When will Walls interview notices come out??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thanks for posting that link....a couple of things jump out:

1) a 3.8 GPA is regarded the same as a 4.0 for the purpose of their rubric...given how easy grading is (at least at my child's middle school), that's really interesting. A child who has two B+, two A-s and one A in the five core classes (and As in PE, Music, Art, and Health) would be given the same 5 points as a kid with all As.

2) The 31/36 points given to the interview is just bizarre. Where on earth did they come up with that ratio and do they provide the specific rubric for that anywhere? 86% weight for the subjective interview seems like a recipe for abuse.....

This is the issue I have with the GPA cutoff - a 4.0 from some schools is not the same as a 4.0 from others. Some kids will be well prepared for the Walls curriculum, some won't.

That’s the case in high school, college, and life. Some people will be better prepared academically than others because…they attended schools that provided “better” preparation. A student who earns a 4.0 (and attends) a Title 1 middle school should have a chance to attend Walls. That student may be a very hard worker that can make up for lost ground. It’s not that student’s fault they attended a poorly resourced school. Those students bloomed where they were planted, and likely overcame hardship and trauma you can’t imagine.

Remember, talent is equally distributed. Opportunity is not.

I agree, but I don’t think an interview solves this. Have quotas by assigned high school, teacher or school recommendations, or something to spread the opportunity. But we have no idea if the interview questions are supposed to target one demographic or another, or what problem the interview is trying to solve. Totally arbitrary, or, worse, biased.

Compounded by the fact that current students are part of the interview team...but I'm sure teenagers are super objective in their assessment of other teenagers and use only the most appropriate factors to determine "fit."

I recently heard that Walls students are allowed to be part of the interview team even if they have siblings in the applicant pool--that can't possibly be true, right? Do they do anything to establish basic ethics rules around these interviews?

No one except the actual team would know anything about the interviews. So what's your so called source?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thanks for posting that link....a couple of things jump out:

1) a 3.8 GPA is regarded the same as a 4.0 for the purpose of their rubric...given how easy grading is (at least at my child's middle school), that's really interesting. A child who has two B+, two A-s and one A in the five core classes (and As in PE, Music, Art, and Health) would be given the same 5 points as a kid with all As.

2) The 31/36 points given to the interview is just bizarre. Where on earth did they come up with that ratio and do they provide the specific rubric for that anywhere? 86% weight for the subjective interview seems like a recipe for abuse.....

This is the issue I have with the GPA cutoff - a 4.0 from some schools is not the same as a 4.0 from others. Some kids will be well prepared for the Walls curriculum, some won't.

That’s the case in high school, college, and life. Some people will be better prepared academically than others because…they attended schools that provided “better” preparation. A student who earns a 4.0 (and attends) a Title 1 middle school should have a chance to attend Walls. That student may be a very hard worker that can make up for lost ground. It’s not that student’s fault they attended a poorly resourced school. Those students bloomed where they were planted, and likely overcame hardship and trauma you can’t imagine.

Remember, talent is equally distributed. Opportunity is not.

I agree, but I don’t think an interview solves this. Have quotas by assigned high school, teacher or school recommendations, or something to spread the opportunity. But we have no idea if the interview questions are supposed to target one demographic or another, or what problem the interview is trying to solve. Totally arbitrary, or, worse, biased.

Compounded by the fact that current students are part of the interview team...but I'm sure teenagers are super objective in their assessment of other teenagers and use only the most appropriate factors to determine "fit."

I recently heard that Walls students are allowed to be part of the interview team even if they have siblings in the applicant pool--that can't possibly be true, right? Do they do anything to establish basic ethics rules around these interviews?

That can't be true...they can't possibly think it's okay for current students to interview if their siblings are in the mix. Even if they don't interview their own siblings, they could very well interview friends' sibilings (or siblings' friends). How do we find out if this is accurate and (before it's too late) put pressure on them to stop this practice?

We are hoping for Walls and I also find this (if true) unethical and concerning. But if we reach out for clarification, will that be a black mark against my child? How are these schools held accountable for fair practices?

Don't overthink it, there is no blacklist if you ask questions.
Just call the school and clarify, no biggie

I wouldn’t be so sure…this isn’t a question like “how long are the interviews “- this is a question that challenges how they are doing things.

See if you actually get an interview, first. You can ask after if you're concerned. You could be "inventing" a problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thanks for posting that link....a couple of things jump out:

1) a 3.8 GPA is regarded the same as a 4.0 for the purpose of their rubric...given how easy grading is (at least at my child's middle school), that's really interesting. A child who has two B+, two A-s and one A in the five core classes (and As in PE, Music, Art, and Health) would be given the same 5 points as a kid with all As.

2) The 31/36 points given to the interview is just bizarre. Where on earth did they come up with that ratio and do they provide the specific rubric for that anywhere? 86% weight for the subjective interview seems like a recipe for abuse.....

This is the issue I have with the GPA cutoff - a 4.0 from some schools is not the same as a 4.0 from others. Some kids will be well prepared for the Walls curriculum, some won't.

That’s the case in high school, college, and life. Some people will be better prepared academically than others because…they attended schools that provided “better” preparation. A student who earns a 4.0 (and attends) a Title 1 middle school should have a chance to attend Walls. That student may be a very hard worker that can make up for lost ground. It’s not that student’s fault they attended a poorly resourced school. Those students bloomed where they were planted, and likely overcame hardship and trauma you can’t imagine.

Remember, talent is equally distributed. Opportunity is not.

I agree, but I don’t think an interview solves this. Have quotas by assigned high school, teacher or school recommendations, or something to spread the opportunity. But we have no idea if the interview questions are supposed to target one demographic or another, or what problem the interview is trying to solve. Totally arbitrary, or, worse, biased.

Compounded by the fact that current students are part of the interview team...but I'm sure teenagers are super objective in their assessment of other teenagers and use only the most appropriate factors to determine "fit."

I recently heard that Walls students are allowed to be part of the interview team even if they have siblings in the applicant pool--that can't possibly be true, right? Do they do anything to establish basic ethics rules around these interviews?

No one except the actual team would know anything about the interviews. So what's your so called source?

My source is the mom of a recent Walls graduate who was part of the interview team before she graduated. She did not have siblings in the applicant pool but said that her friends who were also interviewing did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thanks for posting that link....a couple of things jump out:

1) a 3.8 GPA is regarded the same as a 4.0 for the purpose of their rubric...given how easy grading is (at least at my child's middle school), that's really interesting. A child who has two B+, two A-s and one A in the five core classes (and As in PE, Music, Art, and Health) would be given the same 5 points as a kid with all As.

2) The 31/36 points given to the interview is just bizarre. Where on earth did they come up with that ratio and do they provide the specific rubric for that anywhere? 86% weight for the subjective interview seems like a recipe for abuse.....

This is the issue I have with the GPA cutoff - a 4.0 from some schools is not the same as a 4.0 from others. Some kids will be well prepared for the Walls curriculum, some won't.

That’s the case in high school, college, and life. Some people will be better prepared academically than others because…they attended schools that provided “better” preparation. A student who earns a 4.0 (and attends) a Title 1 middle school should have a chance to attend Walls. That student may be a very hard worker that can make up for lost ground. It’s not that student’s fault they attended a poorly resourced school. Those students bloomed where they were planted, and likely overcame hardship and trauma you can’t imagine.

Remember, talent is equally distributed. Opportunity is not.

I agree, but I don’t think an interview solves this. Have quotas by assigned high school, teacher or school recommendations, or something to spread the opportunity. But we have no idea if the interview questions are supposed to target one demographic or another, or what problem the interview is trying to solve. Totally arbitrary, or, worse, biased.

Compounded by the fact that current students are part of the interview team...but I'm sure teenagers are super objective in their assessment of other teenagers and use only the most appropriate factors to determine "fit."

I recently heard that Walls students are allowed to be part of the interview team even if they have siblings in the applicant pool--that can't possibly be true, right? Do they do anything to establish basic ethics rules around these interviews?

That can't be true...they can't possibly think it's okay for current students to interview if their siblings are in the mix. Even if they don't interview their own siblings, they could very well interview friends' sibilings (or siblings' friends). How do we find out if this is accurate and (before it's too late) put pressure on them to stop this practice?

We are hoping for Walls and I also find this (if true) unethical and concerning. But if we reach out for clarification, will that be a black mark against my child? How are these schools held accountable for fair practices?

Don't overthink it, there is no blacklist if you ask questions.
Just call the school and clarify, no biggie

I wouldn’t be so sure…this isn’t a question like “how long are the interviews “- this is a question that challenges how they are doing things.

See if you actually get an interview, first. You can ask after if you're concerned. You could be "inventing" a problem.

I'm not the PP but I don't see how asking a question is inventing a problem. I suggest contacting Ferrebee's office and asking if this is part of Walls process...the mere question to folks downtown might be enough to get them to tell Walls to knock it off.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thanks for posting that link....a couple of things jump out:

1) a 3.8 GPA is regarded the same as a 4.0 for the purpose of their rubric...given how easy grading is (at least at my child's middle school), that's really interesting. A child who has two B+, two A-s and one A in the five core classes (and As in PE, Music, Art, and Health) would be given the same 5 points as a kid with all As.

2) The 31/36 points given to the interview is just bizarre. Where on earth did they come up with that ratio and do they provide the specific rubric for that anywhere? 86% weight for the subjective interview seems like a recipe for abuse.....

This is the issue I have with the GPA cutoff - a 4.0 from some schools is not the same as a 4.0 from others. Some kids will be well prepared for the Walls curriculum, some won't.

That’s the case in high school, college, and life. Some people will be better prepared academically than others because…they attended schools that provided “better” preparation. A student who earns a 4.0 (and attends) a Title 1 middle school should have a chance to attend Walls. That student may be a very hard worker that can make up for lost ground. It’s not that student’s fault they attended a poorly resourced school. Those students bloomed where they were planted, and likely overcame hardship and trauma you can’t imagine.

Remember, talent is equally distributed. Opportunity is not.

I agree, but I don’t think an interview solves this. Have quotas by assigned high school, teacher or school recommendations, or something to spread the opportunity. But we have no idea if the interview questions are supposed to target one demographic or another, or what problem the interview is trying to solve. Totally arbitrary, or, worse, biased.

Compounded by the fact that current students are part of the interview team...but I'm sure teenagers are super objective in their assessment of other teenagers and use only the most appropriate factors to determine "fit."

I've posted this on here before but I swear during my kid's interview year that all the super attractive kids were admitted. I'm thinking of my kid's friend group of a dozen kids--the few that made it were the conventionally attractive ones.

[Anonymous]

I've posted this on here before but I swear during my kid's interview year that all the super attractive kids were admitted. I'm thinking of my kid's friend group of a dozen kids--the few that made it were the conventionally attractive ones.

Please do not start this again. It is really disgusting and totally undermines the kids who did get in. So sick of hearing this crap.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I've posted this on here before but I swear during my kid's interview year that all the super attractive kids were admitted. I'm thinking of my kid's friend group of a dozen kids--the few that made it were the conventionally attractive ones.

Please do not start this again. It is really disgusting and totally undermines the kids who did get in. So sick of hearing this crap.

DP. I wonder what you think the kids who were waitlisted with high numbers should think. Because Walls only went about 70 kids into the waitlist last year, but they took the time to rank all 211 of the students on the waitlist, so that the kids at the very very end would know with great precision exactly how insufficient they were. Speaking of undermining children.

The fact is, Walls runs an extremely faulty admissions process over a strong applicant pool, with results that do not say very much, one way or the other, about the kids who are accepted or rejected. I don’t think your kid was admitted because they’re pretty, but I do think that if your kid is deriving their sense of self-worth from having been admitted to Walls, you should help them find some more reliable sources of validation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I've posted this on here before but I swear during my kid's interview year that all the super attractive kids were admitted. I'm thinking of my kid's friend group of a dozen kids--the few that made it were the conventionally attractive ones.

Please do not start this again. It is really disgusting and totally undermines the kids who did get in. So sick of hearing this crap.

DP. I wonder what you think the kids who were waitlisted with high numbers should think. Because Walls only went about 70 kids into the waitlist last year, but they took the time to rank all 211 of the students on the waitlist, so that the kids at the very very end would know with great precision exactly how insufficient they were. Speaking of undermining children.

The fact is, Walls runs an extremely faulty admissions process over a strong applicant pool, with results that do not say very much, one way or the other, about the kids who are accepted or rejected. I don’t think your kid was admitted because they’re pretty, but I do think that if your kid is deriving their sense of self-worth from having been admitted to Walls, you should help them find some more reliable sources of validation.

I completely agree with you that no kid should derive their self-worth from having been admitted to Walls. Or to any school or team or job or friend group or any one thing for that matter. I would certainly encourage all parents to prepare their kids for the possibility of not being admitted before applying and that they have so many other things going for them other than the admission or attendance to this school. I also agree with you that the admissions process is faulty and it would be great if it gets better. I also hear you about how the waitlist ranking process can feel pretty crappy, but there are a limited number of spots, to which no one is entitled and there has to be some process for determining how those spots are awarded. Some one has to be last. This is also how a lot of other things in the world work, so preparing kids for the possibility of rejection is pretty important. What I have a huge problem with is the narrative that the kids who got in got in because they are attractive. Who does this narrative work for? It implies that the ones who got in only did because of their looks and that the ones who didn't weren't attractive enough. This doesn't work for any kid on either side and is just crap. So again, please stop with this.

[Anonymous]

Notifications are out…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Notifications are out…

Yup.

[Anonymous]

Just got an email!

[Anonymous]

Any idea what the cut off was for this year

[Anonymous]

Yup, just got an invite.

[Anonymous]

No indication of the cut off in the notification.

[Anonymous]

Any idea if all go out at once? Kid with super high but not 4.0 gpa and nothing yet.