Why am I paying for private when Wilson HS (DCPS) admits are this good?

[Anonymous]

How are private schools "select[ing] for smart students" and
"accepting only rich kids who are mediocre at best academically or intellectually" a consistent narrative?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How are private schools "select[ing] for smart students" and
"accepting only rich kids who are mediocre at best academically or intellectually" a consistent narrative?

DP. I think the point is that private schools can select their students. If you're full-pay and have a reasonably bright kid, they can attend private--they don't have to be exceptional. Private schools are more homogeneous in terms of the types of kids that attend, most being from fairly well-off families.

Of course, Wilson is much more diverse, and you have more extremes--kids who probably don't have college in their future attend alongside extremely bright kids of highly educated Wilson parents (professors, journalists, etc.). So you'll get more extremes in outcomes, too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:P.S. All the college admissions of the so-called "elite" families from Wilson HS should be discounted. I mean, the kids of these college professors are fairly likely to be legacies, and we all know that when you're a legacy...

Op here. Interesting point but the Wilson kids I Know are getting into elite schools that their parents didn’t attend. Their parents are all highly educated professionals (to a person) but went to different schools. Or in some cases the kid got into the parent legacy school but also another elite without any hooks.

And why doesn't your theory apply similarly to private school kids who are also admitted to, in your words, "elite schools"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How are private schools "select[ing] for smart students" and
"accepting only rich kids who are mediocre at best academically or intellectually" a consistent narrative?

My 2 cents: the smartest, most creative, most ultimately successful kids are likely to be in publics, because top creativity and intellectual capacity do not correlate to working in jobs with salaries that support private school tuitions.

Top publics in intellectual areas (NW DC, college towns) have some of those very top kids, plus lots of really motivated and smart kids, plus everyone else.

Private schools have a lot of extremely privileged kids who are motivated and smart; and also a lot of average kids with moneyed parents who will be "successful" in terms of the researched variables.

So basically: the fact that privates have some smart, motivated kids does not mean that publics do not. And the fact that some smart, motivated kids attend privates does not mean that they are all smart and motivated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How are private schools "select[ing] for smart students" and
"accepting only rich kids who are mediocre at best academically or intellectually" a consistent narrative?

DP. I think the point is that private schools can select their students. If you're full-pay and have a reasonably bright kid, they can attend private--they don't have to be exceptional. Private schools are more homogeneous in terms of the types of kids that attend, most being from fairly well-off families.

Of course, Wilson is much more diverse, and you have more extremes--kids who probably don't have college in their future attend alongside extremely bright kids of highly educated Wilson parents (professors, journalists, etc.). So you'll get more extremes in outcomes, too.

P.S. I say this as someone with a younger kid in private but who is IB for Deal/Wilson, and will have to decide whether to stay in private or look at Wilson/Walls when the time comes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you're full-pay and have a reasonably bright kid, they can attend private--they don't have to be exceptional.

But that's not what I'm hearing from public school parents on DCUM. They declare quite confidently that private schools are largely admitting rich kids who are mediocre, not ones who are "reasonably bright."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How are private schools "select[ing] for smart students" and
"accepting only rich kids who are mediocre at best academically or intellectually" a consistent narrative?

My 2 cents: the smartest, most creative, most ultimately successful kids are likely to be in publics, because top creativity and intellectual capacity do not correlate to working in jobs with salaries that support private school tuitions.

Top publics in intellectual areas (NW DC, college towns) have some of those very top kids, plus lots of really motivated and smart kids, plus everyone else.

Private schools have a lot of extremely privileged kids who are motivated and smart; and also a lot of average kids with moneyed parents who will be "successful" in terms of the researched variables.

So basically: the fact that privates have some smart, motivated kids does not mean that publics do not. And the fact that some smart, motivated kids attend privates does not mean that they are all smart and motivated.

Huh? What you're saying doesn't make any sense. It sounds like you have a few select jobs in mind. However, one could name very high-salary jobs that require "top creativity and intellectual capacity."

Newsflash: there are smart and motivated, smart and unmotivated, not very smart but motivated, and not very smart and unmotivated kids in every k-12 school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My 2 cents: the smartest, most creative, most ultimately successful kids are likely to be in publics, because top creativity and intellectual capacity do not correlate to working in jobs with salaries that support private school tuitions.

And what's your measure of "smartest, most creative, and most ultimately successful"? I see a large chunk of alums from the so-called Big 3 who seem to have accomplished a ton in both the creative and intellectual realms and are at least on par with those from public schools.

Also, there are plenty of families at our private school where one parent has the high-powered lucrative job and the other is in academia. How do they fit in your false dichotomy?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kid is at Deal and we’re about to pay $$ for a big3 school instead of Wilson. However, this week is DCPS spring break and many people I know are taking their kids around to accepted schools to make their college decisions. These kids from Wilson were accepted at Carnegie Mellon, Northwestern, Michigan, UCLA, NYU, Vassar, Pomona, Cornell, Brown, Oberlin and Swarthmore. Typical smart white kids. Nothing out of the ordinary. And this is just the handful of kids I know from my block and/or siblings of kids from our DCPS elementary. So why am I paying for private next year again? I’ve found Deal to be uneven at best but it doesn’t seem to make one bit of difference (if college admission is the end game).

Community, safety, small classes, hands on learning, small advisory groups, few behavioral issues - nothing like in public, beautiful campus and buildings, resources, and reinforcement of our values are what we are looking for in private. Top of the list my child is not worried about being jumped in the bathroom anymore because they posed off the wrong group of kids.

Parent of a Wilson senior here: WTH are you talking about??? Oh wait, now I remember. This is the lie you tell yourself to feel better about dropping tens of thousands of dollars for private.

#GoTigers!

I’m grateful I don’t have to worry about my kid getting jumped by kids in the bathroom yes kids worry about this and my kid also doesn’t need to worry about their peers overdosing while at school and watching the ambulance come. Also our school doesn’t keep kids in the school that were caught on video gang attacking someone on the subway. There’s a video of it and they were allowed to stay in school. Safety first.

As a parent of a private school student, this is just embarrassing.

+1.

-a parent who has done public and private

DP. Why embarrassed? It is true. Read the paper. 5 kids overdosed at Wilson school last year in class during the school day. Also, the video of 6 kids beating up a man on the subway is also true. Not to mention kids allowed to stay at the school after physical altercations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My kid is at Deal and we’re about to pay $$ for a big3 school instead of Wilson. However, this week is DCPS spring break and many people I know are taking their kids around to accepted schools to make their college decisions. These kids from Wilson were accepted at Carnegie Mellon, Northwestern, Michigan, UCLA, NYU, Vassar, Pomona, Cornell, Brown, Oberlin and Swarthmore. Typical smart white kids. Nothing out of the ordinary. And this is just the handful of kids I know from my block and/or siblings of kids from our DCPS elementary. So why am I paying for private next year again? I’ve found Deal to be uneven at best but it doesn’t seem to make one bit of difference (if college admission is the end game).

You don’t get it so you won’t be able to understand the difference. Unless your public is very small and suburban and run like a private, there’s no comparison private community, resources, education, and environment so much better. Day and night.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How are private schools "select[ing] for smart students" and
"accepting only rich kids who are mediocre at best academically or intellectually" a consistent narrative?

My 2 cents: the smartest, most creative, most ultimately successful kids are likely to be in publics, because top creativity and intellectual capacity do not correlate to working in jobs with salaries that support private school tuitions.

Top publics in intellectual areas (NW DC, college towns) have some of those very top kids, plus lots of really motivated and smart kids, plus everyone else.

Private schools have a lot of extremely privileged kids who are motivated and smart; and also a lot of average kids with moneyed parents who will be "successful" in terms of the researched variables.

So basically: the fact that privates have some smart, motivated kids does not mean that publics do not. And the fact that some smart, motivated kids attend privates does not mean that they are all smart and motivated.

Huh? What you're saying doesn't make any sense. It sounds like you have a few select jobs in mind. However, one could name very high-salary jobs that require "top creativity and intellectual capacity."

Newsflash: there are smart and motivated, smart and unmotivated, not very smart but motivated, and not very smart and unmotivated kids in every k-12 school.

Top creativity and intellect = physics professor; playwrite; investigative journalist; principal investigator at NIH, etc etc. None of those generally make enough to send kids to private (maybe with the right spouse you could). The kind of jobs that give throw-away private school tuition money are lobbyist, investment banker, law partner ... none of those are very intellectual. Smart, motivated, bright, sure. But not creative & intellectual.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My 2 cents: the smartest, most creative, most ultimately successful kids are likely to be in publics, because top creativity and intellectual capacity do not correlate to working in jobs with salaries that support private school tuitions.

And what's your measure of "smartest, most creative, and most ultimately successful"? I see a large chunk of alums from the so-called Big 3 who seem to have accomplished a ton in both the creative and intellectual realms and are at least on par with those from public schools.

Also, there are plenty of families at our private school where one parent has the high-powered lucrative job and the other is in academia. How do they fit in your false dichotomy?

So defensive! I guess it hurts to know that private school and your HHI don't make you intellectual or creative? And yes, sure, you could have a professor married to a banker.

I'm not saying there aren't very bright and successful kids in private schools. Obviously there are. I'm just saying that the engines of creativity and thought and public service come from public schools (because those kinds of families don't prioritze money making above all else; they prioritize their work, which is not so lucrative.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My 2 cents: the smartest, most creative, most ultimately successful kids are likely to be in publics, because top creativity and intellectual capacity do not correlate to working in jobs with salaries that support private school tuitions.

And what's your measure of "smartest, most creative, and most ultimately successful"? I see a large chunk of alums from the so-called Big 3 who seem to have accomplished a ton in both the creative and intellectual realms and are at least on par with those from public schools.

Also, there are plenty of families at our private school where one parent has the high-powered lucrative job and the other is in academia. How do they fit in your false dichotomy?

So defensive! I guess it hurts to know that private school and your HHI don't make you intellectual or creative? And yes, sure, you could have a professor married to a banker.

I'm not saying there aren't very bright and successful kids in private schools. Obviously there are. I'm just saying that the engines of creativity and thought and public service come from public schools (because those kinds of families don't prioritze money making above all else; they prioritize their work, which is not so lucrative.)

And I think additionally, it must bug you to know that we send our kids to public schools without much of a second thought, because they don't need the "extras" to succeed ...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Top creativity and intellect = physics professor; playwrite; investigative journalist; principal investigator at NIH, etc etc. None of those generally make enough to send kids to private (maybe with the right spouse you could).

Nice sleight of hand. We were talking about accomplishments of the kids, not their parents. And if you look at the alumni lists of private schools around here, there are lots of folks who exactly fit the bill above.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:the engines of creativity and thought and public service come from public schools

Although my kids are in private, I went to one of the top public schools in this area and have no freaking clue what you mean by this.