Sidwell vs GDS upper school
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
I'm not sure what you'd want me to check in the archives -- can you please explain? All I know is that when I look at the names of the AMC commended students from Sidwell for the past few years, the majority of the names I see are not traditionally Asian-sounding. And when I look at other schools, I see similar numbers of Asian-sounding names in the lists of commended students. It certainly could conceivably be true that some of the Sidwell commended students were from China (and I don't know anything about Sidwell's math program so I can't say), but it's pretty clear there are plenty of non-exchange students getting those scores. I agree with your other point about these numbers being just one metric, and not the best one for comparing schools. Both of these schools are excellent, so there's really no need to squabble over details. I just find the claim about Chinese ringers to sound a bit ridiculous, particularly in light of the name lists I've reviewed. |
Anonymous
I'm not the person who posted the comment you're quoting, but I did follow the suggestion to check the archives and it seems as if Sidwell may have a "Zhang Dynasty," to use your turn of phrase, wrt these math competitions. A quick websearch confirms that Minhua Zhang and Hengchu Zhang came to Sidwell from China. Don't know about Xiuyuan Zhang (whose results seem to be contemporaneous with Tobin's). At any rate, "ringers" was your gloss -- not the PP's. And it goes to the larger question I've been raising about whether/when a particular HS should be treated as producing this kind of mathematical talent/achievement. Personally, I don't think it's surprising or illegitimate that students who come from abroad to attend US schools may be accepted in part because they're truly exceptional kids. |
Anonymous
Seems like a better measure of math achievement that would be meaningful for most of us would be the percent of students who take AP Calculus exams (AB and BC) and the average score. The AMCs seem to target really only the very best math students (at least by US standards), which judging by the numbers (between 0-4/year) would be statistically insignificant, though it might tell you something about the level of math coaching available at these schools. I haven't done a search of the number of AP test-takers and their scores, but perhaps someone knows these stats? |
Anonymous
And/or median PSAT/SAT math scores, which may be easier to find. |
Anonymous
Well now you got me curious, so I did some research. I ran a quick search on the AMC results I have (2004-2010). You'll be happy to know that neither of the two exchange-students you named are listed as AMC honors winners for Sidwell in any of those seven years, so they don't appear anywhere in the numbers I collected. When I ran a broader Google search, I discovered that one of them won a few math awards in the 2000-01 time-frame, and the other placed in a local math competition more recently. But my earlier point remains -- it's certainly conceivable that some commended students were Chinese exchange students, but it seems pretty clear that most were not (unless perhaps they all adopted Anglicized surnames when they arrived in the US!). Among all the other Sidwell honors students during those seven years, I see just two other students with that last name, with no indication whether they might be exchange students or not. I also noted several other students with the same last name from other local DC schools like Blair & TJ, but again no indication whether they might be exchange students. (BTW, I think I'm done with this discussion. It's feeling a bit creepy to be researching individual students, and my curiosity is satisfied, so I am going to stand down.) |
Anonymous
|
No, Sam, I'm not happy to know they don't appear in the numbers you've collected. That just shows the incompleteness of your data set. Basically, if the AMC data is a "metric" for anything, it's for how many kids there typically are at a particular school who do well in math competitions. As already pointed out, by focussing exclusively on one kind of competitions that not every school emphasizes (nationally administered individual tests vs. team-based university-run invitationals and local competitions (which are clearly relevant when you're comparing day schools in the area)), you miss a lot of this kind of activity.
Basically when you patch together data from the web and make assumptions without knowing much about the phenomena you're hoping to capture, you're likely to come up with numbers that are really pretty useless and, in some cases, downright misleading. FWIW, Minhua won an AIME scholarship in 2001, was Sidwell's highest scorer at the 2000 UMd competition. When I searched his name I saw references in alumn pubs from both Sidwell and his HS in China to the fact that he was an exchange student. Hengchu is one of only two kids from Sidwell who got honorable mention in the 2009 UMd competition. And there's an article online describing his experience as a Sidwell exchange student. Xiuyuan is one of 3 Sidwell kids receiving honorable mention in the 2008 UMd competition, Tobin was one of the others. What I take away from this is that the PP who stated that some of the Sidwell kids who do best in these math competitions are Chinese exchange students knows what s/he is talking about (probably a parent familiar with local scene) and that you have a tendency to make assumptions/jump to conclusions that aren't warranted. I see why PP's claim matters wrt the extent to which Sidwell's curriculum produces these results but, of course, the presence of such kids benefits any other mathlete at Sidwell and no one (except you) suggested that it might reflect badly on Sidwell to enroll kids from China that are math whizzes. And re the creepiness of researching individual kids, you started it with references to Tobin and Fernandez and it's an artifact of the kind of statistics you've collected which, again, reflect more about the individuals than the schools. Given that all we're talking about is successes/achievements that are publicized by schools and test sponsors, I think it's pretty harmless. But I agree that if it comes down to this kind of discussion, you're not talking about institutions any more and it seems kind of pointless. |
Anonymous
I think we're going to have to agree to disagree here.
I collected and summarized data on six years of AMC contest results (back through 2005). You seem to think that AMC contest results from 2000-05, and other local math contest results, are necessary to any review process. I'm less convinced of the value, and I don't get paid to do this, so I'm not so interested in doing that. I encourage you to find and summarize all that data. If you do, I'm more than happy to incorporate it into the existing spreadsheets.
As for "patching together data," while I know my data method is far from perfect, the six years of data I've gathered covers approximately 90-100 students from Sidwell and another 40-50 from GDS. This is fairly extensive, especially when compared to the anecdotal experience of two individual exchange students attending school ten years apart. I'm also not clear what assumptions you think I'm making. It's precisely to ground-truth many of the unsubstantiated claims and assumptions on DCUM that I started collecting data in the first place. I am not touting GDS vs. Sidwell (or any other school), and my own advice to OP was that they're both great can't-miss schools. My only reason for getting involved in this discussion of AMC results is that I perceived some PP (you?) as suggesting that Sidwell's AMC success is the product of a foreign-exchange program. That claim is inconsistent with the data I reviewed. I don't think we are making much progress here. Maybe we can end by agreeing that if some parent is really concerned about comparing in detail the math programs at GDS and Sidwell, then she should have in-depth discussions with the schools themselves (and should not rely solely on cold internet data or anonymous DCUM claims)? |
Anonymous
|
I don't think there's much if any disagreement on advice to the OP. Both great schools, go for fit.
But the agreement I was hoping for on data use/collection was that you'd put a little more thought into what you're trying to measure and how best to do that. You tend to start with easily available data and graft on (and/or encourage others to graft on) theses it doesn't support. And I think you shouldn't make judgments about the data based on guesswork re last names, especially when doing so involves suggesting that another poster (again, NOT ME) who, in this case, turned out to know more than you did, is blowing smoke/lying. I don't fault you for not knowing what that PP knew when you assembled the data (if I remember correctly, your kids are preschoolers and I suspect the PP's are HS'ers who are involved in math competitions). But when someone makes an empirical claim and suggests you investigate, maybe you should treat it was a more open mind and a little more diligence before you blow them off. I did -- honestly, I had no idea who was right. And it didn't take me long to see PP wasn't making stuff up. BTW, a little more poking around yielded two more Chinese exchange students (Shi and Liu) who were Sidwell's top AMC/AMO performers in the period you singled out (2005-present). Again, I think Sidwell's Chinese program is a selling point for the school. But PP was not inaccurate when s/he pointed out that its students have been major contributors to Sidwell's AMC/AMO/IMO performances. They're still Sidwell students, they're still a valuable part of the cohort, they still reflect glory on the school. But their math skills aren't primarily a function or reflection of the quality of Sidwell's math instruction. |
Anonymous
|
I think someone is a little too preoccupied about Sidwell and math.
Sheesh. |
Anonymous
I agree that I start with easily available data, but I don't understand your accusation that I graft on theses the data doesn't support. Could you please give me an example of when I've done that? As for thinking about what I want to measure, I welcome your thoughts on what I should measure and how best to accomplish that. You seem to think I have some grand thesis I'm trying to push with this data. But I don't. I just try to collect the data and see where it leads without any preconceived plans.
Fair enough. I hated doing that because I don't like relying on naming stereotypes to foreclose the possibility that a last name like "Jones" or "Baker" might actually be a Chinese exchange student with an atypical name. But I'm fairly confident in my assumption. And really, can you claim you didn't do the exact same thing when you searched for which names on the AMC lists might be Chinese exchange students? Or did you honestly search to see whether every name on those lists (even ones like "Baker") might be Chinese exchange students?
I don't think this criticism is fair. The original claim about Chinese exchange students is one you may describe as "empirical," but I'd say it was completely unsubstantiated since no support was included, so I don't see where I have any obligation to investigate it. Once someone chimed in the say "check the archives," my response was to ask for an explanation of what/where I should check (3/9@8:08), and to explain my reasoning (i.e., that most of the AMC names don't appear to be Asian so are unlikely to be Chinese exchange students). I acknowledged early in this discussion (3/9@8:08) that some of the commended students could be visiting, and it appears some are (and many are not). I appreciate your digging for answers. Perhaps if the other PP had provided some basic support for her original claim, I might not have criticized her so quickly. In re-reading her one-liner comment though, I still detect an undercurrent of denigrating the school's entire math program, which still gets under my skin because it's precisely the sort of unsubstantiated claim that caused me to start tracking data in the first place. Perhaps she did not mean it that way, and I am too quick to condemn others. Maybe she will come back to explain herself. Your earlier comments seem to focus on local math contests, other AMC years, and the need for additional data in other areas. I hope you will follow up by gathering and summarizing some new data. |
Anonymous
| Sidwell always wins. It always does. Especially when GDS is involved. |
Anonymous
Good. |
Anonymous
| You need to look at USAMO qualifiers, y'all. That is where the claim came from. |
Anonymous
| I am totally not denigrating Sidwell's overall math program, 16:27. But on the AMC/AIME claim, GDS is stronger at this point. Happy to look at PSAT scores in math or other measures, and Sidwell might come out ahead. The better measure for a math-oriented kid, might the enthusiasm for the math team, size of it, etc., all indicating school commitment to math. The earlier claim that Sidwell is a little indifferent to that, combined with the idea that its most outstanding students are one-year students who may be exchange students, is suggestive but, as many have said, doesn't indict the whole system. |
Anonymous
|
18:24 again - when making the claim I was in a rush and didn't feel comfortable even quoting names of Chinese citizens, just like I'd not name local kids. I can probably give quite a bit more data, if you care to be specific.
But now we can perhaps quit sniping and acknowledege again - as many have - that OP has great choices. |