the "great schools" vs. the "avoid schools" -- education quality vs. college admissions

[Anonymous]

How do you made a decision when you are looking to buy a house.

On the one hand, I see so many times that X, Y and Z are the best schools (high pass rates, high SATs, not many low performers or poor kids)... and we all want our kids to go to these schools with proven track records (results).

On the other hand, I hear that it is really hard to get into our local state schools (i.e. WM, VT, UVA) from these schools b/c your kids are compared to the other high achieving kids. But, supposedly, it is easier to get into these colleges from the lesser pyramids b/c you look better compared to the other kids in the class.

Sure, if you are a super involved, super smart kid, you'll get attention and invites to great colleges wherever you go. But, what if you are a pretty smart kid who needs good teachers to inspire you and would prefer to avoid a lot of behavior scariness in the peer group.... then what? You won't be among the top kids at the "great" HSs.... but you might not feel safe or get good teachers/peers at the not great HSs.

What is a parent to do?

[Anonymous]

Shut up and buy the house you can afford

[Anonymous]

We couldn't afford Langley, so we didn't have to agonize over this decision.

[Anonymous]

"Afford" is flexible. We can "afford" the better school, but it is $200K more than other zones. The question is: Is the end result actually better at the "avoid" schools b/c of less competition?

Let's assume the educational experience is better at the "great schools" --- is that more or less important than getting into a better college?

Just for an example -- is the educational experience/peer/teachers at a school like Madison/McLean important enough that you would take that over a school like Edison/Hayfield/Annandale if your child's likely to get into JMU coming from Madison/McLean but might have a better shot getting into WM/VT/UVA from the latter group of HSs?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"Afford" is flexible. We can "afford" the better school, but it is $200K more than other zones. The question is: Is the end result actually better at the "avoid" schools b/c of less competition?

Let's assume the educational experience is better at the "great schools" --- is that more or less important than getting into a better college?

Just for an example -- is the educational experience/peer/teachers at a school like Madison/McLean important enough that you would take that over a school like Edison/Hayfield/Annandale if your child's likely to get into JMU coming from Madison/McLean but might have a better shot getting into WM/VT/UVA from the latter group of HSs?

We picked Lake Braddock/Robinson/West Springfield for exactly those reasons, among others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

On the other hand, I hear that it is really hard to get into our local state schools (i.e. WM, VT, UVA) from these schools b/c your kids are compared to the other high achieving kids. But, supposedly, it is easier to get into these colleges from the lesser pyramids b/c you look better compared to the other kids in the class.

Is this true? Or is this an excuse used to explain why a kid from the "better" school didn't get into UVA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How do you made a decision when you are looking to buy a house.

On the one hand, I see so many times that X, Y and Z are the best schools (high pass rates, high SATs, not many low performers or poor kids)... and we all want our kids to go to these schools with proven track records (results).

On the other hand, I hear that it is really hard to get into our local state schools (i.e. WM, VT, UVA) from these schools b/c your kids are compared to the other high achieving kids. But, supposedly, it is easier to get into these colleges from the lesser pyramids b/c you look better compared to the other kids in the class.

Sure, if you are a super involved, super smart kid, you'll get attention and invites to great colleges wherever you go. But, what if you are a pretty smart kid who needs good teachers to inspire you and would prefer to avoid a lot of behavior scariness in the peer group.... then what? You won't be among the top kids at the "great" HSs.... but you might not feel safe or get good teachers/peers at the not great HSs.

What is a parent to do?

Are you really that cynical? It's horseshit, OP -- the notion of being rewarded for having survived/excelled despite a failing school is a complete myth.

[Anonymous]

Quotas.

I was a victim of this in the late 80s from a Fairfax Co. HS.

Top SATs, 4.2 gpA, class officer, varsity soccer and state HS Va champ since Freshman year, volunteer and wait-listed at UVA and William & Mary.

Better to be big fish in small pond.

Colleges will cap a certain number from each HS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

On the other hand, I hear that it is really hard to get into our local state schools (i.e. WM, VT, UVA) from these schools b/c your kids are compared to the other high achieving kids. But, supposedly, it is easier to get into these colleges from the lesser pyramids b/c you look better compared to the other kids in the class.

Is this true? Or is this an excuse used to explain why a kid from the "better" school didn't get into UVA.

I think there are informal caps of students admitted to state schools from NoVa. But I don't know if they distinguish between one FCPS high school or another, high-rated or low-rated.

[Anonymous]

I don't think it is cynical... It is my understanding that colleges look at student-applicants in comparison to their classmates at the same school. I've heard it from parents and kids (even kids at TJ who would have been better off at their base schools when it comes to college admissions).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Are you really that cynical? It's horseshit, OP -- the notion of being rewarded for having survived/excelled despite a failing school is a complete myth.

I think the notion of being rewarded for having excelled in a failing school is rewarded- but I don't think any of the FCPS truly count as failing schools. All FCPS high schools have cohorts of committed students that work hard, take advantage of AP or IB classes, participate in extracurriculars, etc. The cohort may be smaller at some schools than at others, but no FCPS school is truly failing.

Now, if a student graduates from say, Ballou, in SE DC with a high GPA, has made a special effort to access higher level classes- even at another campus or community college, while working a job to help support their younger siblings who are living with a grandmother, then yes, they may get a bump for succeeding despite obstacles. But for succeeding in a school with only 10 AP classes and not 17 AP classes- not so much.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How do you made a decision when you are looking to buy a house.

On the one hand, I see so many times that X, Y and Z are the best schools (high pass rates, high SATs, not many low performers or poor kids)... and we all want our kids to go to these schools with proven track records (results).

On the other hand, I hear that it is really hard to get into our local state schools (i.e. WM, VT, UVA) from these schools b/c your kids are compared to the other high achieving kids. But, supposedly, it is easier to get into these colleges from the lesser pyramids b/c you look better compared to the other kids in the class.

Sure, if you are a super involved, super smart kid, you'll get attention and invites to great colleges wherever you go. But, what if you are a pretty smart kid who needs good teachers to inspire you and would prefer to avoid a lot of behavior scariness in the peer group.... then what? You won't be among the top kids at the "great" HSs.... but you might not feel safe or get good teachers/peers at the not great HSs.

What is a parent to do?

Buy under the Chantilly or Lake Braddock pyramids which you still can. Cheaper house and great schools, problem solved, you are welcome.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Afford" is flexible. We can "afford" the better school, but it is $200K more than other zones. The question is: Is the end result actually better at the "avoid" schools b/c of less competition?

Let's assume the educational experience is better at the "great schools" --- is that more or less important than getting into a better college?

Just for an example -- is the educational experience/peer/teachers at a school like Madison/McLean important enough that you would take that over a school like Edison/Hayfield/Annandale if your child's likely to get into JMU coming from Madison/McLean but might have a better shot getting into WM/VT/UVA from the latter group of HSs?

We picked Lake Braddock/Robinson/West Springfield for exactly those reasons, among others.

Yes.

High quality and by fcps standards, not high pressure.

Affordable housing.

Really fun and fsmily friendly neighborhoods.

Decent commute.

Win win.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Are you really that cynical? It's horseshit, OP -- the notion of being rewarded for having survived/excelled despite a failing school is a complete myth.

I think the notion of being rewarded for having excelled in a failing school is rewarded- but I don't think any of the FCPS truly count as failing schools. All FCPS high schools have cohorts of committed students that work hard, take advantage of AP or IB classes, participate in extracurriculars, etc. The cohort may be smaller at some schools than at others, but no FCPS school is truly failing.

Now, if a student graduates from say, Ballou, in SE DC with a high GPA, has made a special effort to access higher level classes- even at another campus or community college, while working a job to help support their younger siblings who are living with a grandmother, then yes, they may get a bump for succeeding despite obstacles. But for succeeding in a school with only 10 AP classes and not 17 AP classes- not so much.

Yup

[Anonymous]

Educational experience trumps admission to the "best" colleges, IMO.