College Counseling at Sidwell - One Year Later

[Anonymous]

Is it true that in the past several years GDS seniors have been more successful than Sidwell in very selective college/univ admissions?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is it true that in the past several years GDS seniors have been more successful than Sidwell in very selective college/univ admissions?

From what I know anecdotally, I wouldn't say GDS is more successful; on par mostly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I agree. They are just as qualified, not more qualified. So they got in on the legacy status, not their own merit. Not if they were just as qualified.

Of course they got in on merit. The school already decided that when they made the final cut of qualified applicants who were deserving on merit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree. They are just as qualified, not more qualified. So they got in on the legacy status, not their own merit. Not if they were just as qualified.

Of course they got in on merit. The school already decided that when they made the final cut of qualified applicants who were deserving on merit.

But then the school chose the legacy (in the above example) twice as many times as the non-legacy. So it is like the legacy is a tually competing with nonlegacies with stronger merit-based qualifications.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So it is like the legacy is a tually competing with nonlegacies with stronger merit-based qualifications.

That may be your spin on things, but that's not how the admissions committee makes its decisions. The point remains that, when it comes to the pool of applicants with borderline qualifications, the admissions committee will likely accept based on what will make the class more well rounded in light of who's already gotten in.

So if the class needs more students from South Dakota or female STEM majors, and fewer musicians or males from the Los Angeles area, the admissions committee will select accordingly and legacy status is likely considered in the same manner as the attributes I listed. If a non-legacy got in because the school happened to want more students from SD or female STEM majors that particular year, did they get in on their own merit?

And, if in the following year, the school had accepted too many female STEM majors or South Dakotans already, and ended up shutting out the borderline candidates with these qualities, did they suddenly become unworthy of admission?

For the borderline cases, there is no such thing as standing on their own merits. All of them, whether accepted, waitlisted, or denied, stood on their own merits to get as far as they did. The ultimate admissions decision they received was pure luck and circumstance based on the year in which they applied.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But they still have to be very good, which means standing on their own merits at least a large percentage of the way.

But not the whole way. The legacy student simply does not have to work as hard or be as good, only good enough to almost get there. They don’t stand on their own. They get carried.

Like URMs and sports recruits?

Exactly. Every time you see a matriculation list make sure you denote the URM athletes.

[Anonymous]

And the legacies and the rich kids whose parents could play for twenty prep classes and the safari to Botswana. Opportunity afforded by wealth and privilege is also a hook.

[Anonymous]

By that logic, higher test scores are also a hook, given the strong correlation with wealth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:More counselors.
More aggressive advocacy with colleges.
Better intro to process and laying out a timeline beginning freshman year.
More transparency and management of expectations.

[b]This applies to all the local privates.

Agree with highlighted text above -- these are problem areas at SFS, but not at all schools. I know this because our oldest went through SFS and middle kid went through another school (where youngest is currently a junior). SFS college counseling was disorganized and lackadaisical compared to our experience at the other school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More counselors.
More aggressive advocacy with colleges.
Better intro to process and laying out a timeline beginning freshman year.
More transparency and management of expectations.

[b]This applies to all the local privates.

Agree with highlighted text above -- these are problem areas at SFS, but not at all schools. I know this because our oldest went through SFS and middle kid went through another school (where youngest is currently a junior). SFS college counseling was disorganized and lackadaisical compared to our experience at the other school.

I have two that have either gone through it or are going through it. I have no issues with the timelines set out or milestones that need to be met to keep it orderly. Granted, I don't have a basis of comparison, but I don't find the information disorganized or lackadaisical. There are more handouts, power points and meetings than are needed, IMO.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it true that in the past several years GDS seniors have been more successful than Sidwell in very selective college/univ admissions?

From what I know anecdotally, I wouldn't say GDS is more successful; on par mostly.

Yes but that is really a win for GDS because on balance the parents at GDS are far less impressive; ergo, the students' achievements are more likely to be merit-based.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it true that in the past several years GDS seniors have been more successful than Sidwell in very selective college/univ admissions?

From what I know anecdotally, I wouldn't say GDS is more successful; on par mostly.

Yes but that is really a win for GDS because on balance the parents at GDS are far less impressive; ergo, the students' achievements are more likely to be merit-based.

You can't fairly say that. The GDS parent body includes a number of former senior administration and policy types, think tank leaders, leading journalists, public intellectuals, tech entrepreneurs, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And the legacies and the rich kids whose parents could play for twenty prep classes and the safari to Botswana. Opportunity afforded by wealth and privilege is also a hook.

Save the tired "woke' refrain. So 2017.

[Anonymous]

I want to know more about what Sidwell does right in college counseling and where it falls short compared to other leading independent schools? Where are the gaps and how could it improve?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I want to know more about what Sidwell does right in college counseling and where it falls short compared to other leading independent schools? Where are the gaps and how could it improve?

Even with improved leadership and staffing this year, I would say at a minimum that Sidwell Friends needs to invest in more full-time or at least part-time (ie, shared faculty) college counselor positions. The current number of counselors, one of whom also is director, each carry a load to too many advisees.

College counseling is one of the school's most important services, and one of the last experiences that a student and her family will have at Sidwell. It makes sense for a number of reasons for Sidwell to invest more in this function.