Big 5 = "most desired" schools, not necessarily "the best"

[Anonymous]

Well, I guess parents who spend time chauvering their kids to and fro private school (starbucks and high teas) are obviously in the minority. You're right. It's much more expensive for a household to homeschool than send their child to an elite DC private school.

[Anonymous]

This has actually been a fascinating thread with lots of interesting new perspective once you get beyond the tired old mean-girl Big 3 dynamics, which the OP intended. Underlying it all, it seems to me, is the eagerness of some parents of young children to find a school that will actually TURN THEIR CHILDREN INTO National Merit finalists or ivy league students. My own background with older children and education tells me that this does NOT happen, and I concur with those who have said that the crucial question is how schools deepen and expand the educational experience for children that are naturally one-rung down (or even more) from super brilliant. It's hard for parents of young children, who all see their children as full of unlimited and spectacular potential, to accept that the super brilliant, the merit finalists, the truly exceptional students are born, not made, and they reveal themselves slowly in relation to their peers as they develop. We should all focus our analytical attention instead on how some of the various private schools manipulate their SAT/Merit/Ivy statistics by cherry-picking ivy legacies and high scorers at all entrance points, to the detriment of high-potential "normal" kids and kids who offer a more unique mix.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This has actually been a fascinating thread with lots of interesting new perspective once you get beyond the tired old mean-girl Big 3 dynamics, which the OP intended. Underlying it all, it seems to me, is the eagerness of some parents of young children to find a school that will actually TURN THEIR CHILDREN INTO National Merit finalists or ivy league students. My own background with older children and education tells me that this does NOT happen, and I concur with those who have said that the crucial question is how schools deepen and expand the educational experience for children that are naturally one-rung down (or even more) from super brilliant. It's hard for parents of young children, who all see their children as full of unlimited and spectacular potential, to accept that the super brilliant, the merit finalists, the truly exceptional students are born, not made, and they reveal themselves slowly in relation to their peers as they develop. We should all focus our analytical attention instead on how some of the various private schools manipulate their SAT/Merit/Ivy statistics by cherry-picking ivy legacies and high scorers at all entrance points, to the detriment of high-potential "normal" kids and kids who offer a more unique mix.

Even with kids at a Big 3, well said.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This has actually been a fascinating thread with lots of interesting new perspective once you get beyond the tired old mean-girl Big 3 dynamics, which the OP intended. Underlying it all, it seems to me, is the eagerness of some parents of young children to find a school that will actually TURN THEIR CHILDREN INTO National Merit finalists or ivy league students. My own background with older children and education tells me that this does NOT happen, and I concur with those who have said that the crucial question is how schools deepen and expand the educational experience for children that are naturally one-rung down (or even more) from super brilliant. It's hard for parents of young children, who all see their children as full of unlimited and spectacular potential, to accept that the super brilliant, the merit finalists, the truly exceptional students are born, not made, and they reveal themselves slowly in relation to their peers as they develop. We should all focus our analytical attention instead on how some of the various private schools manipulate their SAT/Merit/Ivy statistics by cherry-picking ivy legacies and high scorers at all entrance points, to the detriment of high-potential "normal" kids and kids who offer a more unique mix.

I was with you most of the way, but wanted to make two points:

(1) On the "born, not made" point, I'd agree that super-brilliant Nat'l Merit finalists need to be lucky enough to be born with a certain amount of smarts, and also need to be lucky enough to be born into a family that nurtures their smarts. However, I think they also are most likely to take advantage of those inborn smarts if they attend a school that further helps them develop. The super-smart kid who is stuck in a mediocre school may is a lot less likely to excel.

(2) I sense an unwarranted bias against private schools in your last sentence. I don't think it's quite correct that private schools pick "high scorers" or Ivy legacies for admission just to boost their stats. I'm also not sure how you differentiate the "high scorers" supposedly getting preference from the "high-potential normal" kids that you want to benefit. Finally, I'd note that to the extent it's fair to criticize "cherry picking" (i.e., giving extra opportunities to kids that demonstrate high potential), those exact same accusations could be leveled at public magnet schools like Thomas Jefferson and Blair, probably even more damningly than they could be leveled at any private schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This has actually been a fascinating thread with lots of interesting new perspective once you get beyond the tired old mean-girl Big 3 dynamics, which the OP intended. Underlying it all, it seems to me, is the eagerness of some parents of young children to find a school that will actually TURN THEIR CHILDREN INTO National Merit finalists or ivy league students. My own background with older children and education tells me that this does NOT happen, and I concur with those who have said that the crucial question is how schools deepen and expand the educational experience for children that are naturally one-rung down (or even more) from super brilliant. It's hard for parents of young children, who all see their children as full of unlimited and spectacular potential, to accept that the super brilliant, the merit finalists, the truly exceptional students are born, not made, and they reveal themselves slowly in relation to their peers as they develop. We should all focus our analytical attention instead on how some of the various private schools manipulate their SAT/Merit/Ivy statistics by cherry-picking ivy legacies and high scorers at all entrance points, to the detriment of high-potential "normal" kids and kids who offer a more unique mix.

I am not hoping to find a school to turn my DS into a NSM finalist or ivy league student --- his scores are fine. I am trying to find a HS that will provide my DS with a high achieving and hard working peer group and individual attention by faculty. For that purpose the medain SATs of the graduating class and the number of NSM semi-finalists are a good initial screen when looking at schools. I would also argue, but I am too busy to look up the references, that most kids perform better when with peers who are slightly more motivated and competent than they are, so I also think that these schools are actually good for many kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We should all focus our analytical attention instead on how some of the various private schools manipulate their SAT/Merit/Ivy statistics by cherry-picking ivy legacies and high scorers at all entrance points, to the detriment of high-potential "normal" kids and kids who offer a more unique mix.

Interesting. I wondered why my DD's application to 6th grade asked where her parents went to college.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please give the denominator. In other words, how large are the classes?

I used the document linked on page 2 of thread for class sizes, which might not correspond exactly with the 2009 graduating classes at these schools, but should be relatively close. Percentages and raw numbers shown below.

Sidwell 16% (18/111)
StA 12% (10/82)
NCS 12% (9/73)
GDS 12% (14/114)
Holton 9% (7/76)
Potomac 8% (6/73)
Maret 2% (2/69)
Landon 1% (1/69)

TJ 37% (153/403)
Blair 6% (43/650?)
BCC 1% (8/450?)

Not to be picky, but GDS has over 120 seniors not 114. Sidwell has more than 111 senios. Not sure about the rest.

[Anonymous]

I think it's comical how a few posters have taken a thread whose original message was "you can't rank schools by who is 'best', only by who is in greatest demand" and then proceeded to try and rank these schools by one obscure National Merit stat. Pretty pathetic. Some posters really seem to be obsessed with proving that only 3 schools are the best. I was questioning the whole "GDS incognito" argument, but this thread is making me think differently.

[Anonymous]

I find it disappointing that so many posters are so totally wrapped up in proving which school is better that they are not using this forum to gather information that is helpful to them and their families. Quite frankly, those who are secure in their knowledge don't have to say a word.

I also think that school administrators visit this site to get their daily laughs........

[Anonymous]

Actually, I'd think that the takeaway from this thread is that if you want to send your kid to a school that attracts/produces the most high-achieving students, go for a public magnet. And that if you're only considering private, you should be adding schools like Burke, Visitation, Gonzaga, Holton Arms, and Charles E. Smith to your list as well as Potomac and Maret.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think it's comical how a few posters have taken a thread whose original message was "you can't rank schools by who is 'best', only by who is in greatest demand" and then proceeded to try and rank these schools by one obscure National Merit stat. Pretty pathetic. Some posters really seem to be obsessed with proving that only 3 schools are the best. I was questioning the whole "GDS incognito" argument, but this thread is making me think differently.

I'm 15:20 on page 1 who first mentioned the National Merit data. I agree that it's silly to try to reduce these schools to one single statistic, and I made that point in my original post. However, if people are going to insist on objective data rather than just subjective (made up?) claims and counter-claims about these schools, then I think the National Merit data is more useful than Norwood exmissions data. I also don't agree that the quality of these schools can be reduced to a simple popularity contest of which is "in greatest demand." There are real differences between the schools, and some will be better or worse than others for each individual family and/or in different categories of comparison.

As I also made clear, I did not know what the data would show, nor do I particularly care how the schools rank. So your suggestion that there is some secret DCUM conspiracy to prove that just three schools are best is off-base. Indeed, even if we do reduce the schools to this one data statistic, the percentages all are very close and the sample-size is tiny. For example, if just two more Holton students had been named semifinalist last year (ie, answered perhaps just 3-4 more questions correctly on the PSAT), then Holton's percentage would be at 12%, the exact same as StA/NCS/GDS.

Like I said though, it's silly to reduce these schools to just one metric. They're all good. I suspect if you could create 15 different metrics that measure 15 different aspects of the schools, then maybe you could start to compare and contrast them, but that's never going to be feasible. If you're a parent trying to decide where to send your child, consider this metric as well as several others. If you're a parent who is trying to "prove" that one school is better or worse or not-as-good-as another, then you are wasting your time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think it's comical how a few posters have taken a thread whose original message was "you can't rank schools by who is 'best', only by who is in greatest demand" and then proceeded to try and rank these schools by one obscure National Merit stat. Pretty pathetic. Some posters really seem to be obsessed with proving that only 3 schools are the best. I was questioning the whole "GDS incognito" argument, but this thread is making me think differently.

Is this the GDS hater trying a different tack? As a number of schools have been discussed in this thread, why do you insist that "some posters really seem to be obsessed with proving that only 3 schools are the best." Where on this thread has someone written something to the effect of "clearly the Cathedral schools, GDS, and SFS are the best?"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's comical how a few posters have taken a thread whose original message was "you can't rank schools by who is 'best', only by who is in greatest demand" and then proceeded to try and rank these schools by one obscure National Merit stat. Pretty pathetic. Some posters really seem to be obsessed with proving that only 3 schools are the best. I was questioning the whole "GDS incognito" argument, but this thread is making me think differently.

Is this the GDS hater trying a different tack? As a number of schools have been discussed in this thread, why do you insist that "some posters really seem to be obsessed with proving that only 3 schools are the best." Where on this thread has someone written something to the effect of "clearly the Cathedral schools, GDS, and SFS are the best?"

Agreed that this thread highlights a large number of schools, not just three. I think what's has made this thread (or at least most of it) fairly interesting, is that most posters seem more willing to follow the data wherever it goes, and are less result-oriented than other threads Indeed, as I review the thread, the most direct statement of "here's the best" comes from OP, who was pushing to include Maret and Potomac in a top tier.

Other interesting tidbits I see in the data:
(1) Holton consistently scores well on the Nation Merit data, not just for 2008-09, but also for some other years I noticed when googling for data. I know Holton is good, but I was surprised at how good.
(2) TJ & Blair have amazing statistics. I know a lot of that comes from the magnet nature of their programs, but I can't tell how much. I noted on the list of Virginia semifinalists that while TJ has lots, most other NoVA schools have very few. Is TJ the only major magnet school in NoVA? Is it basically sucking all the top academic students out of the other schools, which boosts TJ's numbers and reduces the numbers for other schools?
(3) I was surprised at how few semifinalists came from BCC. I suspect that's because most of the strongest BCC students can afford to go to area private schools, and not a weakness in BCC's program.

I think Malcolm Gladwell should study TJ for a chapter in his next book. TJ provides a nice story because of all its awards and accolades. There are tons of stats and metrics that Gladwell's staff can crunch. It seems right up Gladwell's alley to look at all the stats associated with TJ's success story, and try to separate the real reasons from the red herrings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's comical how a few posters have taken a thread whose original message was "you can't rank schools by who is 'best', only by who is in greatest demand" and then proceeded to try and rank these schools by one obscure National Merit stat. Pretty pathetic. Some posters really seem to be obsessed with proving that only 3 schools are the best. I was questioning the whole "GDS incognito" argument, but this thread is making me think differently.

I'm 15:20 on page 1 who first mentioned the National Merit data. I agree that it's silly to try to reduce these schools to one single statistic, and I made that point in my original post. However, if people are going to insist on objective data rather than just subjective (made up?) claims and counter-claims about these schools, then I think the National Merit data is more useful than Norwood exmissions data. I also don't agree that the quality of these schools can be reduced to a simple popularity contest of which is "in greatest demand." There are real differences between the schools, and some will be better or worse than others for each individual family and/or in different categories of comparison.

As I also made clear, I did not know what the data would show, nor do I particularly care how the schools rank. So your suggestion that there is some secret DCUM conspiracy to prove that just three schools are best is off-base. Indeed, even if we do reduce the schools to this one data statistic, the percentages all are very close and the sample-size is tiny. For example, if just two more Holton students had been named semifinalist last year (ie, answered perhaps just 3-4 more questions correctly on the PSAT), then Holton's percentage would be at 12%, the exact same as StA/NCS/GDS.

Like I said though, it's silly to reduce these schools to just one metric. They're all good. I suspect if you could create 15 different metrics that measure 15 different aspects of the schools, then maybe you could start to compare and contrast them, but that's never going to be feasible. If you're a parent trying to decide where to send your child, consider this metric as well as several others. If you're a parent who is trying to "prove" that one school is better or worse or not-as-good-as another, then you are wasting your time.

The point of the original post is that you CAN measure demand for certain schools (# of applications), but you cannot measure "the best" (because it's a highly subjective determination, and it's multifactoral with different weights for different factors for different families... ie. I might weigh 'excellence in athletics' in a top school much more than you do).

You can measure the question "Which schools, on a % basis, have the most Merit scholars", as one discrete data point, but we must be very careful not to imply that this in turn creates a best schools ranking. You say this above, and I applaud you for it. But other posters in this same thread have suggested, based on the use of this data alone, that (1) we should limit top schools to the BIG 3 (poster 18:49) and (2) that based on this data we should resolve an argument that SFS/Cathedral are better than GDS (poster 8:40). These are examples of misuse of this data -- likely understandable given the topic of "the best" schools in the header of this thread. I think the discussion would have been more useful/credible if it had occurred in a separate thread that was titled something like "comparing National Merit numbers".

All that said, I agree that posters in this thread have done a good job of revealing some very interesting insights (the concentration of Merit scholars in the public magnets in particular) -- and I applaud you/them for doing so. Perhaps based on this discussion there will be a greater appreciation for the relative merits or marets of a wider range of schools than just the Big 3/5/10+, and a greater appreciation for the top public schools. That, in my book, is a positive outcome.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's comical how a few posters have taken a thread whose original message was "you can't rank schools by who is 'best', only by who is in greatest demand" and then proceeded to try and rank these schools by one obscure National Merit stat. Pretty pathetic. Some posters really seem to be obsessed with proving that only 3 schools are the best. I was questioning the whole "GDS incognito" argument, but this thread is making me think differently.

I'm 15:20 on page 1 who first mentioned the National Merit data. I agree that it's silly to try to reduce these schools to one single statistic, and I made that point in my original post. However, if people are going to insist on objective data rather than just subjective (made up?) claims and counter-claims about these schools, then I think the National Merit data is more useful than Norwood exmissions data. I also don't agree that the quality of these schools can be reduced to a simple popularity contest of which is "in greatest demand." There are real differences between the schools, and some will be better or worse than others for each individual family and/or in different categories of comparison.

.

I agree with you - but do recognize that the top college rankings like US News are exactly that. They survey people to find out who they think are "the best". Again, I don't agree... I think that just makes them the most in demand/most popular.