Big 5 = "most desired" schools, not necessarily "the best"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:9:21 - what you are seeing is that the score it takes to get to a particular threshold (commended, semi, finalist) is based on your state. When I was in school in MD, I remember a classmate whose legal residence was in WV got finalist with a lower score than got me to semifinalist and tied a friend of mine who got commended. It is easier to get to these awards as a DC resident b/c of the lower average caliber of ALL students in DC (crappy publics) than VA and MD. Not sure whether the factor counties in as well, in which case Montgomery and Fairfax kids are really at a disadvantage.

The cutoffs only apply to those taking the test --- that would be either college bound kids or even only kids who are applying to selective colleges. So the cutoffs say nothing about the general population of students in those areas.

That's what I figured (I wasn't the PP you quoted).

Anyway, I need to remark how pleasant it is to have this kind of analytical discussion about schools. So much more helpful than the normal name calling that somehow became the fashion on the private school forum.

I agree PP, but I question what this discussion is doing under this thread topic. I think its fair to compare schools based on lots of different factors, one of which could be the relative number of national merit finalists, and it's interesting to understand how the National Merit system works - but some PP's are trying to argue against the OP's point that you can't rank schools as "best" and are trying to use this one criteria as a way to rank schools. In fact one PP tried to say that this indicator alone should have us dismissing a school like Maret as one of the top tier schools. (have a feeling this was the same GDS booster that fervently tries to promote the "Big 3" concept as a way to exclude Maret. As has been stated before by many posters, lots of people consider Maret a better school than GDS based on a host of factors.

The interesting National Merit discussion would be a bit more credible if it were not under this topic header.

[Anonymous]

Why this discussion is here. Third post in this thread said if you want objective data, look at National Merit. I had been about to post (in response to the OP) that I don't think that people on DCUM really "try to rank" schools because trying to rank involves articulating measurable criteria and applying them consistently -- something we don't see done here.

Rather than post that, I decided to be the change I wanted to see and spent a little time digging these numbers up. I didn't choose the criterion -- and I suspect that the poster who suggested it didn't know which schools would do well on this measure and/or how much difference there would be among schools. There's no hidden agenda about Maret vs. GDS or Big 3 vs. Big 5 -- there's an explicit agenda to get beyond that kind of BS and actually look at data, including data that compares public and private schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:[(have a feeling this was the same GDS booster that fervently tries to promote the "Big 3" concept as a way to exclude Maret. As has been stated before by many posters, lots of people consider Maret a better school than GDS based on a host of factors.

Geez, Big 3 seems to be a collective hallucination rather than the work of a single poster. And if it somehow is the work of a single poster, there's no evidence that poster is affiliated with GDS (could be one of the other big 3 -- more likely it's someone who doesn't know much about any of them, since the category itself doesn't make much sense). And if it were the work of a GDS booster, why would that person be out to get Maret and why is it that Maret specifically (rather than Burke, Visitation, WIS, etc.) that is somehow being excluded? None of this makes much sense. All I get from it is that someone from Maret assumes that Maret is number 4 and hates GDS (and/or assumes that GDS is an easier target to pick off than Sidwell or the Cathedral Schools).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why this discussion is here. Third post in this thread said if you want objective data, look at National Merit. I had been about to post (in response to the OP) that I don't think that people on DCUM really "try to rank" schools because trying to rank involves articulating measurable criteria and applying them consistently -- something we don't see done here.

Rather than post that, I decided to be the change I wanted to see and spent a little time digging these numbers up. I didn't choose the criterion -- and I suspect that the poster who suggested it didn't know which schools would do well on this measure and/or how much difference there would be among schools. There's no hidden agenda about Maret vs. GDS or Big 3 vs. Big 5 -- there's an explicit agenda to get beyond that kind of BS and actually look at data, including data that compares public and private schools.

Agree that if people are trying to rank, then you have to define a set of measurable criteria. Assume 99% of people would agree that criteria should be broader than just the relative # of national merit semifinalists. However, poster 18:49 on the first page tried to suggest that "Big 3 makes more sense than Big 5" based on this criterion alone. That's what I'm responding to.

If I was doing the ranking, I would include some additional academic measures (classes offered, SAT scores, etc), exmissions data (# of Ivy League schools, # of students accepted to first choice school, etc), I would include some measures around athletics (sports offered, # of athletic scholarships received, records vs other schools, etc), I would include some measures around arts (% of students participating, etc), etc, etc, etc.

Point the OP was making was that we will never have enough data available to do a reasonable comparative ranking on which is the "best" school. OP was saying the best we can do is to tier the schools by the relative demand or desirability of the school - which is at least a loose proxy to those schools who at least have the perception of being good. OP presented some data from one top K-8 school, Norwood, as an example of this data. OP was also arguing that more schools, rather the less, should be considered "top" schools based on this data.

The hidden agenda for promoting the "Big 3" is real - it is trying to carve out 3 schools as being the "best"... problem is that many, many people on this board disagree with this as evidenced by the argument that ensues every time the term is used. However, those promoting a school as a Big 3 keep doing so in an effort to try and separate their school (GDS, SF, etc) from others that are just as competitive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:11.21:


That strikes me as about right. The question that I am still struggling with is whether the small class sizes and general support that kids get in a small school outweighs the lack of appropriate classes? The problem is that it is very costly to reverse a school decision, especially if it involves relocating.

This is a good question. But there is no one size fits all, and it can really depend on the child which is better - small supportive environment vs. appropriate level of classes. One thing to keep in mind is that a small group of kids can mean your child can make friends, or that this small group may ostracize someone who doesn't fit. And that has less to do with a specific school than with each class, each year - something you don/t necessarily know coming in. (You might get some info from current parents if you are entering in later years, but even that info can be misleading when it comes you your particular child.)

Relatedly, my observation has been that in HS kids gravitate toward other kids with the same interests (esp. via clubs), so that is how you get introduced socially to kids in a larger environment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why this discussion is here. Third post in this thread said if you want objective data, look at National Merit. I had been about to post (in response to the OP) that I don't think that people on DCUM really "try to rank" schools because trying to rank involves articulating measurable criteria and applying them consistently -- something we don't see done here.

Rather than post that, I decided to be the change I wanted to see and spent a little time digging these numbers up. I didn't choose the criterion -- and I suspect that the poster who suggested it didn't know which schools would do well on this measure and/or how much difference there would be among schools. There's no hidden agenda about Maret vs. GDS or Big 3 vs. Big 5 -- there's an explicit agenda to get beyond that kind of BS and actually look at data, including data that compares public and private schools.

I'm the 3rd poster on page 1 that started this mess. I applaud your digging on the data. It's interesting to see. I still think any meaningful comparison would require a few years worth of data since the sample size for one year is so small. However, for the reasons stated in my original post, I think it's ultimately meaningless to try to tier/rank these schools beyond any very broad strokes.

I have no hidden agenda, and no kids yet at any of these schools being discussed, so I don't really have a stake in what the data shows. I am very curious, but not invested. I do get irked though when people claim with great certainty that one school is better than another, or that one school is not as good as another, or that private schools are not as good as publics (or vice versa). Anyone who makes such claims loses credibility in my eyes and seems insecure in her own merit. I think they're all strong schools. Claiming otherwise is like arguing about which shade of rose smells the sweetest. My advice for parents looking at schools for their children would be to look at all these schools closely, pick the one you and your kids will like best, and don't worry about comparing your chosen school to anyone else's.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[(have a feeling this was the same GDS booster that fervently tries to promote the "Big 3" concept as a way to exclude Maret. As has been stated before by many posters, lots of people consider Maret a better school than GDS based on a host of factors.

Geez, Big 3 seems to be a collective hallucination rather than the work of a single poster. And if it somehow is the work of a single poster, there's no evidence that poster is affiliated with GDS (could be one of the other big 3 -- more likely it's someone who doesn't know much about any of them, since the category itself doesn't make much sense). And if it were the work of a GDS booster, why would that person be out to get Maret and why is it that Maret specifically (rather than Burke, Visitation, WIS, etc.) that is somehow being excluded? None of this makes much sense. All I get from it is that someone from Maret assumes that Maret is number 4 and hates GDS (and/or assumes that GDS is an easier target to pick off than Sidwell or the Cathedral Schools).

I agree. While I don't agree that the National Merit numbers are the be all and end all, 12% of the 2009 GDS class were National Merit semifinalists versus 2.5% for Maret (using the #s I've found on these threads). Is that GDS' only positive attribute and Maret blows GDS away "based on a host of [other] factors." What are the other factors?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[(have a feeling this was the same GDS booster that fervently tries to promote the "Big 3" concept as a way to exclude Maret. As has been stated before by many posters, lots of people consider Maret a better school than GDS based on a host of factors.

Geez, Big 3 seems to be a collective hallucination rather than the work of a single poster. And if it somehow is the work of a single poster, there's no evidence that poster is affiliated with GDS (could be one of the other big 3 -- more likely it's someone who doesn't know much about any of them, since the category itself doesn't make much sense). And if it were the work of a GDS booster, why would that person be out to get Maret and why is it that Maret specifically (rather than Burke, Visitation, WIS, etc.) that is somehow being excluded? None of this makes much sense. All I get from it is that someone from Maret assumes that Maret is number 4 and hates GDS (and/or assumes that GDS is an easier target to pick off than Sidwell or the Cathedral Schools).

I agree. While I don't agree that the National Merit numbers are the be all and end all, 12% of the 2009 GDS class were National Merit semifinalists versus 2.5% for Maret (using the #s I've found on these threads). Is that GDS' only positive attribute and Maret blows GDS away "based on a host of [other] factors." What are the other factors?

Well said. Where are you, Maret-booster/GDS-hater? Step up and make your case. I've been reading your stuff for a long time now, so put your money where your mouth is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[(have a feeling this was the same GDS booster that fervently tries to promote the "Big 3" concept as a way to exclude Maret. As has been stated before by many posters, lots of people consider Maret a better school than GDS based on a host of factors.

Geez, Big 3 seems to be a collective hallucination rather than the work of a single poster. And if it somehow is the work of a single poster, there's no evidence that poster is affiliated with GDS (could be one of the other big 3 -- more likely it's someone who doesn't know much about any of them, since the category itself doesn't make much sense). And if it were the work of a GDS booster, why would that person be out to get Maret and why is it that Maret specifically (rather than Burke, Visitation, WIS, etc.) that is somehow being excluded? None of this makes much sense. All I get from it is that someone from Maret assumes that Maret is number 4 and hates GDS (and/or assumes that GDS is an easier target to pick off than Sidwell or the Cathedral Schools).

I agree. While I don't agree that the National Merit numbers are the be all and end all, 12% of the 2009 GDS class were National Merit semifinalists versus 2.5% for Maret (using the #s I've found on these threads). Is that GDS' only positive attribute and Maret blows GDS away "based on a host of [other] factors." What are the other factors?

I have no idea why this is. Maybe a faculty member at GDS is really concerned about the National Merit stats there so encourages more kids to take the test than at Maret. Maybe GDS attracts more math oriented kids than Maret. Maybe the kids at GDS are a little more intellectually intelligent, but less emotionally intelligent. Maybe GDS churns out more students who go on to become top college professors, and maybe Maret churns out more students who go on to become top company CEOs.

I don't know.

What I do know is that your trying to "rank" a school as better than another based simply on the % of the class that is a National Merit semifinalist is flawed.

The big question here is why are you TRYING SO HARD to say that GDS is better than Maret?? I'm not saying that - I'm simply saying Maret and other similar schools belong in the same tier as GDS, Sidwell, and the Cathedral schools. You're the one that's desperately trying to argue against that and preserve your "Big 3" nomenclature - so who is the one with the issue here?

[Anonymous]

14:50:

First, chill. This is just a thread. Two, don't assume that everyone who makes a comment which invokes GDS in a favorable light is the same poster. I had no posted on this thread until I compared the numbers of GDS and Maret and National Merit semi-finalists. I didn't intend for that post to be construed that GDS only belongs in the Big 3 designation, but to point out that whatever failings GDS is alleged to have, they had a good record in the National Merit category in 2009.

I like Maret. I was impressed by the tour. The synthesis of the curriculum is readily apparent - from art to math to science - and we liked all the students we met. There warmth of the community was palpable and I liked how this verdant campus is tucked away on the edge of a city.

But, for full disclosure, our first DC was waitlisted at Maret and accepted at another Big 3/4/5 school, which was our first choice. I don't harbor any bad feelings about Maret and imagine our DC would be happy if they were there. I think your posts here would be more effective if you were a Maret booster rather than GDS hater. Talk up Maret's strengths and spend less time focused on your perceived weaknesses of GDS. Folks will be more swayed by your uplifts than your smackdowns.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I agree. While I don't agree that the National Merit numbers are the be all and end all, 12% of the 2009 GDS class were National Merit semifinalists versus 2.5% for Maret (using the #s I've found on these threads). Is that GDS' only positive attribute and Maret blows GDS away "based on a host of [other] factors." What are the other factors?

I have no idea why this is. Maybe a faculty member at GDS is really concerned about the National Merit stats there so encourages more kids to take the test than at Maret. Maybe GDS attracts more math oriented kids than Maret. Maybe the kids at GDS are a little more intellectually intelligent, but less emotionally intelligent. Maybe GDS churns out more students who go on to become top college professors, and maybe Maret churns out more students who go on to become top company CEOs.

I don't know.

What I do know is that your trying to "rank" a school as better than another based simply on the % of the class that is a National Merit semifinalist is flawed.

The big question here is why are you TRYING SO HARD to say that GDS is better than Maret?? I'm not saying that - I'm simply saying Maret and other similar schools belong in the same tier as GDS, Sidwell, and the Cathedral schools. You're the one that's desperately trying to argue against that and preserve your "Big 3" nomenclature - so who is the one with the issue here?

Dear "Don't Know" --

Sounds like you start from the assumption that Maret is just as good as GDS (but that it's not as good as Sidwell, STA, or NCS) and that it's better than every other DC private school, so that any data point that suggests that GDS/Sidwell/the Cathedral Schools are similar in ways that differentiate them from Maret must be the artifact of a secret plot to discredit Maret.

Truth is, the only reason anyone is even talking about Maret is because you (and maybe others like you) keep suggesting that the fact that Maret is not mentioned every time Sidwell/GDS/STA/NCS get mentioned is a sign that there's some kind of conspiracy to shut Maret out. The proponent(s) of this conspiracy theory are the ones who keep soliciting comparisons between Maret and GDS. Or are you now going to claim that incognito GDS posters posted the " Big Three is a myth promulgated by incognito GDS posters" thread? Fiendishly clever of them.

At any rate, if you want Maret to get the respect it's entitled to, start explaining why Maret is entitled to respect. Stop assuming your own conclusion and making unsupported assertions. I have no idea how many people read DCUM (or how many who read it take it seriously) but, honestly, I had only a positive impression of Maret before I encountered this website. But the impression I've gotten here (from the Obamas are going to Maret threads and the Big 5/GDS incognito type threads) has been really negative. It's time to stop this nonsense before you do any lasting damage to your school.

[Anonymous]

Maybe a faculty member at GDS is really concerned about the National Merit stats there so encourages more kids to take the test than at Maret.

I don't have a dog in this fight, but I'm pretty sure that all students at both schools take the PSAT, which is the test used to determine National Merit designation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sounds like you start from the assumption that Maret is just as good as GDS (but that it's not as good as Sidwell, STA, or NCS) and that it's better than every other DC private school, so that any data point that suggests that GDS/Sidwell/the Cathedral Schools are similar in ways that differentiate them from Maret must be the artifact of a secret plot to discredit Maret.

Truth is, the only reason anyone is even talking about Maret is because you (and maybe others like you) keep suggesting that the fact that Maret is not mentioned every time Sidwell/GDS/STA/NCS get mentioned is a sign that there's some kind of conspiracy to shut Maret out. The proponent(s) of this conspiracy theory are the ones who keep soliciting comparisons between Maret and GDS. Or are you now going to claim that incognito GDS posters posted the " Big Three is a myth promulgated by incognito GDS posters" thread? Fiendishly clever of them.

At any rate, if you want Maret to get the respect it's entitled to, start explaining why Maret is entitled to respect. Stop assuming your own conclusion and making unsupported assertions. I have no idea how many people read DCUM (or how many who read it take it seriously) but, honestly, I had only a positive impression of Maret before I encountered this website. But the impression I've gotten here (from the Obamas are going to Maret threads and the Big 5/GDS incognito type threads) has been really negative. It's time to stop this nonsense before you do any lasting damage to your school.

Wow. This almost exactly describes what I've been thinking for several months now about Maret and the Maret poster(s). I had thought I was the only one. Good to know I'm not crazy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Maybe a faculty member at GDS is really concerned about the National Merit stats there so encourages more kids to take the test than at Maret.

I don't have a dog in this fight, but I'm pretty sure that all students at both schools take the PSAT, which is the test used to determine National Merit designation.

Yes, what is it with the point about a GDS faculty member being so concerned about National Merit stats? I assume all the independent schools with college prep curricula are encouraging their students to take this test. I can't imagine that Maret faculty are so lackadaisical that they forget to have their students sign up for it.

[Anonymous]

Seems to me the previous posters are trying to somehow claim they are taking a higher road than the Maret booster and not engaging in disparagement of another school, yet these posters are the ones who are trying to force a ranking based on one data point of a the number of National Merit Scholars, and one of them specifically suggested that only SFS, Cathedral, and GDS be included in a BIG 3 discussion because of it.

To those PP's, we see through you.