewhere. I know two Norwood kids that were admitted to Sidwell. One family said that they were concerned about the ability to afford the whole thing (to gr. 12), and Sidwell's lower school was not as good as Norwood. If they had to drop out, at least it would be from grade where the instruction was sound.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Different poster here. I don't know about the "nouveau" thing either. Maybe that poster really meant something different, like it's an "in" school ever since the Clintons chose it? Nothing wrong with that, although it shouldn't blind you to comparing values across lesser-known schools either.

I just didn't get a good "Quaker" vibe from it, what with walking barefoot through the dollar bills during the tour. As my husband said to me afterwards, it's easy to be "green" when you have limitless money, but the challenge is to buy the solar plates when money is actually an object. And couldn't some of the money that's going to sports fields and gyms and exchanges in China go to, I don't know, a sister school in Haiti. The money just seemed very in-your-face. On the values issue (only) we are considering Sandy Spring Friends instead, but we'll probably decide we can't handle the commute to Olney.

Read the Sandy Spring thread.

[Anonymous]

PP, I see your point, I was just trying to compare schools across a single dimension, their perceived values (during our admittedly superficial tour). I guess I just didn't express it very well.

[Anonymous]

I'm a frequent observer and critic of this forum. Why I continue to read it is the real question. Some of you really need to get a gripe on reality. First, the slacker Sidwell example is silly. I've been a professional for 20 years and am always amazed at the lack of drive, determination, smart, critical thinking skills of our young people. Believe me I'd had them all. Yale, Penn, Gtown, American, VTech etc. I would estimate that 75% are lazy, cocky, and couldnt problem solve or reason their way across the street. This is not a Sidwell (lifer, 6th grader or 12th grader doesnt matter) problem, its an American problem. All of our schools are too easy. Our kids spend to much time watching tv and being told how great they are and how successful they are going to be. No one values (including us) hardwork and sacrifice.

These schools provide great opportunities to learn and quench a family developed hunger for knowledge. If we dont push and challenge our kids, then of course we're all to blame for creating the every widening idiot class that will inherit our country.

For more information on the challenges we face, check out this website: www.edin08.org

[Anonymous]

Would it be fair to ask our "top 3-4" schools to turn out kids that don't fall so easily into this same stereotype? I'm just saying that if you're going to pay $30K for a school, you'd think that the final product would be somehow higher achieving, have more drive, be more inquisitive and eager to pursue solutions to problems....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm a frequent observer and critic of this forum. Why I continue to read it is the real question. Some of you really need to get a gripe on reality. First, the slacker Sidwell example is silly. ...

I recognize you! The word "silly" gave you away. At least you haven't called us all whiny losers yet, although I'm waiting for it. In fact, I for one would be happy to see you take a sabbatical from this board and find some other hobby. Like pulling the wings off flies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a frequent observer and critic of this forum. Why I continue to read it is the real question. Some of you really need to get a gripe on reality. First, the slacker Sidwell example is silly. ...

I recognize you! The word "silly" gave you away. At least you haven't called us all whiny losers yet, although I'm waiting for it. In fact, I for one would be happy to see you take a sabbatical from this board and find some other hobby. Like pulling the wings off flies.

odd.

[Anonymous]

Hey 20:33,

Do you not agree that to judge a school like Sidwell on your experience with one "slacker", is indeed silly?

On you reference to flies, I've already got enough wings this week. Thank you!

[Anonymous]

Another fly reference for you from a so-far silent observer. This forum is turning into the Lord of the Flies. Women can be such bitches to each other. And for what?

[Anonymous]

Don't blame it all on gender. There are some men on here who have apparently taken it as their mission (noblesse oblige) to reality-check the rest of the world into submission.

[Anonymous]

to 22:00, would you mind addressing 19:43's substantive point?

[Anonymous]

20:33 here. I agree, a sample of one is not a valid statistical sample. But possibly the original poster was asking how even one feckless slacker managed to graduate from a school that's reputed to be a pressure cooker.

I guess my frustration with you is that your debating style is limited to ad hominem attacks -- attacking the person and not the argument. Calling people names like silly, stupid, or whiner and not engaging on the reasonable arguments. If someone says that we shouldn't have gone into Iraq because George Bush is stupid, regardless of what you think of either part of that statement, they haven't really addressed the central issues of WMD, links to al Qaeda, et cetera.

To the rest of you, I'm sorry to be a part of Lord of the Flies, but I've had it.

[Anonymous]

To me, the fundamental point--which is made repeatedly on this site but not yet in this thread--is that the top three schools for my kid and family might not be the top three for yours. It's a bit like naming the top three restaurants in the area: a place may have a great reputation and a reservation book that fills up three months ahead, but if you don't like the food then (i) don't go there; and (ii) don't be defensive about it; but (iii) don't trash the people who do like the place (whose preferences are not inferior to yours, either.) When people talk about the top three (or four, or however many) schools, they are usually talking about the ones who are believed to have, metaphorically, the longest reservation book, etc. But are they the "best" ones? Once you start defining terms, it becomes clear pretty quickly that reasonable people can, do, and should disagree. The statement "the best three schools in the area are A, B and C" is meaningless. The statement that "for my kids/family, based on their interests and needs, the three best schools in the area are A, B and C" is not.

[Anonymous]

AMEN!