Bottom Half at Sidwell - How is college placement?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is the "Sidwell of New York"? Just curious.[/quote

Dalton

Um, no. Try again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

??? ummm, actually though the Ivy League is an athletic conference, the particular group of schools referred to as "Ivy" do have other commonalities: they are private( do not rely on state funds/ think state budget cuts

This is not exactly accurate. Each of the Ivy League schools (whether called "university" or "college") are major research universities. They depend to a signficant degree on Federal and state funding for research and other direct aid. Princeton, for example, manages the plasma physics lab for the Energy Department, and there are similar ties at other Ivy universities. Whether benefiting from large private endowments or not, these schools like other U.S. universities (and their students) will feel some effect from looming government budged cuts.

So, you agree, the" Ivy League" isn't just an athletic conference, as PP alleged.

And , yes, they may get some state funds, but I think Harvard's budget is not as dependant on them as say, UCLA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All of you people prattling on about the Ivy League - you realize it's an just an athletic conference, right? You're no different on the gun-totin' rednecks down south (at whom you no doubt look down your noses) who woudl only let their kids go to an SEC school.

I think you're missing the point. I suspect that for most people, it's not that they are hellbent on children actually attending an Ivy; instead people are looking for ways to compare the strengths and weaknesses of different high schools. One measure of a high school is how well its grads do in college placement. People look as Ivy admissions as an easy proxy for how the school as a whole does in college placement.

??? ummm, actually though the Ivy League is an athletic conference, the particular group of schools referred to as "Ivy" do have other commonalities: they are private( do not rely on state funds/ think state budget cuts) , very selective in admission, and have HUGE endowments which allow them to offer lots of FA to kids who qualify. Their endowments ( Harvard's is ? 500 Billion also allow them to attract top faculty by offering funded chairs of certain departments, guest lecturers who are leaders in their field, engage in leading scientific research, on and on. Their medical schools, which attract the best and brightest, staff teaching hospitals ( Mass General, Boston Children's, Penn, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Packard Children's/Stanford Medical Center , etc.. with the best and brigtest doctors to provide medical care to low income people who would not have this access otherwise.

Just to name a few things that set the Ivy's apart.

Do they also teach you (i) that Stanford is not in the Ivy League, and (ii) the proper use of an apostrophe?

Don't blame them, I went to public school.

[Anonymous]

SAM2 wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can you elaborate on what you mean when you say that your confidence in the Examiner data is based on its consistency with other data? I'm trying to understand how consistency with the reported data on, for example, National Merit semi-finalists (more reliable, I would say, than SAT data since the College Board releases a list of NMSFs) provides any real confidence in the SAT data? Yes, given the percentage of NMSFs, it's entirely possible that the average SAT is composite 2100, but isn't it also possible that it's much lower and that the students recognized as NMSFs were outliers on the high end.

Let me try to explain my reasoning. When I look at the objectively verifiable Sidwell data, I see several years worth of data in several categories that place its students among the top few independent schools in DMV in terms of academic performance. These categories include NMSF% (15+ years of data), Presidential Scholar data (10-11 years of data), and AMC Math Contest data (8 years of data). So when I find a 1400 SAT average from a reasonably credible source (a published Washington Examiner article as opposed to an anonymous online post), and that SAT average is similar to the SAT averages from others in the top few independent schools, I see that consistency as adding to the credibility of the 1400 number. If the Washington Examiner article had pegged Sidwell's SAT average at 1200 or 1600, I'd see the number as an outlier compared to how Sidwell students perform in other academic measures, so I'd wonder about the difference. I hope that helps explain my reasoning.

To be clear, I'm not trying to argue about which schools are the academic tops. All of these schools are very strong academically, and the differences in numbers I track are often marginal. I also think that if you choose a school for your child based on some number in a spreadsheet, you're making an uninformed choice.

Remember that in 1995 the SAT "recentered" SAT scores (translated: grade inflation, SAT style). I'm assuming many of the parents on this Board took the SAT before 1995. Sidwell's 1400 average score, pre-1995, would be a 1330, which might be easier for some people to believe? Factor in as well the extension standardized test preparation of local private school students (and of course many of the public school kids in this area). When I took the SAT in the mid-1980s, I can only recall one classmate who took something called "Stanley Kaplan," new on the scene back then, and I don't recall people having test prep review books either.

For years I was hornswoggled* (*good SAT word) at the high SAT scores I was hearing from area kids, until I really thought about the effects of test preparation and "recentering."

[Anonymous]

Interesting read from WSJ reporter on updating SAT scores, and on her experience re-taking the SAT at age 57. Her verbal score went up, but her math score went down -- no big surprise there.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124397818883378713.html#articleTabs%3Darticle

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Interesting read from WSJ reporter on updating SAT scores, and on her experience re-taking the SAT at age 57. Her verbal score went up, but her math score went down -- no big surprise there.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124397818883378713.html#articleTabs%3Darticle

Fun read -- thanks for the link.

[Anonymous]

SAM2 wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can you elaborate on what you mean when you say that your confidence in the Examiner data is based on its consistency with other data? I'm trying to understand how consistency with the reported data on, for example, National Merit semi-finalists (more reliable, I would say, than SAT data since the College Board releases a list of NMSFs) provides any real confidence in the SAT data? Yes, given the percentage of NMSFs, it's entirely possible that the average SAT is composite 2100, but isn't it also possible that it's much lower and that the students recognized as NMSFs were outliers on the high end.

Let me try to explain my reasoning. When I look at the objectively verifiable Sidwell data, I see several years worth of data in several categories that place its students among the top few independent schools in DMV in terms of academic performance. These categories include NMSF% (15+ years of data), Presidential Scholar data (10-11 years of data), and AMC Math Contest data (8 years of data). So when I find a 1400 SAT average from a reasonably credible source (a published Washington Examiner article as opposed to an anonymous online post), and that SAT average is similar to the SAT averages from others in the top few independent schools, I see that consistency as adding to the credibility of the 1400 number. If the Washington Examiner article had pegged Sidwell's SAT average at 1200 or 1600, I'd see the number as an outlier compared to how Sidwell students perform in other academic measures, so I'd wonder about the difference. I hope that helps explain my reasoning.

To be clear, I'm not trying to argue about which schools are the academic tops. All of these schools are very strong academically, and the differences in numbers I track are often marginal. I also think that if you choose a school for your child based on some number in a spreadsheet, you're making an uninformed choice.

I would respectfully submit that the data may be consistent or not, but in either case, are not statistically significant.

[Anonymous]

This is all really interesting, and I mean that. But it still doesn't shed much light on how the bottom half do. Is it because most schos don't publish matriculation results, and nobody wants to offer up anecdotes ("the class pothead went to Ball So Hard State") because that would out individual kids?

[Anonymous]

Really truly in our experience there is not much of a clear "bottom half" at Sidwell by high school. There is a group of maybe 20% academic superstars who are also very involved in ECs, these kids have a good chance of getting into HYPS or another top school even without clear hooks, and often do, then there is another 80% that are very strong academically in at least some area (humanities or math/science even if not both) work hard and take their studies seriously and these kids get into really excellent schools as well, even some into the HYPS or Ivy categories particularly if they also have a hook (athletics, alumni, URM). That leaves maybe 10% who end up at schools that perhaps are not thought of as tops academically, these kids perhaps struggled academically sometimes because lifers and decided to stay at the school despite struggles because they were happy there and getting a strong education, or having health or emotional problems or who knows, but really a pretty small group. Sidwell doesn't recruit athletes or have different admissions criteria for athletes, and the proportion of lifers in the class by graduation is only about 20% I think (people move away from DC, kids decide to leave who are academically struggling etc) so the vast majority of kids who are at Sidwell already showed they could test really well on SSATs and do great in academics to get in, so why would it be a surprise that SAT medians are 2100 and that the vast majority of kids end up at selective colleges.

Anyway the original PPs point/question was do you need to worry about your kid if they go to Sidwell and don't end up in the top 10-20% of the class, and the answer is no. Colleges seem to understand the grading is tough, the class is full of top students and that kids from Sidwell and similar independent schools will do well most likely in college even if not straight A students in high school at places like Sidwell.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I wish Sidwell actually posted exmissions, like all the other independent schools in the area.

Sidwell's definitely not alone.

STA: Posts just a small portion of results from topc colleges.
NCS: Used to post, but seemingly now has decided to follow Sidwell's lead of silence.
Holton: Posts just a list of college names with no numbers for each.
Maret: No list that I can find.
GDS: No list that I can find.

Not accurate as to STA. The STA website posts an aggregate five-year list that includes all the colleges to which their have been STA matriculations, not just selected schools. The list does not identify how many students have attended a given college during that time, though:

http://www.stalbansschool.org/page.aspx?pid=722

STA does have counts on their site http://www.stalbansschool.org/page.aspx?pid=2722

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Really truly in our experience there is not much of a clear "bottom half" at Sidwell by high school. There is a group of maybe 20% academic superstars who are also very involved in ECs, these kids have a good chance of getting into HYPS or another top school even without clear hooks, and often do, then there is another 80% that are very strong academically in at least some area (humanities or math/science even if not both) work hard and take their studies seriously and these kids get into really excellent schools as well, even some into the HYPS or Ivy categories particularly if they also have a hook (athletics, alumni, URM). That leaves maybe 10% who end up at schools that perhaps are not thought of as tops academically, these kids perhaps struggled academically sometimes because lifers and decided to stay at the school despite struggles because they were happy there and getting a strong education, or having health or emotional problems or who knows, but really a pretty small group. Sidwell doesn't recruit athletes or have different admissions criteria for athletes, and the proportion of lifers in the class by graduation is only about 20% I think (people move away from DC, kids decide to leave who are academically struggling etc) so the vast majority of kids who are at Sidwell already showed they could test really well on SSATs and do great in academics to get in, so why would it be a surprise that SAT medians are 2100 and that the vast majority of kids end up at selective colleges.

Anyway the original PPs point/question was do you need to worry about your kid if they go to Sidwell and don't end up in the top 10-20% of the class, and the answer is no. Colleges seem to understand the grading is tough, the class is full of top students and that kids from Sidwell and similar independent schools will do well most likely in college even if not straight A students in high school at places like Sidwell.

20% + 80% + 10% = 110%

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Really truly in our experience there is not much of a clear "bottom half" at Sidwell by high school. There is a group of maybe 20% academic superstars who are also very involved in ECs, these kids have a good chance of getting into HYPS or another top school even without clear hooks, and often do, then there is another 80% that are very strong academically in at least some area (humanities or math/science even if not both) work hard and take their studies seriously and these kids get into really excellent schools as well, even some into the HYPS or Ivy categories particularly if they also have a hook (athletics, alumni, URM). That leaves maybe 10% who end up at schools that perhaps are not thought of as tops academically, these kids perhaps struggled academically sometimes because lifers and decided to stay at the school despite struggles because they were happy there and getting a strong education, or having health or emotional problems or who knows, but really a pretty small group. Sidwell doesn't recruit athletes or have different admissions criteria for athletes, and the proportion of lifers in the class by graduation is only about 20% I think (people move away from DC, kids decide to leave who are academically struggling etc) so the vast majority of kids who are at Sidwell already showed they could test really well on SSATs and do great in academics to get in, so why would it be a surprise that SAT medians are 2100 and that the vast majority of kids end up at selective colleges.

Anyway the original PPs point/question was do you need to worry about your kid if they go to Sidwell and don't end up in the top 10-20% of the class, and the answer is no. Colleges seem to understand the grading is tough, the class is full of top students and that kids from Sidwell and similar independent schools will do well most likely in college even if not straight A students in high school at places like Sidwell.

20% + 80% + 10% = 110%

Must have been one of those who is "very strong" in the humanities, but not so much in math.

[Anonymous]

Woops, sorry, the midrange more like 70%, I am actually a science/math nerd, can't believe I can't add. So much for simple arithmetic. The midrange kids are going to really good schools-U Chicago, Bowdoin, Wesleyan, Georgetown, Cornell, McGill, USC, Michigan, Rice, NYU, Hopkins, Barnard, Wash U, Tulane, Emory, a few overseas at LSE, St Andrews, Edinburgh, and in some cases specialized places such as film schools or theater programs. I believe those kids perhaps are benefiting the most from being at a place like Sidwell, at a large public they might not be pushed or challenged as much, and might float long with less intensive advising/college counseling, and end up at less intellectually stimulating colleges and less prepared to excel when they get there.

[Anonymous]

In reference to the previous post comparing GDS to TJ..

TJ has a very diverse socioeconomic student body. College matriculation is more frequently determined by family economics rather than admissions decisions. For example, this is exemplified by the large number of students who attend UVA, frequently as Echols or Jefferson scholars.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Woops, sorry, the midrange more like 70%, I am actually a science/math nerd, can't believe I can't add. So much for simple arithmetic. The midrange kids are going to really good schools-U Chicago, Bowdoin, Wesleyan, Georgetown, Cornell, McGill, USC, Michigan, Rice, NYU, Hopkins, Barnard, Wash U, Tulane, Emory, a few overseas at LSE, St Andrews, Edinburgh, and in some cases specialized places such as film schools or theater programs. I believe those kids perhaps are benefiting the most from being at a place like Sidwell, at a large public they might not be pushed or challenged as much, and might float long with less intensive advising/college counseling, and end up at less intellectually stimulating colleges and less prepared to excel when they get there.

I think I agree with this, on balance. I also think it's possible that some kids might find themselves trying harder at public school, and pushing themselves more to get attention and recognition. I think it would depend a lot on the kid. Certainly, the college advising and counseling is less helpful at public schools.