Feedback for admissions offices: what did you like/dislike about the process?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand the purpose of requiring IQ tests for young children (or maybe any children). They are really expensive and of such limited utility. I wish it was not the norm around here--I was shocked when I found out it was.

You're complaining about spending around 400 bucks but you're applying to private school? Not getting that.

The obvious purpose is to not have laggards in the room. That's the one main academic benefit vs public, especially combined with smaller class sizes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Madeira: Pros: admissions staff very nice and professional; really worked hard to make my daughter and me feel welcome. Cons: they were urging people to ask questions by Twitter during the open house and displaying the tweets on a giant screen, which felt gimmicky (and distracting). Also, they sent my DD off to shadow classes that didn't really make much sense for her (E.g., French, though she takes Spanish, etc.).

They have had some turnover in the admissions office recently (The long-time AD left). Some of the newer people come from NE schools. Maybe that stuff flies up there?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I agree. The IQ tests for very young kids are unreliable, and the admissions offices know it.

I know these schools are basically aiming to attract the 1%, but if they had ANY serious interest in getting a more socioeconomically diverse applicant pool they would not have an application process more intense than college admissions. Even if you get the application and testing fees waived, what kind of parents can take multiple days off from work to bring kids to open houses, interviews and shadow days? Affluent families with flexible hours and/or a stay at home spouse, that's who can do this. My two kid applied to four schools, and it essentially meant losing the better part of two full work weeks. It's crazy.

Schools that want to indicate some seriousness about getting lower income families or families with single parents should condense everything into one day and make open houses and tours optional,

Exactly. This!

I don't think the schools are purposefully working to exclude lower income families or single parents...but by requiring visits on multiple days places an onerous burden on people who, for example, get paid hourly or get a limited number of days off and try to save them for when their kids get sick. Going over those days puts those folks' jobs at risk, so it's tough to ask these parent to spend, as the previous poster said, the better part of two weeks visiting schools.
The schools that are thoughtful enough to host open houses on weekends and combine parent interviews with kid school visit days seem to get this.
The tests are costly and, for young kids, really unreliable. Some flexible spending accounts cover them, luckily.
Hopefully admissions folks see this thread and consider some changes.

[Anonymous]

Norwood made the WPPSI and WISC optional. Stood out to us in a good way. Had a great tour and interview with Assistant Director. Only her second year but she was warm and professional.

[Anonymous]

The regular requirements of a school will demand that parents have availability to pick up sick children, volunteer at events, be present at school functions, and the like. Whether or not prospective parents are compliant and willing during the admission process helps the AD get a sense if they will be supportive of the classroom requirements should they be accepted. Teachers rely on the AD to send them cooperative families so that everyone is happy, satisfied, and peace abounds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The regular requirements of a school will demand that parents have availability to pick up sick children, volunteer at events, be present at school functions, and the like. Whether or not prospective parents are compliant and willing during the admission process helps the AD get a sense if they will be supportive of the classroom requirements should they be accepted. Teachers rely on the AD to send them cooperative families so that everyone is happy, satisfied, and peace abounds.

you sound like a school employee and an unrealistic one at that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Norwood made the WPPSI and WISC optional. Stood out to us in a good way. Had a great tour and interview with Assistant Director. Only her second year but she was warm and professional.

The SSAT and ISEE are optional at Field and St Andrews, too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand the purpose of requiring IQ tests for young children (or maybe any children). They are really expensive and of such limited utility. I wish it was not the norm around here--I was shocked when I found out it was.

You're complaining about spending around 400 bucks but you're applying to private school? Not getting that.

The obvious purpose is to not have laggards in the room. That's the one main academic benefit vs public, especially combined with smaller class sizes.

"Laggards"?

Trust me, kids who do poorly on these tests at age 3 can turn out to be superstars later. Kids who do well on these test can turn into "laggards" later.

Schools know this. They ask for these tests because it gives the process a false aura of empiricism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The regular requirements of a school will demand that parents have availability to pick up sick children, volunteer at events, be present at school functions, and the like. Whether or not prospective parents are compliant and willing during the admission process helps the AD get a sense if they will be supportive of the classroom requirements should they be accepted. Teachers rely on the AD to send them cooperative families so that everyone is happy, satisfied, and peace abounds.

you sound like a school employee and an unrealistic one at that.

Re-read -- top quotation seemed obviously written by a bitter/cynical parent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand the purpose of requiring IQ tests for young children (or maybe any children). They are really expensive and of such limited utility. I wish it was not the norm around here--I was shocked when I found out it was.

You're complaining about spending around 400 bucks but you're applying to private school? Not getting that.

The obvious purpose is to not have laggards in the room. That's the one main academic benefit vs public, especially combined with smaller class sizes.

"Laggards"?

Trust me, kids who do poorly on these tests at age 3 can turn out to be superstars later. Kids who do well on these test can turn into "laggards" later.

Schools know this. They ask for these tests because it gives the process a false aura of empiricism.

You don't understand statistics, or how to make complex decisions in zero sum game environments.

Those tests, while imperfect, are still better than anything else, when used appropriately.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand the purpose of requiring IQ tests for young children (or maybe any children). They are really expensive and of such limited utility. I wish it was not the norm around here--I was shocked when I found out it was.

You're complaining about spending around 400 bucks but you're applying to private school? Not getting that.

The obvious purpose is to not have laggards in the room. That's the one main academic benefit vs public, especially combined with smaller class sizes.

"Laggards"?

Trust me, kids who do poorly on these tests at age 3 can turn out to be superstars later. Kids who do well on these test can turn into "laggards" later.

Schools know this. They ask for these tests because it gives the process a false aura of empiricism.

You don't understand statistics, or how to make complex decisions in zero sum game environments.

Those tests, while imperfect, are still better than anything else, when used appropriately.

And you, my friend, don't understand much about these tests. Again: under age 8 or so, there is very little stability in scores. The same child can be 15th percentile at age 3, 95th at age 4, and 60th at age 5. Schools take note of the kid whose scores are the very top and the very bottom, both of which can flag a child whose needs the school will not be able to meet (either b/c the child has severe learning issues or is so advanced he/she will be bored). For other kids the scores are largely irrelevant to admissions decisions -- though at times they are helpful to admissions staff who need to articulate a quasi-objective reason for rejecting Big Donor's kid).

[Anonymous]

We had a great experience at Landon. The tour/interview was extremely informative and they had their A-game ready on the shadow day. Admissions office had everything running smoothly, teachers and students were very friendly, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:SIDWELL: HATED the application process! Extremely cold. Smug attitude. Didn't bother to finish applying because we were so turned off by the horrible attitude of the admissions office who seem overly full of themselves and could care less how they treat potential applicants and their families. It may be a great school, but you would never know it from your visit or interview, etc. My gifted child who is ranked highly in several extracurricular areas hated the school b/c she sensed the awful attitude of the place and decided it was not going to be a good fit for her. She is now thriving at another very well-regarded private.

Exactly the opposite experience at Sidwell, and we are nobody specila and my DC is above average but perhaps not as "gifted" like the child above. We were warmly welcomed, had great talks at the open house with coaches and reachers. The interview was also nice. The interviewer was very kind and interested in hearing from my husband and me, and after they spoke to our DC they said he was very empathetic and interesting. She then advised us to be sure and complete the application process. One thing I would mention is that we are only applying only to Sidwell and will go to public if not admitted, so it is possible that this influenced their attitude.

[Anonymous]

Disliked our experience last year with Potomac so much so that we quit the process. Impersonal and arrogant, which is not how we roll. The teacher who gave DS and his group the tour was great, but Charlotte was a piece of work.

[Anonymous]

ADs make such a difference