Sidwell prom

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People are quick to call us Sidwell parents who pay tuition entitled, what they fail to understand is that by paying $50,000 a year in tuition we are entitled to have an opinion on how that money is spent. This is because we support the school financially and therefore have a right to be a part of (at the very least minor) school decisions (such as where a prom takes place), albeit not necessarily larger decisions such as buying a building despite remaining unable to sell the lower school building for financial reasons. For those struggling to understand this concept, think of it in the same way as to how shareholders have a say in companies they own stocks in. Personally, I have no issue with the prom being held at the gym, growing up in a developing country I was lucky to be able to attend a school at all in a place where the concept of "school dances" was as foreign as I was to this country before immigrating. Additionally, my son has had an amazing time at all the dances held at school and has no issue with the prom being held at the gym. Where I begin to take issue is when the school administration and even children attending the school, according to my son, (children who most certainly are not paying their own tuition I might add) not only disregard my fellow Sidwell parents' opinions but are also rather quick to resort to immaturely (at least to me) calling us Sidwell parents who have worked very hard in our respective fields to afford sending our children to this school names such as "spoiled" or "greedy" for wanting to have a say in our own children's education and lives. Additionally, while I personally have no need to worry about my very responsible son driving drunk or allowing a drunk student to drive him to an after-party, I understand some parents of less responsible children's concern with having prom at school where the kids cannot have an after-party directly upstairs in a hotel but rather have to drive to get to it (as I am sure they will have afterparties after the afterparty held at school), potentially doing so drunk. Is the Sidwell administration's decision to essentially (at least to the best of my understanding) detain students at school for the duration of prom and an additional afterparty an attempt to sober them up before they leave to other "after-afterparties"? Just kidding! But I do find it a little strange that holding prom at the four seasons is suddenly considered ostentatious despite such being the norm and custom for many years. I would hope this decision is not due to recent publications referencing the school as this would, at least in my opinion, demonstrate how the school may care more about how it is perceived by others than listening to the Sidwell parents who pay tuition to support the school. Ultimately, I would personally prefer if the prom was held at the gym with tuition-paying parents being reimbursed for whatever difference in cost results. Unfortunately, we all know this is next to impossible seeing as we tuition-paying Sidwell parents were forced to pay not just full tuition but increased tuition despite our children not receiving lunches or even attending the school at all during virtual and hybrid learning without reimbursement. I believe a large portion of our tuition was likely used to purchase an enormous amount of plexiglass which has since been discarded according to my son due to its tendency to worsen the spread of coronavirus as well as an HVAC ventilation system which does not allow for our children to eat indoors anymore. I was recently informed by my son that children who have cars (we personally do not believe in buying him a car as it is not the same as an education and he is therefore responsible for saving for it), are not even allowed to eat in their own cars alone for some reason and that a senior girl was administered points for doing so, despite (at least in my opinion) eating alone in one's own car not posing a threat in terms of spreading coronavirus. I find this last part especially funny given that I, as a licensed doctor myself, expect many kids to catch colds out in these conditions and therefore be forced to stay home out of fear that their symptoms are the same as those of the coronavirus. Who knows? Perhaps this is an elaborate administration plan to limit the number of kids coming to school to prevent further spread of the virus. Just kidding!

OMG... step away from the car with your hands UP, please.....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People are quick to call us Sidwell parents who pay tuition entitled, what they fail to understand is that by paying $50,000 a year in tuition we are entitled to have an opinion on how that money is spent. This is because we support the school financially and therefore have a right to be a part of (at the very least minor) school decisions (such as where a prom takes place), albeit not necessarily larger decisions such as buying a building despite remaining unable to sell the lower school building for financial reasons. For those struggling to understand this concept, think of it in the same way as to how shareholders have a say in companies they own stocks in. Personally, I have no issue with the prom being held at the gym, growing up in a developing country I was lucky to be able to attend a school at all in a place where the concept of "school dances" was as foreign as I was to this country before immigrating. Additionally, my son has had an amazing time at all the dances held at school and has no issue with the prom being held at the gym. Where I begin to take issue is when the school administration and even children attending the school, according to my son, (children who most certainly are not paying their own tuition I might add) not only disregard my fellow Sidwell parents' opinions but are also rather quick to resort to immaturely (at least to me) calling us Sidwell parents who have worked very hard in our respective fields to afford sending our children to this school names such as "spoiled" or "greedy" for wanting to have a say in our own children's education and lives. Additionally, while I personally have no need to worry about my very responsible son driving drunk or allowing a drunk student to drive him to an after-party, I understand some parents of less responsible children's concern with having prom at school where the kids cannot have an after-party directly upstairs in a hotel but rather have to drive to get to it (as I am sure they will have afterparties after the afterparty held at school), potentially doing so drunk. Is the Sidwell administration's decision to essentially (at least to the best of my understanding) detain students at school for the duration of prom and an additional afterparty an attempt to sober them up before they leave to other "after-afterparties"? Just kidding! But I do find it a little strange that holding prom at the four seasons is suddenly considered ostentatious despite such being the norm and custom for many years. I would hope this decision is not due to recent publications referencing the school as this would, at least in my opinion, demonstrate how the school may care more about how it is perceived by others than listening to the Sidwell parents who pay tuition to support the school. Ultimately, I would personally prefer if the prom was held at the gym with tuition-paying parents being reimbursed for whatever difference in cost results. Unfortunately, we all know this is next to impossible seeing as we tuition-paying Sidwell parents were forced to pay not just full tuition but increased tuition despite our children not receiving lunches or even attending the school at all during virtual and hybrid learning without reimbursement. I believe a large portion of our tuition was likely used to purchase an enormous amount of plexiglass which has since been discarded according to my son due to its tendency to worsen the spread of coronavirus as well as an HVAC ventilation system which does not allow for our children to eat indoors anymore. I was recently informed by my son that children who have cars (we personally do not believe in buying him a car as it is not the same as an education and he is therefore responsible for saving for it), are not even allowed to eat in their own cars alone for some reason and that a senior girl was administered points for doing so, despite (at least in my opinion) eating alone in one's own car not posing a threat in terms of spreading coronavirus. I find this last part especially funny given that I, as a licensed doctor myself, expect many kids to catch colds out in these conditions and therefore be forced to stay home out of fear that their symptoms are the same as those of the coronavirus. Who knows? Perhaps this is an elaborate administration plan to limit the number of kids coming to school to prevent further spread of the virus. Just kidding!

Did you really just write all that about a high school prom!?!

SFS has jumped the shark. Quaker values? Ha!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a student, we have waged war with the administration. Mutiny is imminent. We know not the outcome, but at least we fought. At least we tried.

-Anon

Go For IT ! All of NWDC is "holding you in the light "

Fight the Power!

And maybe, just maybe the administration will decide it’s Quakerly to allow the students to eat inside in the middle of January and February instead of forcing them to eat in the disgusting, cold, damp parking garage —which was the initial proposed site of last year’s prom.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Senior class group texts suggest otherwise.

Probably the entitled party crowd

Are you guys seriously upset that teens are understandably disappointed in their prom being moved from a fancy hotel to the gym after 2 disappointing years? Do you remember being 18 at all?

Isn't it a parent who started this thread? Yes, kids will be disappointed (but not all) and that's normal. What isn't normal is how much the OP parent cares about this. Be an adult.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People are quick to call us Sidwell parents who pay tuition entitled, what they fail to understand is that by paying $50,000 a year in tuition we are entitled to have an opinion on how that money is spent. This is because we support the school financially and therefore have a right to be a part of (at the very least minor) school decisions (such as where a prom takes place), albeit not necessarily larger decisions such as buying a building despite remaining unable to sell the lower school building for financial reasons. For those struggling to understand this concept, think of it in the same way as to how shareholders have a say in companies they own stocks in. Personally, I have no issue with the prom being held at the gym, growing up in a developing country I was lucky to be able to attend a school at all in a place where the concept of "school dances" was as foreign as I was to this country before immigrating. Additionally, my son has had an amazing time at all the dances held at school and has no issue with the prom being held at the gym. Where I begin to take issue is when the school administration and even children attending the school, according to my son, (children who most certainly are not paying their own tuition I might add) not only disregard my fellow Sidwell parents' opinions but are also rather quick to resort to immaturely (at least to me) calling us Sidwell parents who have worked very hard in our respective fields to afford sending our children to this school names such as "spoiled" or "greedy" for wanting to have a say in our own children's education and lives. Additionally, while I personally have no need to worry about my very responsible son driving drunk or allowing a drunk student to drive him to an after-party, I understand some parents of less responsible children's concern with having prom at school where the kids cannot have an after-party directly upstairs in a hotel but rather have to drive to get to it (as I am sure they will have afterparties after the afterparty held at school), potentially doing so drunk. Is the Sidwell administration's decision to essentially (at least to the best of my understanding) detain students at school for the duration of prom and an additional afterparty an attempt to sober them up before they leave to other "after-afterparties"? Just kidding! But I do find it a little strange that holding prom at the four seasons is suddenly considered ostentatious despite such being the norm and custom for many years. I would hope this decision is not due to recent publications referencing the school as this would, at least in my opinion, demonstrate how the school may care more about how it is perceived by others than listening to the Sidwell parents who pay tuition to support the school. Ultimately, I would personally prefer if the prom was held at the gym with tuition-paying parents being reimbursed for whatever difference in cost results. Unfortunately, we all know this is next to impossible seeing as we tuition-paying Sidwell parents were forced to pay not just full tuition but increased tuition despite our children not receiving lunches or even attending the school at all during virtual and hybrid learning without reimbursement. I believe a large portion of our tuition was likely used to purchase an enormous amount of plexiglass which has since been discarded according to my son due to its tendency to worsen the spread of coronavirus as well as an HVAC ventilation system which does not allow for our children to eat indoors anymore. I was recently informed by my son that children who have cars (we personally do not believe in buying him a car as it is not the same as an education and he is therefore responsible for saving for it), are not even allowed to eat in their own cars alone for some reason and that a senior girl was administered points for doing so, despite (at least in my opinion) eating alone in one's own car not posing a threat in terms of spreading coronavirus. I find this last part especially funny given that I, as a licensed doctor myself, expect many kids to catch colds out in these conditions and therefore be forced to stay home out of fear that their symptoms are the same as those of the coronavirus. Who knows? Perhaps this is an elaborate administration plan to limit the number of kids coming to school to prevent further spread of the virus. Just kidding!

Paying tuition is not analogous to buying stock and becoming a shareholder in a company. It is analogous to being a consumer of a company’s goods and services. Paying for verizon wireless cell service is not the same as owning shares in the company. Paying tuition for educational services is not the same as owning shares in the institution. You’re a consumer buying a service, not a shareholder.

Other than that, let the kids have prom at a hotel, good grief.

[Anonymous]

This is a really bad look for Sidwell. All, please get over it.

[Anonymous]

Damn, even our huge public managed a super nice venue for prom. Sorry ya'll can't swing it Sidwell.

[Anonymous]

Why doesn’t Sidwell just rent tents and have some type of luxurious prom on the football field?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People are quick to call us Sidwell parents who pay tuition entitled, what they fail to understand is that by paying $50,000 a year in tuition we are entitled to have an opinion on how that money is spent. This is because we support the school financially and therefore have a right to be a part of (at the very least minor) school decisions (such as where a prom takes place), albeit not necessarily larger decisions such as buying a building despite remaining unable to sell the lower school building for financial reasons. For those struggling to understand this concept, think of it in the same way as to how shareholders have a say in companies they own stocks in. Personally, I have no issue with the prom being held at the gym, growing up in a developing country I was lucky to be able to attend a school at all in a place where the concept of "school dances" was as foreign as I was to this country before immigrating. Additionally, my son has had an amazing time at all the dances held at school and has no issue with the prom being held at the gym. Where I begin to take issue is when the school administration and even children attending the school, according to my son, (children who most certainly are not paying their own tuition I might add) not only disregard my fellow Sidwell parents' opinions but are also rather quick to resort to immaturely (at least to me) calling us Sidwell parents who have worked very hard in our respective fields to afford sending our children to this school names such as "spoiled" or "greedy" for wanting to have a say in our own children's education and lives. Additionally, while I personally have no need to worry about my very responsible son driving drunk or allowing a drunk student to drive him to an after-party, I understand some parents of less responsible children's concern with having prom at school where the kids cannot have an after-party directly upstairs in a hotel but rather have to drive to get to it (as I am sure they will have afterparties after the afterparty held at school), potentially doing so drunk. Is the Sidwell administration's decision to essentially (at least to the best of my understanding) detain students at school for the duration of prom and an additional afterparty an attempt to sober them up before they leave to other "after-afterparties"? Just kidding! But I do find it a little strange that holding prom at the four seasons is suddenly considered ostentatious despite such being the norm and custom for many years. I would hope this decision is not due to recent publications referencing the school as this would, at least in my opinion, demonstrate how the school may care more about how it is perceived by others than listening to the Sidwell parents who pay tuition to support the school. Ultimately, I would personally prefer if the prom was held at the gym with tuition-paying parents being reimbursed for whatever difference in cost results. Unfortunately, we all know this is next to impossible seeing as we tuition-paying Sidwell parents were forced to pay not just full tuition but increased tuition despite our children not receiving lunches or even attending the school at all during virtual and hybrid learning without reimbursement. I believe a large portion of our tuition was likely used to purchase an enormous amount of plexiglass which has since been discarded according to my son due to its tendency to worsen the spread of coronavirus as well as an HVAC ventilation system which does not allow for our children to eat indoors anymore. I was recently informed by my son that children who have cars (we personally do not believe in buying him a car as it is not the same as an education and he is therefore responsible for saving for it), are not even allowed to eat in their own cars alone for some reason and that a senior girl was administered points for doing so, despite (at least in my opinion) eating alone in one's own car not posing a threat in terms of spreading coronavirus. I find this last part especially funny given that I, as a licensed doctor myself, expect many kids to catch colds out in these conditions and therefore be forced to stay home out of fear that their symptoms are the same as those of the coronavirus. Who knows? Perhaps this is an elaborate administration plan to limit the number of kids coming to school to prevent further spread of the virus. Just kidding!

I’m a teacher and there is not enough money in the world for me to teach at this school with these parents.

[Anonymous]

+1
This whole thread is such a bad look for Sidwell. I have two sons who go to a different private school in the DMV, and we chose not to apply to Sidwell because of the perception that it was for families who are nasty, far left politically and elitists out of touch with normal people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People are quick to call us Sidwell parents who pay tuition entitled, what they fail to understand is that by paying $50,000 a year in tuition we are entitled to have an opinion on how that money is spent. This is because we support the school financially and therefore have a right to be a part of (at the very least minor) school decisions (such as where a prom takes place), albeit not necessarily larger decisions such as buying a building despite remaining unable to sell the lower school building for financial reasons. For those struggling to understand this concept, think of it in the same way as to how shareholders have a say in companies they own stocks in. Personally, I have no issue with the prom being held at the gym, growing up in a developing country I was lucky to be able to attend a school at all in a place where the concept of "school dances" was as foreign as I was to this country before immigrating. Additionally, my son has had an amazing time at all the dances held at school and has no issue with the prom being held at the gym. Where I begin to take issue is when the school administration and even children attending the school, according to my son, (children who most certainly are not paying their own tuition I might add) not only disregard my fellow Sidwell parents' opinions but are also rather quick to resort to immaturely (at least to me) calling us Sidwell parents who have worked very hard in our respective fields to afford sending our children to this school names such as "spoiled" or "greedy" for wanting to have a say in our own children's education and lives. Additionally, while I personally have no need to worry about my very responsible son driving drunk or allowing a drunk student to drive him to an after-party, I understand some parents of less responsible children's concern with having prom at school where the kids cannot have an after-party directly upstairs in a hotel but rather have to drive to get to it (as I am sure they will have afterparties after the afterparty held at school), potentially doing so drunk. Is the Sidwell administration's decision to essentially (at least to the best of my understanding) detain students at school for the duration of prom and an additional afterparty an attempt to sober them up before they leave to other "after-afterparties"? Just kidding! But I do find it a little strange that holding prom at the four seasons is suddenly considered ostentatious despite such being the norm and custom for many years. I would hope this decision is not due to recent publications referencing the school as this would, at least in my opinion, demonstrate how the school may care more about how it is perceived by others than listening to the Sidwell parents who pay tuition to support the school. Ultimately, I would personally prefer if the prom was held at the gym with tuition-paying parents being reimbursed for whatever difference in cost results. Unfortunately, we all know this is next to impossible seeing as we tuition-paying Sidwell parents were forced to pay not just full tuition but increased tuition despite our children not receiving lunches or even attending the school at all during virtual and hybrid learning without reimbursement. I believe a large portion of our tuition was likely used to purchase an enormous amount of plexiglass which has since been discarded according to my son due to its tendency to worsen the spread of coronavirus as well as an HVAC ventilation system which does not allow for our children to eat indoors anymore. I was recently informed by my son that children who have cars (we personally do not believe in buying him a car as it is not the same as an education and he is therefore responsible for saving for it), are not even allowed to eat in their own cars alone for some reason and that a senior girl was administered points for doing so, despite (at least in my opinion) eating alone in one's own car not posing a threat in terms of spreading coronavirus. I find this last part especially funny given that I, as a licensed doctor myself, expect many kids to catch colds out in these conditions and therefore be forced to stay home out of fear that their symptoms are the same as those of the coronavirus. Who knows? Perhaps this is an elaborate administration plan to limit the number of kids coming to school to prevent further spread of the virus. Just kidding!

I’m a teacher and there is not enough money in the world for me to teach at this school with these parents.

The post you’re reacting to is obviously from a Sidwell student making fun of this whole thing.

[Anonymous]

It’s funny how many people are falling for the obvious trolling. These are the moments where it’s really fun to be a SFS parent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People are quick to call us Sidwell parents who pay tuition entitled, what they fail to understand is that by paying $50,000 a year in tuition we are entitled to have an opinion on how that money is spent. This is because we support the school financially and therefore have a right to be a part of (at the very least minor) school decisions (such as where a prom takes place), albeit not necessarily larger decisions such as buying a building despite remaining unable to sell the lower school building for financial reasons. For those struggling to understand this concept, think of it in the same way as to how shareholders have a say in companies they own stocks in. Personally, I have no issue with the prom being held at the gym, growing up in a developing country I was lucky to be able to attend a school at all in a place where the concept of "school dances" was as foreign as I was to this country before immigrating. Additionally, my son has had an amazing time at all the dances held at school and has no issue with the prom being held at the gym. Where I begin to take issue is when the school administration and even children attending the school, according to my son, (children who most certainly are not paying their own tuition I might add) not only disregard my fellow Sidwell parents' opinions but are also rather quick to resort to immaturely (at least to me) calling us Sidwell parents who have worked very hard in our respective fields to afford sending our children to this school names such as "spoiled" or "greedy" for wanting to have a say in our own children's education and lives. Additionally, while I personally have no need to worry about my very responsible son driving drunk or allowing a drunk student to drive him to an after-party, I understand some parents of less responsible children's concern with having prom at school where the kids cannot have an after-party directly upstairs in a hotel but rather have to drive to get to it (as I am sure they will have afterparties after the afterparty held at school), potentially doing so drunk. Is the Sidwell administration's decision to essentially (at least to the best of my understanding) detain students at school for the duration of prom and an additional afterparty an attempt to sober them up before they leave to other "after-afterparties"? Just kidding! But I do find it a little strange that holding prom at the four seasons is suddenly considered ostentatious despite such being the norm and custom for many years. I would hope this decision is not due to recent publications referencing the school as this would, at least in my opinion, demonstrate how the school may care more about how it is perceived by others than listening to the Sidwell parents who pay tuition to support the school. Ultimately, I would personally prefer if the prom was held at the gym with tuition-paying parents being reimbursed for whatever difference in cost results. Unfortunately, we all know this is next to impossible seeing as we tuition-paying Sidwell parents were forced to pay not just full tuition but increased tuition despite our children not receiving lunches or even attending the school at all during virtual and hybrid learning without reimbursement. I believe a large portion of our tuition was likely used to purchase an enormous amount of plexiglass which has since been discarded according to my son due to its tendency to worsen the spread of coronavirus as well as an HVAC ventilation system which does not allow for our children to eat indoors anymore. I was recently informed by my son that children who have cars (we personally do not believe in buying him a car as it is not the same as an education and he is therefore responsible for saving for it), are not even allowed to eat in their own cars alone for some reason and that a senior girl was administered points for doing so, despite (at least in my opinion) eating alone in one's own car not posing a threat in terms of spreading coronavirus. I find this last part especially funny given that I, as a licensed doctor myself, expect many kids to catch colds out in these conditions and therefore be forced to stay home out of fear that their symptoms are the same as those of the coronavirus. Who knows? Perhaps this is an elaborate administration plan to limit the number of kids coming to school to prevent further spread of the virus. Just kidding!

I’m a teacher and there is not enough money in the world for me to teach at this school with these parents.

The post you’re reacting to is obviously from a Sidwell student making fun of this whole thing.

If this is a Sidwell student, I'm even more impressed. They are witty kids!

[Anonymous]

most of these posts are not sidwell parents. OP obviously was, but from there, I doubt it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People are quick to call us Sidwell parents who pay tuition entitled, what they fail to understand is that by paying $50,000 a year in tuition we are entitled to have an opinion on how that money is spent. This is because we support the school financially and therefore have a right to be a part of (at the very least minor) school decisions (such as where a prom takes place), albeit not necessarily larger decisions such as buying a building despite remaining unable to sell the lower school building for financial reasons. For those struggling to understand this concept, think of it in the same way as to how shareholders have a say in companies they own stocks in. Personally, I have no issue with the prom being held at the gym, growing up in a developing country I was lucky to be able to attend a school at all in a place where the concept of "school dances" was as foreign as I was to this country before immigrating. Additionally, my son has had an amazing time at all the dances held at school and has no issue with the prom being held at the gym. Where I begin to take issue is when the school administration and even children attending the school, according to my son, (children who most certainly are not paying their own tuition I might add) not only disregard my fellow Sidwell parents' opinions but are also rather quick to resort to immaturely (at least to me) calling us Sidwell parents who have worked very hard in our respective fields to afford sending our children to this school names such as "spoiled" or "greedy" for wanting to have a say in our own children's education and lives. Additionally, while I personally have no need to worry about my very responsible son driving drunk or allowing a drunk student to drive him to an after-party, I understand some parents of less responsible children's concern with having prom at school where the kids cannot have an after-party directly upstairs in a hotel but rather have to drive to get to it (as I am sure they will have afterparties after the afterparty held at school), potentially doing so drunk. Is the Sidwell administration's decision to essentially (at least to the best of my understanding) detain students at school for the duration of prom and an additional afterparty an attempt to sober them up before they leave to other "after-afterparties"? Just kidding! But I do find it a little strange that holding prom at the four seasons is suddenly considered ostentatious despite such being the norm and custom for many years. I would hope this decision is not due to recent publications referencing the school as this would, at least in my opinion, demonstrate how the school may care more about how it is perceived by others than listening to the Sidwell parents who pay tuition to support the school. Ultimately, I would personally prefer if the prom was held at the gym with tuition-paying parents being reimbursed for whatever difference in cost results. Unfortunately, we all know this is next to impossible seeing as we tuition-paying Sidwell parents were forced to pay not just full tuition but increased tuition despite our children not receiving lunches or even attending the school at all during virtual and hybrid learning without reimbursement. I believe a large portion of our tuition was likely used to purchase an enormous amount of plexiglass which has since been discarded according to my son due to its tendency to worsen the spread of coronavirus as well as an HVAC ventilation system which does not allow for our children to eat indoors anymore. I was recently informed by my son that children who have cars (we personally do not believe in buying him a car as it is not the same as an education and he is therefore responsible for saving for it), are not even allowed to eat in their own cars alone for some reason and that a senior girl was administered points for doing so, despite (at least in my opinion) eating alone in one's own car not posing a threat in terms of spreading coronavirus. I find this last part especially funny given that I, as a licensed doctor myself, expect many kids to catch colds out in these conditions and therefore be forced to stay home out of fear that their symptoms are the same as those of the coronavirus. Who knows? Perhaps this is an elaborate administration plan to limit the number of kids coming to school to prevent further spread of the virus. Just kidding!

I’m a teacher and there is not enough money in the world for me to teach at this school with these parents.

The post you’re reacting to is obviously from a Sidwell student making fun of this whole thing.

Unless this is the most joyless kid there is, it is clearly not a Sidwell student. The post is not particularly funny, and devoid of any wit or sarcasm that I would expect of a Sidwell student.

Let's give our teenagers more credit.