anyone's child who has sibling at sidwell rejected for K?

[Anonymous]

At the schools my kids attend, staff and teacher kids are always accepted and yet other priority kids (alum, siblings, etc.) are sometimes denied based on the policy of accepting new families. I think the policies applied to priority applicants should apply to all priority applicants, yet I have never known of a staff/teacher kid that has not been accepted. Before I’m blasted, this is our experience with four private schools. Yes, that first child is a new family, but the staff/teacher siblings aren’t. I just wish the same standards applied to all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
At the schools my kids attend, staff and teacher kids are always accepted and yet other priority kids (alum, siblings, etc.) are sometimes denied based on the policy of accepting new families. I think the policies applied to priority applicants should apply to all priority applicants, yet I have never known of a staff/teacher kid that has not been accepted. Before I’m blasted, this is our experience with four private schools. Yes, that first child is a new family, but the staff/teacher siblings aren’t. I just wish the same standards applied to all.

I'm not a private school teacher, but I absolutely think teacher's children should be given priority (and yes, over legacies if needed). Ethically, I think it sends a horrible, elitist message to not give priority to faculty children, and more practically, disgruntled teachers are a bad thing for all. Also, remember that teachers are just as much a part of a school community as parents are--actually more so, in the sense that they are typically there longer and have a more permanent "home" there over many decades, hopefully.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, but Quaker denied for K..with wppsi in 90's (no up or downs in subsets, etc). Also AA but we don't have a lot of money although did not ask for financial aid. Hope this doesn't give me away!

We are in the same boat. Extensive Quaker background that extends multiple generations. Similar scores. Great recommendations from a top preschool. Outright rejected with our DC's name merged into the same form letter sent to everyone else. It only confirms our feelings that Sidwell is not true to its Quaker roots and is a Friends school in name only. It is very sad that the few Quakers that live in DC cannot educate their children in the city's only Quaker school.

Do you seriously expect a hand written/personally tailored note just because you are Quaker? Couldn't the same be said for minority applicants? Or any other applicant that claims "special attention"? This would require the office to write personal notes to almost all of the 1000+ applicants, which would delay letters coming, and in turn would get the school ripped apart on DCUM.

[Anonymous]

[quote=Anonymous]Here are the Quaker comments from 15:56 and 16:37 (which are not from the Philadelphia Quaker):
[quote]Extensive Quaker background that extends multiple generations. Similar scores. Great recommendations from a top preschool. Outright rejected with our DC's name merged into the same form letter sent to everyone else. It only confirms our feelings that Sidwell is not true to its Quaker roots and is a Friends school in name only. It is very sad that the few Quakers that live in DC cannot educate their children in the city's only Quaker school. [/quote]
[quote]Yes. I am obviously aware of all of the above schools. However, last time I checked, none of them were located in Washington, DC. Again, it is really sad that the few Quakers who live in DC cannot educate their children at the city's only Quaker school. [/quote][/quote]

Believe me poster you have dodged a bullet: I truly believe that Sidwell is a Quaker school in name only and if you are really a Quaker you don't want your child in that toxic NR environment.If you want your child educated in a Quaker environment send your child to Sandy Springs where Quaker values are still well represented. The teachers may be great at Sidwell, particularly the older ones who have been there 20-30 years,but it is the parent community which sets the overall tone of the school. There is nothing more spirit killing to a child than the grasping and self adulation of the NR that fill Sidwell to the brim. I have talked with many people who sent their kids there 30-40 years ago and they all say same: in their opinions Sidwell has used the Clinton fame and the application bonanza it produced to go for the money.End of story.End of School Mission. Oh excuse me, I mean to say , " we have at times have to turn down a sibling to allow for new money, oops I mean "new families". Why the pressure to admit , "new people" . If you are a Quaker school admit the Quakers 1st, then fill your school up with who is left over. You might actually have a school that stands for something other than having "arrived". This was once a fine school . I feel bad for the older teachers who are stuck there now with these PITA parents.

[Anonymous]

[quote]If you are a Quaker school admit the Quakers 1st, then fill your school up with who is left over. [/quote]
So you'd probably argue that Beauvoir/NCS/StA should admit all the Episcopalians first, and then fill up the rest of the school with whoever is left over? And Georgetown University should admit all the Catholics first? Would the non-denominational schools then admit non-religious applicants first too? I'm not sure you've considered this particular plan carefully enough.

As an aside, you're not doing Sandy Springs School any favors. I'd heard good things about Sandy Springs, but this post reflects poorly on the parent community at that school. Maybe you were just having a bad day; I hope tomorrow is better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
At the schools my kids attend, staff and teacher kids are always accepted and yet other priority kids (alum, siblings, etc.) are sometimes denied based on the policy of accepting new families. I think the policies applied to priority applicants should apply to all priority applicants, yet I have never known of a staff/teacher kid that has not been accepted. Before I’m blasted, this is our experience with four private schools. Yes, that first child is a new family, but the staff/teacher siblings aren’t. I just wish the same standards applied to all.

I'm not a private school teacher, but I absolutely think teacher's children should be given priority (and yes, over legacies if needed). Ethically, I think it sends a horrible, elitist message to not give priority to faculty children, and more practically, disgruntled teachers are a bad thing for all. Also, remember that teachers are just as much a part of a school community as parents are--actually more so, in the sense that they are typically there longer and have a more permanent "home" there over many decades, hopefully.

I think most people agree that teachers' children should receive priority, but should they always get in? Some kds are just not a good fit, and that can be true of teachers' kids as well as legacies and non-priority applicants.

[Anonymous]

[quote=Anonymous][quote]If you are a Quaker school admit the Quakers 1st, then fill your school up with who is left over. [/quote]
[b]So you'd probably argue that Beauvoir/NCS/StA should admit all the Episcopalians first, and then fill up the rest of the school with whoever is left over? And Georgetown University should admit all the Catholics first? [/b]Would the non-denominational schools then admit non-religious applicants first too? I'm not sure you've considered this particular plan carefully enough.

As an aside, you're not doing Sandy Springs School any favors. I'd heard good things about Sandy Springs, but this post reflects poorly on the parent community at that school. Maybe you were just having a bad day; I hope tomorrow is better. [/quote]

Actually, that is what these schools do. If you are a member of the National Cathedral, it is noted. Also, Georgetown does ask whether it's applicants are Catholic. It's not a shoe-in, but it does give one an edge.

Non-denominational is not the same thing as non-religious. It means that it does not prefer one religion (or no religion) over another.

I don't know about PP, but I have thought about these things and it does make sense to me. These schools are obviously not closed to those of other faiths (or atheists), but they do giver slight preference (not guaranteed admission) to those of the same faith.

[Anonymous]

I am a current parent at Sidwell, and I have heard that the school tries hard to accommodate siblings even though they can't guarantee a spot. The school is not able to accept all the siblings for p-k or k, but if they are qualified, they try to squeeze them in over the various entry years.

It was important for me that my children attend the same school, and I would have been upset if my second child had not been admitted. At the same time, I think Sidwell is not doing anyone a favor if a child is truly not a good fit. Sidwell is a very difficult school at the high school level, and that environment is not for every kid, even every really smart kid.

What I think Sidwell needs to do better is give families more guidance about where siblings stand so they know whether to apply to other schools.

[Anonymous]

If you are a Quaker school admit the Quakers 1st, then fill your school up with who is left over.

So you'd probably argue that Beauvoir/NCS/StA should admit all the Episcopalians first, and then fill up the rest of the school with whoever is left over? And Georgetown University should admit all the Catholics first? Would the non-denominational schools then admit non-religious applicants first too? I'm not sure you've considered this particular plan carefully enough.

As an aside, you're not doing Sandy Springs School any favors. I'd heard good things about Sandy Springs, but this post reflects poorly on the parent community at that school. Maybe you were just having a bad day; I hope tomorrow is better.

Actually, that is what these schools do. If you are a member of the National Cathedral, it is noted. Also, Georgetown does ask whether it's applicants are Catholic. It's not a shoe-in, but it does give one an edge. Non-denominational is not the same thing as non-religious. It means that it does not prefer one religion (or no religion) over another.

I don't know about PP, but I have thought about these things and it does make sense to me. These schools are obviously not closed to those of other faiths (or atheists), but they do giver slight preference (not guaranteed admission) to those of the same faith.

What you're saying (give some extra edge to certain religious factors in admissions) makes sense to me. And I think that's exactly what many of these schools do. It's an extra edge, but not necessarily mandatory admission. I've got no objection to that.

But the half-baked idea that 23:18 seems to be suggesting is that schools with religious affiliations should admit all applicants of that particular religion, and then permit applicants of other religions to fill any leftover spots. I think we can agree that plan's not well thought out, can't we?

Of course, maybe she's not really proposing a new system of admissions preferences, but rather just giving voice to her own disappointment about admissions decisions affecting her child. I'm probably taking her comments too much at face value.

Reading some of the recent comments on this thread make me realize how difficult a job ADs must have. Different people will be pressing for admissions preferences for all sorts of groups -- for religious affiliations connected to the school, for teacher & staff children who have strong ties to the school, for ethnic minorities that can provide diversity and opportunity, for children of big donors and board members to help provide the school economic strength, for lower-income applicants that provide economic diversity, for siblings, for international students, for gifted & talented children that will improve the school's academic standing, for athletes wanted by coaches, for artists & musicians & actors, etc etc etc. All of these possible preferences have some merit, and the AD has to balance all those different factors. There's no way to make everyone happy, and most of the people will be disappointed. Seems like a difficult job to me.

[Anonymous]

Smart Quakers should get every opportunity to attend Sidwell, including lots of financial aid. Getting Quakers in to the school should always be a priority. I'm a non quaker Sidwell parent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Smart Quakers should get every opportunity to attend Sidwell, including lots of financial aid. Getting Quakers in to the school should always be a priority.

Why do you say that? Why should Quakers be a priority? Why aren't these other statements equally true?:

Smart African-Americans should get every opportunity to attend Sidwell, including lots of financial aid. Getting African-Americans in to the school should always be a priority. (says a member of the school's diversity committee)

Smart children of school staff should get every opportunity to attend Sidwell, including lots of financial aid. Getting children of school staff in to the school should always be a priority. (says a teacher at the school)

Smart children of high donors should get every opportunity to attend Sidwell, including lots of financial aid. Getting smart children of high donors in to the school should always be a priority. (says someone who sits on board and is focus on long-range planning)

[Anonymous]

I got curious about how many Quakers are at Sidwell, so I did some research to put this discussion into context. According to the school's website, half of the board members are Quaker, and 6% of the student body is Quaker (http://goo.gl/4zXkN). Nationwide, Quakers make up about 0.1% of the general US population (http://goo.gl/m5Vo0). So Sidwell has about 60 times more Quakers than one would expect in the general population. That's perhaps skewed a little because the East Coast probably has more Quakers than elsewhere in the US. I did not see any data with a state-by-state estimate of religious numbers. But even if we assume DC/MD/VA have twice as many Quakers as the average, that suggests that Sidwell has 30 times more Quakers than one would find in the general population.

[Anonymous]

It's a Quaker school with very few Quakers - because there are very few Quakers - so they should be given the highest priority - above all other groups, alumni, minorities, rich people.

[Anonymous]

I love the idea that Quakers are over represented with 6 percent of the population.
Do you think that Jews are over represented at JPDS because they make up 100 percent of the school's population? Are Catholics over represented at Gonzaga? Are Episcopalians over represented at St. Albans? Your premise that a 6 percent Quaker student body is a problem at a Quaker school because its not reflective of the national average is absurd on its face.

[Anonymous]

11:40, take a stats class.