Sidwell College Admissions This Year

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parent of a high stats kid from another private school...our college counselors made it very, very clear that all bets are off for ANY college with acceptance rates <20%. Those schools cannot be counted on for any kid. They insisted that kids have at least 3 schools with acceptance rates over 50% and at least one had to have an acceptance rate over 60%. Other than that, kids were strongly encouraged to find at least 5-6 schools in the 20-50 percent range that they could really be happy at.

This seemed to work well when the advice was followed...the ones that ended up unhappy are those who disregarded the advice and just put in a couple of safeties and shotgun 20 plus applications for schools with <15% acceptance rates. These kids and their parents are now blaming the counselor for not doing more.

I'm not saying that is what is going on at Sidwell but it is certainly the case that people are upset that the process/outcomes were different that what they were 4-5 years ago and they didn't want to hear it.

New to this thread..(at least since April surge)...the concerning part of admissions this year is that I hear of SOOO many students who are not accepted to these schools despite having great stats and activities. Maybe for yield protection? It feels very hard these days to feel confident in creating even a list of matches/safeties. Very much hoping that the CCO will be able to gain insight from what happened this year.

Here is an example... The University of Wisconsin has long been seen as a fantastic "safety" for high stats kids. This year, not only did they delay notification for EA until the end of January, but they also waitlisted tens of thousands of applicants, admitting only a half the incoming class (plus yield) on EA, deferring the rest to the RD pool. Add to it, that kids with over 1500 and over 3.6 UW MCPS were part of the deferred or denied group. So all of the sudden, applicants in the 3.2-3.6 range with say 1450 are no longer shoe-ins there. That means applicants start having to look at - I am just making up names - Kansas, Clemson, Indiana, iowa etc for that 100% admission somewhere else.

MCPS =/= Sidwell.

Is Wisconsin a safety for 3.6 UW MCPS?

Not anymore.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The college counselors make like 85k total per year - and have how many juniors and seniors to work with? They aren’t a college counselor getting 12k per kid! I think parents also need to be reasonable about their expectations. They are employees paid a relatively low wage in DC and are doing fine. The college admission game has changed and these top schools no longer can get their overly well qualified students all into t20 schools. Test optional screwed a lot of kids, colleges looking for more diversity of all types also does not play well for the majority of sidwell parents. What the college counselors need to tell full pay unhooked parents is your kid won’t get into an Ivy or top 20 because of this, you should ED at a target school you’d be happy at so you have a real chance.

There has never been a time that a school like Sidwell sent "all" of its kids to T20 schools. Ever. I doubt such was the case for Andover or Exetor either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As a former SFS parent, I agree that it's ridiculous to try to tell parents it doesn't matter where your kid goes to school. Depending on the field a student wants to pursue, it can be helpful to go to a T20 university, plus, after a very rigorous high school experience, most parents will want their kids to go to challenging university. That doesn't mean Ivies or even T20s.

I think Lauren does a really good job --she knows how to best present applicants -- but she can't work miracles. In the past few years there has been a shift toward rural, first generation, URM applicants, especially at the very top schools. There are plenty of excellent schools though, and my sense is that most SFS grads are getting into them. And once they get in, they do very well. I think SFS does a great job in preparing students for college.

Am I right that your experience with Lauren as a former parent is from when she was previously in the counseling office before she left? It seems like most of the discussion here has been focused on the counseling aspect of the office. And presumably you don’t have any insight into the three other counselors, who are new. Based on my experience I think that Lauren lets the other three do their jobs in their own way, with very little oversight.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not a Sidwell parent. My kids go to a different private school. We were less than impressed by our college counseling as well. In hindsight I realize what someone else already mentioned. The school college counselors don’t really care about your individual kid. They are trying to get the best results for the school. What they want sometimes works in your favor and sometimes against it. Advice for future parents - Do your own research. Hire a private counselor who is your kid’s advocate. Listen to your school counselor but keep in mind that sometimes you need to ignore their advice. No one cares about your kids applications as much as you and your kid.

Private counselors are not calling colleges on your kids behalf. As such, what do you mean by the bolded?

I agree that private counselors are not calling colleges on your behalf. I mean they will help you make a list that is 100% focused on what is best for your child. They won’t discourage your kid from applying to a particular school because it is the first choice of a VIP’s kid.

Sidwell CCO's don't dissuade a student from applying anywhere. If you look at the top of the thread, there were a lot of complaints that "they allowed" 15 seniors to apply to Brown ED. So which is it, they should be dissuading kids or they shouldn't be?

See? Its a no-win.

When someone gave the MIT hypothetical a few pages ago, the response was that the CCO would need to tell the girl that she had virtually no chance at MIT and look at other schools that might be consistent with her interests. And the response by many was "they do this." That would be dissuading (which they should do when appropriate), not prohibiting (which they should not do). Unfortunately the fact is that they did not dissuade any of the seniors who applied ED to Brown. There are some of those 15 who now wish they had been dissuaded and had applied ED somewhere they might have had a better shot.

But if they were dissuaded and did not apply, they will always think they might have a chance.

So what? I "might have had a chance" to marry Brad Pitt if I'd met him between marriages. Is that how you live your life? What ifs?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not a Sidwell parent. My kids go to a different private school. We were less than impressed by our college counseling as well. In hindsight I realize what someone else already mentioned. The school college counselors don’t really care about your individual kid. They are trying to get the best results for the school. What they want sometimes works in your favor and sometimes against it. Advice for future parents - Do your own research. Hire a private counselor who is your kid’s advocate. Listen to your school counselor but keep in mind that sometimes you need to ignore their advice. No one cares about your kids applications as much as you and your kid.

Private counselors are not calling colleges on your kids behalf. As such, what do you mean by the bolded?

I agree that private counselors are not calling colleges on your behalf. I mean they will help you make a list that is 100% focused on what is best for your child. They won’t discourage your kid from applying to a particular school because it is the first choice of a VIP’s kid.

Sidwell CCO's don't dissuade a student from applying anywhere. If you look at the top of the thread, there were a lot of complaints that "they allowed" 15 seniors to apply to Brown ED. So which is it, they should be dissuading kids or they shouldn't be?

See? Its a no-win.

When someone gave the MIT hypothetical a few pages ago, the response was that the CCO would need to tell the girl that she had virtually no chance at MIT and look at other schools that might be consistent with her interests. And the response by many was "they do this." That would be dissuading (which they should do when appropriate), not prohibiting (which they should not do). Unfortunately the fact is that they did not dissuade any of the seniors who applied ED to Brown. There are some of those 15 who now wish they had been dissuaded and had applied ED somewhere they might have had a better shot.

But if they were dissuaded and did not apply, they will always think they might have a chance.

So what? I "might have had a chance" to marry Brad Pitt if I'd met him between marriages. Is that how you live your life? What ifs?

And even then, unless you stack up to Jen and Angelina in the looks department, you could probably assure yourself that you would have had no chance. Just like some of the Brown ED applicants would have realized that they would have had no chance when they saw their classmates with stronger records get rejected.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not a Sidwell parent. My kids go to a different private school. We were less than impressed by our college counseling as well. In hindsight I realize what someone else already mentioned. The school college counselors don’t really care about your individual kid. They are trying to get the best results for the school. What they want sometimes works in your favor and sometimes against it. Advice for future parents - Do your own research. Hire a private counselor who is your kid’s advocate. Listen to your school counselor but keep in mind that sometimes you need to ignore their advice. No one cares about your kids applications as much as you and your kid.

Private counselors are not calling colleges on your kids behalf. As such, what do you mean by the bolded?

I agree that private counselors are not calling colleges on your behalf. I mean they will help you make a list that is 100% focused on what is best for your child. They won’t discourage your kid from applying to a particular school because it is the first choice of a VIP’s kid.

Sidwell CCO's don't dissuade a student from applying anywhere. If you look at the top of the thread, there were a lot of complaints that "they allowed" 15 seniors to apply to Brown ED. So which is it, they should be dissuading kids or they shouldn't be?

See? Its a no-win.

When someone gave the MIT hypothetical a few pages ago, the response was that the CCO would need to tell the girl that she had virtually no chance at MIT and look at other schools that might be consistent with her interests. And the response by many was "they do this." That would be dissuading (which they should do when appropriate), not prohibiting (which they should not do). Unfortunately the fact is that they did not dissuade any of the seniors who applied ED to Brown. There are some of those 15 who now wish they had been dissuaded and had applied ED somewhere they might have had a better shot.

But if they were dissuaded and did not apply, they will always think they might have a chance.

So what? I "might have had a chance" to marry Brad Pitt if I'd met him between marriages. Is that how you live your life? What ifs?

And even then, unless you stack up to Jen and Angelina in the looks department, you could probably assure yourself that you would have had no chance. Just like some of the Brown ED applicants would have realized that they would have had no chance when they saw their classmates with stronger records get rejected.

Looks is just like high stats....a minimum threshold. Those two are rich, a list movie stars.

[Anonymous]

This thread just keeps going .........

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This thread just keeps going .........

We are trying to figure out who gets to marry brad pitt. Any insight?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is a hard message to deliver and I apologize in advance. A 3.7 just isn’t all that compelling and neither is a 34 ACT relatively speaking for top 15 universities even coming from a great school like Sidwell. If your kid isn’t a NMF and/or Presidential Scholar candidate and done some substantive internships or academic research outside of school, and hit > 3.9 overall GPA having taken the Math I — Math IV sequence plus all the accelerated 1A sciences plus four years of language, plus a >1560 SAT or 35/36 ACT, you really don’t get on the radar screen of the top 15 schools. Exception is the hooked kids — namely athletes, legacies and URM, but a couple of those hooked kids have the former qualifications, too, making them spectacularly attractive applicants. These schools really know Sidwell and for example understand that a solid A from Math III is a pretty powerful academic signal. I just cannot sit by and continue to watch the Sidwell CCO get trashed the way it is by some folks on this forum. In the aggregate, they are doing a good job in a very challenging and competitive environment. The reality is, putting aside the “branding” element, the top 30 - 50 schools offer a great education. Sidwell parent of senior.

To the extent the above is at least partially true, it illustrates what has gone wrong with Sidwell over the years:

Offer a few very difficult (advanced) which are pretty harshly graded. Students who don't take these can't claim to have taken the most difficult classes. Those that do face harsh grading distributions and lower GPAs. Bad outcomes either way.

By contrast many other schools offer advanced courses that are perhaps slightly less tough than Sidwell's toughest classes, but are also graded much better (look at the course grading profiles from Westlake etc posted upthread). This allows the students at these schools to take the more advanced classes (and claim to have done so) and do well on them. Hard courses plus grade deflation favors the very very top (perhaps 5 students each grade) and hurts the top 10-25 percent of the class. If the objective is to provide the opportunity for a super high level education, that works. For better admissions outcomes it is a total fail.

--Senior Parent

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a hard message to deliver and I apologize in advance. A 3.7 just isn’t all that compelling and neither is a 34 ACT relatively speaking for top 15 universities even coming from a great school like Sidwell. If your kid isn’t a NMF and/or Presidential Scholar candidate and done some substantive internships or academic research outside of school, and hit > 3.9 overall GPA having taken the Math I — Math IV sequence plus all the accelerated 1A sciences plus four years of language, plus a >1560 SAT or 35/36 ACT, you really don’t get on the radar screen of the top 15 schools. Exception is the hooked kids — namely athletes, legacies and URM, but a couple of those hooked kids have the former qualifications, too, making them spectacularly attractive applicants. These schools really know Sidwell and for example understand that a solid A from Math III is a pretty powerful academic signal. I just cannot sit by and continue to watch the Sidwell CCO get trashed the way it is by some folks on this forum. In the aggregate, they are doing a good job in a very challenging and competitive environment. The reality is, putting aside the “branding” element, the top 30 - 50 schools offer a great education. Sidwell parent of senior.

To the extent the above is at least partially true, it illustrates what has gone wrong with Sidwell over the years:

Offer a few very difficult (advanced) which are pretty harshly graded. Students who don't take these can't claim to have taken the most difficult classes. Those that do face harsh grading distributions and lower GPAs. Bad outcomes either way.

By contrast many other schools offer advanced courses that are perhaps slightly less tough than Sidwell's toughest classes, but are also graded much better (look at the course grading profiles from Westlake etc posted upthread). This allows the students at these schools to take the more advanced classes (and claim to have done so) and do well on them. Hard courses plus grade deflation favors the very very top (perhaps 5 students each grade) and hurts the top 10-25 percent of the class. If the objective is to provide the opportunity for a super high level education, that works. For better admissions outcomes it is a total fail.

--Senior Parent

The top 5 kids at any quality high school are going to stand out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a former SFS parent, I agree that it's ridiculous to try to tell parents it doesn't matter where your kid goes to school. Depending on the field a student wants to pursue, it can be helpful to go to a T20 university, plus, after a very rigorous high school experience, most parents will want their kids to go to challenging university. That doesn't mean Ivies or even T20s.

I think Lauren does a really good job --she knows how to best present applicants -- but she can't work miracles. In the past few years there has been a shift toward rural, first generation, URM applicants, especially at the very top schools. There are plenty of excellent schools though, and my sense is that most SFS grads are getting into them. And once they get in, they do very well. I think SFS does a great job in preparing students for college.

Am I right that your experience with Lauren as a former parent is from when she was previously in the counseling office before she left? It seems like most of the discussion here has been focused on the counseling aspect of the office. And presumably you don’t have any insight into the three other counselors, who are new. Based on my experience I think that Lauren lets the other three do their jobs in their own way, with very little oversight.

I worked with Lauren in both her stints at SFS. I think she's great. I can't speak to the other counselors this year, but I think SFS generally needs to upgrade the staff counselor positions. It's an important job that requires more than entry level experience.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why doesn’t sidwell send more kids to Oxbridge or grand ecoles if woke policies are freezing them out of American schools?

UK schools require rather different things of applicants (extreme academic specialization -- relative to the US) and pay virtually no attention to sports/ECs. Dcs preparing for US admissions would find themselves in a rather different world.

I know that. But sidwell kids are so smart that the ones that are focused on a particular subject can prepare for a year to ace the tutorial interview, no?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a former SFS parent, I agree that it's ridiculous to try to tell parents it doesn't matter where your kid goes to school. Depending on the field a student wants to pursue, it can be helpful to go to a T20 university, plus, after a very rigorous high school experience, most parents will want their kids to go to challenging university. That doesn't mean Ivies or even T20s.

I think Lauren does a really good job --she knows how to best present applicants -- but she can't work miracles. In the past few years there has been a shift toward rural, first generation, URM applicants, especially at the very top schools. There are plenty of excellent schools though, and my sense is that most SFS grads are getting into them. And once they get in, they do very well. I think SFS does a great job in preparing students for college.

Am I right that your experience with Lauren as a former parent is from when she was previously in the counseling office before she left? It seems like most of the discussion here has been focused on the counseling aspect of the office. And presumably you don’t have any insight into the three other counselors, who are new. Based on my experience I think that Lauren lets the other three do their jobs in their own way, with very little oversight.

I worked with Lauren in both her stints at SFS. I think she's great. I can't speak to the other counselors this year, but I think SFS generally needs to upgrade the staff counselor positions. It's an important job that requires more than entry level experience.

It is a lottery which counselor your kid is assigned to. Only 25% of kids get Lauren.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a hard message to deliver and I apologize in advance. A 3.7 just isn’t all that compelling and neither is a 34 ACT relatively speaking for top 15 universities even coming from a great school like Sidwell. If your kid isn’t a NMF and/or Presidential Scholar candidate and done some substantive internships or academic research outside of school, and hit > 3.9 overall GPA having taken the Math I — Math IV sequence plus all the accelerated 1A sciences plus four years of language, plus a >1560 SAT or 35/36 ACT, you really don’t get on the radar screen of the top 15 schools. Exception is the hooked kids — namely athletes, legacies and URM, but a couple of those hooked kids have the former qualifications, too, making them spectacularly attractive applicants. These schools really know Sidwell and for example understand that a solid A from Math III is a pretty powerful academic signal. I just cannot sit by and continue to watch the Sidwell CCO get trashed the way it is by some folks on this forum. In the aggregate, they are doing a good job in a very challenging and competitive environment. The reality is, putting aside the “branding” element, the top 30 - 50 schools offer a great education. Sidwell parent of senior.

To the extent the above is at least partially true, it illustrates what has gone wrong with Sidwell over the years:

Offer a few very difficult (advanced) which are pretty harshly graded. Students who don't take these can't claim to have taken the most difficult classes. Those that do face harsh grading distributions and lower GPAs. Bad outcomes either way.

By contrast many other schools offer advanced courses that are perhaps slightly less tough than Sidwell's toughest classes, but are also graded much better (look at the course grading profiles from Westlake etc posted upthread). This allows the students at these schools to take the more advanced classes (and claim to have done so) and do well on them. Hard courses plus grade deflation favors the very very top (perhaps 5 students each grade) and hurts the top 10-25 percent of the class. If the objective is to provide the opportunity for a super high level education, that works. For better admissions outcomes it is a total fail.

--Senior Parent

Another senior parent here. Agree with this 100%. Frustratingly they would never listen to something like this, because of their extreme reluctance to reflect and take feedback on whether there might be a different or better way of doing things, along with their extreme commitment (or acquiescence) to teacher independence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a former SFS parent, I agree that it's ridiculous to try to tell parents it doesn't matter where your kid goes to school. Depending on the field a student wants to pursue, it can be helpful to go to a T20 university, plus, after a very rigorous high school experience, most parents will want their kids to go to challenging university. That doesn't mean Ivies or even T20s.

I think Lauren does a really good job --she knows how to best present applicants -- but she can't work miracles. In the past few years there has been a shift toward rural, first generation, URM applicants, especially at the very top schools. There are plenty of excellent schools though, and my sense is that most SFS grads are getting into them. And once they get in, they do very well. I think SFS does a great job in preparing students for college.

Am I right that your experience with Lauren as a former parent is from when she was previously in the counseling office before she left? It seems like most of the discussion here has been focused on the counseling aspect of the office. And presumably you don’t have any insight into the three other counselors, who are new. Based on my experience I think that Lauren lets the other three do their jobs in their own way, with very little oversight.

I think Lauren as the head of OCC should mentor and supervise the other counselors closely. It might be better if Lauren is not assigned to counsel students directly, but to supervise the entire OCC to have a more uniform standard.