To Bullis, from a Prospective Family: Stadium Songs Containing the "N Word"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My son plays football for Cilento. He has never been yelled at or treated poorly by anyone on the coaching staff.

Funny how these comments come out after a shutout by Bullis. They won the IAC two years ago and would have likely won it last year if not for their QB getting injured before the final game. This year, they have a shot at winning it again. So no surprise the haters have come out.

The number of kids who have transferred in as juniors is a handful. If your son doesn't go to Bullis, why would you care?

For us, the school has been great academically and athletically.

As for the song, do you really have nothing better to do than worry if a rap song THAT IS ON TOP 40 RADIO is played during the pregame? LOL.

It is a fact that they've had transfers senior year. For a few years the IAC will probably roll with what Bullis does, figuring that every dog has its day and that things are cyclical. But if as a school Bullis continues to recruit players who are actually attending another league school, and bring in upperclass junior/senior transfers for their marquee sports (football, basketball, lacrosse), I do think there is a possibility the IAC will vote them out of the conference. That would not be a good result for Bullis.

Again, time will tell if this is a good long-term strategy (concentrating on sports, using the financial aid dollars for mostly athletes) -- as a school in MoCo Bullis needs to market itself, and sports may be a good way to do it. But if they eventually are seen as a sort of rogue sports school that may chase away some of their constituency in terms of full paying students.

So what you are saying is Bullis is recruiting top Jr. and Sr. students who are gifted athletically into their school, thus ruining their education, in order to win a few games? That's what it seems you are continually implying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My son plays football for Cilento. He has never been yelled at or treated poorly by anyone on the coaching staff.

Funny how these comments come out after a shutout by Bullis. They won the IAC two years ago and would have likely won it last year if not for their QB getting injured before the final game. This year, they have a shot at winning it again. So no surprise the haters have come out.

The number of kids who have transferred in as juniors is a handful. If your son doesn't go to Bullis, why would you care?

For us, the school has been great academically and athletically.

As for the song, do you really have nothing better to do than worry if a rap song THAT IS ON TOP 40 RADIO is played during the pregame? LOL.

It is a fact that they've had transfers senior year. For a few years the IAC will probably roll with what Bullis does, figuring that every dog has its day and that things are cyclical. But if as a school Bullis continues to recruit players who are actually attending another league school, and bring in upperclass junior/senior transfers for their marquee sports (football, basketball, lacrosse), I do think there is a possibility the IAC will vote them out of the conference. That would not be a good result for Bullis.

Again, time will tell if this is a good long-term strategy (concentrating on sports, using the financial aid dollars for mostly athletes) -- as a school in MoCo Bullis needs to market itself, and sports may be a good way to do it. But if they eventually are seen as a sort of rogue sports school that may chase away some of their constituency in terms of full paying students.

So what you are saying is Bullis is recruiting top Jr. and Sr. students who are gifted athletically into their school, thus ruining their education, in order to win a few games? That's what it seems you are continually implying.

There are a few different posters on here, I think. Let me try to clarify my points. I am not dead set against what Bullis is currently doing -- I am more curious to see if it is a sustainable long-term strategy. There are basically two issues I'm interested in watching play out: (1) if Bullis' current approach makes sense financially for them; and (2) where their focus on more high profile athletics will lead them. These are obviously somewhat related.

On the first point, Bullis has a fairly modest endowment -- not surprising given that it started as a school to prep young men for the Naval Academy and only evolved into a "full service" school. Their annual fund giving is okay, not great -- behind some other schools of their size, ahead of others. Significant financial aid generally requires one or more of the following: (1) very high annual fund giving; (2) a big endowment so that the draw can subsidize it; or (3) a set up with lots of families that are full paying, some families on almost full aid, and not much partial aid. Bullis doesn't seem to meet the first two criteria, although maybe the annual giving has picked up. Bullis seems to be going for the third option -- expanding the school to younger grades (which can be money makers), and focusing their financial aid dollars on "twofers": i.e., using 90+% of the financial aid budget for athletes, most of them male. It remains to be seen if they can make this work for them over the long haul and maintain the financial viability of the school.

On the second point, the athletic push might lead to some big gifts. Sometimes those gifts go right back into athletics (for example, the half million dollar JumboTron scoreboard they built this year), so it's not always a given that even if the school pride from athletics increases donations, it goes to the general endowment fund/annual giving. It certainly does seem to have increased the energy on campus and the buzz about Bullis (some negative but a lot positive). There does appear to be some risk that Bullis, if it stays with the current approach for a long period of time, may be asked to leave its athletic conference, the IAC. Generally that's not a good thing -- there does not seem to be a good alternative conference for Bullis, and people like to have traditional rivals that are not located far away. What about Bullis's approach puts them at some risk for staying in their conference (but only if it is sustained for years, I'd argue)?

1. As noted, the significance of upperclass transfers. The other IAC schools do not appear to bring in senior transfers, even the ones that recruit most aggressively. If the other IAC heads feel that what could be analogized to bringing in junior college transfers at the collegiate level is not consistent with an athletic conference meant to keep a balance between academics and athletics, this could be something that is a flashpoint in terms of a movement to expel Bullis from the conference.

2. Recruiting players from other league schools. There are several sports in which Bullis coaches or their emissaries have approached athletes already attending a school in the conference and encouraged them to switch to Bullis. Maybe the IAC will go in a direction that some of the big Catholic high school conferences have gone -- just prohibit such behavior and make students sit out a season if they switch schools -- but this could also be an impetus for kicking Bullis out of the conference.

My own assessment is that it is unlikely, but not impossible, that the IAC would expel Bullis. Bullis's best protection is the small size of the conference already (only six schools), and the gentle hand of inertia. Perhaps a more plausible scenario would be that, as was done with Georgetown Prep, Bullis would not be part of the conference for football. Again, because the conference is so small (only 5 IAC football schools) that probably would not happen.

[Anonymous]

MANIC

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:MANIC

Good post -- very enlightening.

[Anonymous]

LOL. The Don Quixote-like zeal this anti-Bullis poster has is amazing.

Facts:

1. The number of people who have transferred to Bullis as a junior or possibly a senior is a handful

2. Every IAC school accepts junior transfers. SSSAS, for example, had several juniors who transferred there and are/were lacrosse players.


Get over yourself. Stop being so butt-hurt because Bullis' football team is doing well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My son plays football for Cilento. He has never been yelled at or treated poorly by anyone on the coaching staff.

Funny how these comments come out after a shutout by Bullis. They won the IAC two years ago and would have likely won it last year if not for their QB getting injured before the final game. This year, they have a shot at winning it again. So no surprise the haters have come out.

The number of kids who have transferred in as juniors is a handful. If your son doesn't go to Bullis, why would you care?

For us, the school has been great academically and athletically.

As for the song, do you really have nothing better to do than worry if a rap song THAT IS ON TOP 40 RADIO is played during the pregame? LOL.

It is a fact that they've had transfers senior year. For a few years the IAC will probably roll with what Bullis does, figuring that every dog has its day and that things are cyclical. But if as a school Bullis continues to recruit players who are actually attending another league school, and bring in upperclass junior/senior transfers for their marquee sports (football, basketball, lacrosse), I do think there is a possibility the IAC will vote them out of the conference. That would not be a good result for Bullis.

Again, time will tell if this is a good long-term strategy (concentrating on sports, using the financial aid dollars for mostly athletes) -- as a school in MoCo Bullis needs to market itself, and sports may be a good way to do it. But if they eventually are seen as a sort of rogue sports school that may chase away some of their constituency in terms of full paying students.

So what you are saying is Bullis is recruiting top Jr. and Sr. students who are gifted athletically into their school, thus ruining their education, in order to win a few games? That's what it seems you are continually implying.

There are a few different posters on here, I think. Let me try to clarify my points. I am not dead set against what Bullis is currently doing -- I am more curious to see if it is a sustainable long-term strategy. There are basically two issues I'm interested in watching play out: (1) if Bullis' current approach makes sense financially for them; and (2) where their focus on more high profile athletics will lead them. These are obviously somewhat related.

On the first point, Bullis has a fairly modest endowment -- not surprising given that it started as a school to prep young men for the Naval Academy and only evolved into a "full service" school. Their annual fund giving is okay, not great -- behind some other schools of their size, ahead of others. Significant financial aid generally requires one or more of the following: (1) very high annual fund giving; (2) a big endowment so that the draw can subsidize it; or (3) a set up with lots of families that are full paying, some families on almost full aid, and not much partial aid. Bullis doesn't seem to meet the first two criteria, although maybe the annual giving has picked up. Bullis seems to be going for the third option -- expanding the school to younger grades (which can be money makers), and focusing their financial aid dollars on "twofers": i.e., using 90+% of the financial aid budget for athletes, most of them male. It remains to be seen if they can make this work for them over the long haul and maintain the financial viability of the school.

On the second point, the athletic push might lead to some big gifts. Sometimes those gifts go right back into athletics (for example, the half million dollar JumboTron scoreboard they built this year), so it's not always a given that even if the school pride from athletics increases donations, it goes to the general endowment fund/annual giving. It certainly does seem to have increased the energy on campus and the buzz about Bullis (some negative but a lot positive). There does appear to be some risk that Bullis, if it stays with the current approach for a long period of time, may be asked to leave its athletic conference, the IAC. Generally that's not a good thing -- there does not seem to be a good alternative conference for Bullis, and people like to have traditional rivals that are not located far away. What about Bullis's approach puts them at some risk for staying in their conference (but only if it is sustained for years, I'd argue)?

1. As noted, the significance of upperclass transfers. The other IAC schools do not appear to bring in senior transfers, even the ones that recruit most aggressively. If the other IAC heads feel that what could be analogized to bringing in junior college transfers at the collegiate level is not consistent with an athletic conference meant to keep a balance between academics and athletics, this could be something that is a flashpoint in terms of a movement to expel Bullis from the conference.

2. Recruiting players from other league schools. There are several sports in which Bullis coaches or their emissaries have approached athletes already attending a school in the conference and encouraged them to switch to Bullis. Maybe the IAC will go in a direction that some of the big Catholic high school conferences have gone -- just prohibit such behavior and make students sit out a season if they switch schools -- but this could also be an impetus for kicking Bullis out of the conference.

My own assessment is that it is unlikely, but not impossible, that the IAC would expel Bullis. Bullis's best protection is the small size of the conference already (only six schools), and the gentle hand of inertia. Perhaps a more plausible scenario would be that, as was done with Georgetown Prep, Bullis would not be part of the conference for football. Again, because the conference is so small (only 5 IAC football schools) that probably would not happen.

Why do you think annual giving is so low at Bullis? (My understanding is that it continues to lag by 20-30% behind Sidwell, Cathedral schools, Landon, Holton, etc.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MANIC

Good post -- very enlightening.

It is actually, I think the poster is actually manic. He has posted the same exact post at least 20 times that I have read and I have only been on DCUM for 8 months.

It is too bad he had a bad experience with Bullis but he is obsessive and needs to move on.

Many of us have had bad experiences at a school but don't try to discredit the school, over and over and over again, obsessivly. Sometimes it is a bad fit. So what, move on... but this obsessive need to prove they are right and the school is wrong is sad.

This poster will not be happy until Bullis is kicked out of the IAC and then they can be vindicated.

It's almost as pathetic as the dad at Sidwell who is sueing over his wifes affair. Move on already, nobody cares.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:LOL. The Don Quixote-like zeal this anti-Bullis poster has is amazing.

Facts:

1. The number of people who have transferred to Bullis as a junior or possibly a senior is a handful

2. Every IAC school accepts junior transfers. SSSAS, for example, had several juniors who transferred there and are/were lacrosse players.


Get over yourself. Stop being so butt-hurt because Bullis' football team is doing well.

LOL. With friends like this, Bullis doesn't need enemies!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My son plays football for Cilento. He has never been yelled at or treated poorly by anyone on the coaching staff.

Funny how these comments come out after a shutout by Bullis. They won the IAC two years ago and would have likely won it last year if not for their QB getting injured before the final game. This year, they have a shot at winning it again. So no surprise the haters have come out.

The number of kids who have transferred in as juniors is a handful. If your son doesn't go to Bullis, why would you care?

For us, the school has been great academically and athletically.

As for the song, do you really have nothing better to do than worry if a rap song THAT IS ON TOP 40 RADIO is played during the pregame? LOL.

It is a fact that they've had transfers senior year. For a few years the IAC will probably roll with what Bullis does, figuring that every dog has its day and that things are cyclical. But if as a school Bullis continues to recruit players who are actually attending another league school, and bring in upperclass junior/senior transfers for their marquee sports (football, basketball, lacrosse), I do think there is a possibility the IAC will vote them out of the conference. That would not be a good result for Bullis.

Again, time will tell if this is a good long-term strategy (concentrating on sports, using the financial aid dollars for mostly athletes) -- as a school in MoCo Bullis needs to market itself, and sports may be a good way to do it. But if they eventually are seen as a sort of rogue sports school that may chase away some of their constituency in terms of full paying students.

So what you are saying is Bullis is recruiting top Jr. and Sr. students who are gifted athletically into their school, thus ruining their education, in order to win a few games? That's what it seems you are continually implying.

There are a few different posters on here, I think. Let me try to clarify my points. I am not dead set against what Bullis is currently doing -- I am more curious to see if it is a sustainable long-term strategy. There are basically two issues I'm interested in watching play out: (1) if Bullis' current approach makes sense financially for them; and (2) where their focus on more high profile athletics will lead them. These are obviously somewhat related.

On the first point, Bullis has a fairly modest endowment -- not surprising given that it started as a school to prep young men for the Naval Academy and only evolved into a "full service" school. Their annual fund giving is okay, not great -- behind some other schools of their size, ahead of others. Significant financial aid generally requires one or more of the following: (1) very high annual fund giving; (2) a big endowment so that the draw can subsidize it; or (3) a set up with lots of families that are full paying, some families on almost full aid, and not much partial aid. Bullis doesn't seem to meet the first two criteria, although maybe the annual giving has picked up. Bullis seems to be going for the third option -- expanding the school to younger grades (which can be money makers), and focusing their financial aid dollars on "twofers": i.e., using 90+% of the financial aid budget for athletes, most of them male. It remains to be seen if they can make this work for them over the long haul and maintain the financial viability of the school.

On the second point, the athletic push might lead to some big gifts. Sometimes those gifts go right back into athletics (for example, the half million dollar JumboTron scoreboard they built this year), so it's not always a given that even if the school pride from athletics increases donations, it goes to the general endowment fund/annual giving. It certainly does seem to have increased the energy on campus and the buzz about Bullis (some negative but a lot positive). There does appear to be some risk that Bullis, if it stays with the current approach for a long period of time, may be asked to leave its athletic conference, the IAC. Generally that's not a good thing -- there does not seem to be a good alternative conference for Bullis, and people like to have traditional rivals that are not located far away. What about Bullis's approach puts them at some risk for staying in their conference (but only if it is sustained for years, I'd argue)?

1. As noted, the significance of upperclass transfers. The other IAC schools do not appear to bring in senior transfers, even the ones that recruit most aggressively. If the other IAC heads feel that what could be analogized to bringing in junior college transfers at the collegiate level is not consistent with an athletic conference meant to keep a balance between academics and athletics, this could be something that is a flashpoint in terms of a movement to expel Bullis from the conference.

2. Recruiting players from other league schools. There are several sports in which Bullis coaches or their emissaries have approached athletes already attending a school in the conference and encouraged them to switch to Bullis. Maybe the IAC will go in a direction that some of the big Catholic high school conferences have gone -- just prohibit such behavior and make students sit out a season if they switch schools -- but this could also be an impetus for kicking Bullis out of the conference.

My own assessment is that it is unlikely, but not impossible, that the IAC would expel Bullis. Bullis's best protection is the small size of the conference already (only six schools), and the gentle hand of inertia. Perhaps a more plausible scenario would be that, as was done with Georgetown Prep, Bullis would not be part of the conference for football. Again, because the conference is so small (only 5 IAC football schools) that probably would not happen.

Why do you think annual giving is so low at Bullis? (My understanding is that it continues to lag by 20-30% behind Sidwell, Cathedral schools, Landon, Holton, etc.)

Annual giving at Bullis is less than 50% of what the leading DC area day school has per year (and Bullis is comparably sized). Not sure why, though. Annual giving can take a long time to build up, so they may be working on it and helping establish a giving culture.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:LOL. The Don Quixote-like zeal this anti-Bullis poster has is amazing.

Facts:

1. The number of people who have transferred to Bullis as a junior or possibly a senior is a handful

2. Every IAC school accepts junior transfers. SSSAS, for example, had several juniors who transferred there and are/were lacrosse players.


Get over yourself. Stop being so butt-hurt because Bullis' football team is doing well.

How about seniors? Can't think of any, can you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MANIC

Good post -- very enlightening.

It is actually, I think the poster is actually manic. He has posted the same exact post at least 20 times that I have read and I have only been on DCUM for 8 months.

It is too bad he had a bad experience with Bullis but he is obsessive and needs to move on.

Many of us have had bad experiences at a school but don't try to discredit the school, over and over and over again, obsessivly. Sometimes it is a bad fit. So what, move on... but this obsessive need to prove they are right and the school is wrong is sad.

This poster will not be happy until Bullis is kicked out of the IAC and then they can be vindicated.

It's almost as pathetic as the dad at Sidwell who is sueing over his wifes affair. Move on already, nobody cares.

In reading posts that are negative - I do not think it is the same poster. Varying word choice - tone and inferences. Why are you so interested in squelching discourse? If you like Bullis and their practices - great. But stop trying to dictate how others should feel. Your opinion doesnt make it fact.

Bullis is controversial. Miles down the road from a top high school that people forgo to pay $35,000. That in and of itself is interesting given that it just honestly cannot say it is a top academic school. Across any metric - it is not.

This fact and these athletic practices are creating controversy. Who are you to say how we should react to this? It is you that is continually telling people to shut-up. Maybe you should.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My son plays football for Cilento. He has never been yelled at or treated poorly by anyone on the coaching staff.

Funny how these comments come out after a shutout by Bullis. They won the IAC two years ago and would have likely won it last year if not for their QB getting injured before the final game. This year, they have a shot at winning it again. So no surprise the haters have come out.

The number of kids who have transferred in as juniors is a handful. If your son doesn't go to Bullis, why would you care?

For us, the school has been great academically and athletically.

As for the song, do you really have nothing better to do than worry if a rap song THAT IS ON TOP 40 RADIO is played during the pregame? LOL.

It is a fact that they've had transfers senior year. For a few years the IAC will probably roll with what Bullis does, figuring that every dog has its day and that things are cyclical. But if as a school Bullis continues to recruit players who are actually attending another league school, and bring in upperclass junior/senior transfers for their marquee sports (football, basketball, lacrosse), I do think there is a possibility the IAC will vote them out of the conference. That would not be a good result for Bullis.

Again, time will tell if this is a good long-term strategy (concentrating on sports, using the financial aid dollars for mostly athletes) -- as a school in MoCo Bullis needs to market itself, and sports may be a good way to do it. But if they eventually are seen as a sort of rogue sports school that may chase away some of their constituency in terms of full paying students.

So what you are saying is Bullis is recruiting top Jr. and Sr. students who are gifted athletically into their school, thus ruining their education, in order to win a few games? That's what it seems you are continually implying.

There are a few different posters on here, I think. Let me try to clarify my points. I am not dead set against what Bullis is currently doing -- I am more curious to see if it is a sustainable long-term strategy. There are basically two issues I'm interested in watching play out: (1) if Bullis' current approach makes sense financially for them; and (2) where their focus on more high profile athletics will lead them. These are obviously somewhat related.

On the first point, Bullis has a fairly modest endowment -- not surprising given that it started as a school to prep young men for the Naval Academy and only evolved into a "full service" school. Their annual fund giving is okay, not great -- behind some other schools of their size, ahead of others. Significant financial aid generally requires one or more of the following: (1) very high annual fund giving; (2) a big endowment so that the draw can subsidize it; or (3) a set up with lots of families that are full paying, some families on almost full aid, and not much partial aid. Bullis doesn't seem to meet the first two criteria, although maybe the annual giving has picked up. Bullis seems to be going for the third option -- expanding the school to younger grades (which can be money makers), and focusing their financial aid dollars on "twofers": i.e., using 90+% of the financial aid budget for athletes, most of them male. It remains to be seen if they can make this work for them over the long haul and maintain the financial viability of the school.

On the second point, the athletic push might lead to some big gifts. Sometimes those gifts go right back into athletics (for example, the half million dollar JumboTron scoreboard they built this year), so it's not always a given that even if the school pride from athletics increases donations, it goes to the general endowment fund/annual giving. It certainly does seem to have increased the energy on campus and the buzz about Bullis (some negative but a lot positive). There does appear to be some risk that Bullis, if it stays with the current approach for a long period of time, may be asked to leave its athletic conference, the IAC. Generally that's not a good thing -- there does not seem to be a good alternative conference for Bullis, and people like to have traditional rivals that are not located far away. What about Bullis's approach puts them at some risk for staying in their conference (but only if it is sustained for years, I'd argue)?

1. As noted, the significance of upperclass transfers. The other IAC schools do not appear to bring in senior transfers, even the ones that recruit most aggressively. If the other IAC heads feel that what could be analogized to bringing in junior college transfers at the collegiate level is not consistent with an athletic conference meant to keep a balance between academics and athletics, this could be something that is a flashpoint in terms of a movement to expel Bullis from the conference.

2. Recruiting players from other league schools. There are several sports in which Bullis coaches or their emissaries have approached athletes already attending a school in the conference and encouraged them to switch to Bullis. Maybe the IAC will go in a direction that some of the big Catholic high school conferences have gone -- just prohibit such behavior and make students sit out a season if they switch schools -- but this could also be an impetus for kicking Bullis out of the conference.

My own assessment is that it is unlikely, but not impossible, that the IAC would expel Bullis. Bullis's best protection is the small size of the conference already (only six schools), and the gentle hand of inertia. Perhaps a more plausible scenario would be that, as was done with Georgetown Prep, Bullis would not be part of the conference for football. Again, because the conference is so small (only 5 IAC football schools) that probably would not happen.

Good post. Thoughtful and thought-provoking, and moderate in tone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LOL. The Don Quixote-like zeal this anti-Bullis poster has is amazing.

Facts:

1. The number of people who have transferred to Bullis as a junior or possibly a senior is a handful

2. Every IAC school accepts junior transfers. SSSAS, for example, had several juniors who transferred there and are/were lacrosse players.


Get over yourself. Stop being so butt-hurt because Bullis' football team is doing well.

How about seniors? Can't think of any, can you?

Yes. But they are not athletes so you will never hear about them.

[Anonymous]

Not sure how anyone can claim that Bullis is 30% lower in annual giving than a school like Sidwell, but that would not be shocking.

1. Some other schools have larger populations.

2. Many other schools have much longer histories of giving.

3. Many other schools have alums who have much deeper pockets and/or come from families with history of giving

4. Many other schools have current families much better off financially.


If Bullis (or any other school) is so bad and your child doesn't go there, why the obsession?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MANIC

Good post -- very enlightening.

It is actually, I think the poster is actually manic. He has posted the same exact post at least 20 times that I have read and I have only been on DCUM for 8 months.

It is too bad he had a bad experience with Bullis but he is obsessive and needs to move on.

Many of us have had bad experiences at a school but don't try to discredit the school, over and over and over again, obsessivly. Sometimes it is a bad fit. So what, move on... but this obsessive need to prove they are right and the school is wrong is sad.

This poster will not be happy until Bullis is kicked out of the IAC and then they can be vindicated.

It's almost as pathetic as the dad at Sidwell who is sueing over his wifes affair. Move on already, nobody cares.

In reading posts that are negative - I do not think it is the same poster. Varying word choice - tone and inferences. Why are you so interested in squelching discourse? If you like Bullis and their practices - great. But stop trying to dictate how others should feel. Your opinion doesnt make it fact.

Bullis is controversial. Miles down the road from a top high school that people forgo to pay $35,000. That in and of itself is interesting given that it just honestly cannot say it is a top academic school. Across any metric - it is not.

This fact and these athletic practices are creating controversy. Who are you to say how we should react to this? It is you that is continually telling people to shut-up. Maybe you should.

I am not interested in quelching discorse but this poster has posted the same information 8 times, just on this thread. He jumps on every single Bullis thread and posts the same thing for days, weeks, months.

You can not have any conversatin about Bullis without this one poster taking it off course. What does a senior transfer have to do with the music selection at a football game?

I said move on, which is very healthy advice. You say for me to shut up, I can see you are a very sad person.

Bullis is not controversial. On with your quest.