Sidwell College Admissions This Year

[Anonymous]

Many parents I’ve talked to recently are saying the same (as the comments about rigorous classes vs gpa, grade deflation, and making it hard to compete with weighted GPAs) about our DC’s school. Even sophmore parents are talking about this and whether their kids college search will be even tougher in a few years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

+1: Another senior parent. Sidwell's advanced tracks plus grade deflation (relative to peers) may have worked two decades back when there was (perhaps) better appreciation about what these things meant in Univ Admissions offices. It may have helped the very top students signal their quality without hurting the very strong students in the next tier. Now, it is tantamount to kneecapping your troops before sending them to battle. Administration and teachers far too flaky/self satisfied/un-incentivized to change. In 14 years at Sidwell, I can honestly say that I have never felt like my feedback mattered once.

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: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

Not everyone gets bad grades in the most rigorous math and science classes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Exactly. We were lucky to have Lauren both times, but all the counselors should be experienced.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Not everyone gets bad grades in the most rigorous math and science classes.

Thanks, STEM mom, good to see you again. Nothing that pp said suggests otherwise.

[Anonymous]

+1: Another senior parent. Sidwell's advanced tracks plus grade deflation (relative to peers) may have worked two decades back when there was (perhaps) better appreciation about what these things meant in Univ Admissions offices. It may have helped the very top students signal their quality without hurting the very strong students in the next tier. Now, it is tantamount to kneecapping your troops before sending them to battle. Administration and teachers far too flaky/self satisfied/un-incentivized to change. In 14 years at Sidwell, I can honestly say that I have never felt like my feedback mattered once.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Not everyone gets bad grades in the most rigorous math and science classes.

Thanks, STEM mom, good to see you again. Nothing that pp said suggests otherwise.[/quote
Huh? Answering a complaint about grading in the most rigorous math class does not make a person a stem mom. There is a reason for different levels of coursework. Not everyone is at the same place or ability in math or science or history or whatever. It is fine for there to be very challenging coursework in different diciplines and also less challenging options

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have a current senior who got in ED so I don't read the CCO emails anymore. I looked up the email after seeing it mentioned on this thread. Super annoying! It doesn't spell anything out. How do they strongly support seniors candidacy? When we asked specific questions during parent meetings, the general reply was that CC was there to support our student and family. When my kid asked for specific support with the activities section of the CA, DC was told it could not be provided because it wouldn't be fair to other students and was made to feel horrible about asking. We were worried that CC would not be writing a good reccomendation for our child after the interactions with CC.

I have not met any obnoxious or aggressive parents in the class of 2022. I consider all the parents in my child's friend group to be lovely. Never met anyone annoying or aggressive at a game, sports banquet, committee meeting, potluck... So I am sick of the messaging coming out of Sidwell that somehow the Senior parents don't know how to behave with the CCO office. Maybe it is time for Sidwell to learn how to partner with parents to help the seniors through the college process. Sidwell can start by giving parents full access to Naviance. How about the CC having a weekly or every other week appointment with a student to work on the application. It was rediculously hard for my DC to schedule an appointment and Friday drop ins were a joke. I still do not understand why the Sidwell CCO cannot provide the assistance to seniors that my DC's friends were receiving from private college counselors. One of my DC's friends started working on the supplemental essays the weekend leading into November 1st another didn't submit any applications until November 15th. Both theses kids obviously needed more support than what they were given from the CCO.

About 40% of DC's friend group got in ED/SCEA, 40% have an EA acceptance they are happy with such as Michigan, Georgia Tech, University of Chicago, UT Austin..., and 20% are on pins and needles. I hope the CCO steps up their game for future classes.

Go the the bathroom, look in the mirror - now you have.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Not everyone gets bad grades in the most rigorous math and science classes.

Thanks, STEM mom, good to see you again. Nothing that pp said suggests otherwise.

Huh? Answering a complaint about grading in the most rigorous math class does not make a person a stem mom. There is a reason for different levels of coursework. Not everyone is at the same place or ability in math or science or history or whatever. It is fine for there to be very challenging coursework in different diciplines and also less challenging options

Not everyone is at the same place in reading comprehension either, apparently.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

My DC had Lauren while she was at Episcopal High School. Love her!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Not everyone gets bad grades in the most rigorous math and science classes.

Thanks, STEM mom, good to see you again. Nothing that pp said suggests otherwise.

Huh? Answering a complaint about grading in the most rigorous math class does not make a person a stem mom. There is a reason for different levels of coursework. Not everyone is at the same place or ability in math or science or history or whatever. It is fine for there to be very challenging coursework in different diciplines and also less challenging options

Not everyone is at the same place in reading comprehension either, apparently.

Just because I think challenging courses and challenging grading is advantageous instead of disadvantageous does not mean I can't read. I just have a different opinion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Not everyone gets bad grades in the most rigorous math and science classes.

Thanks, STEM mom, good to see you again. Nothing that pp said suggests otherwise.

Huh? Answering a complaint about grading in the most rigorous math class does not make a person a stem mom. There is a reason for different levels of coursework. Not everyone is at the same place or ability in math or science or history or whatever. It is fine for there to be very challenging coursework in different diciplines and also less challenging options

Not everyone is at the same place in reading comprehension either, apparently.

Just because I think challenging courses and challenging grading is advantageous instead of disadvantageous does not mean I can't read. I just have a different opinion.

No one wrote or suggested that everyone gets bad grades in the most rigorous math and science classes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Not everyone gets bad grades in the most rigorous math and science classes.

Thanks, STEM mom, good to see you again. Nothing that pp said suggests otherwise.

Exactly. "Not everyone gets bad grades" of course. This does not take away PPs point at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Not everyone gets bad grades in the most rigorous math and science classes.

Thanks, STEM mom, good to see you again. Nothing that pp said suggests otherwise.

Huh? Answering a complaint about grading in the most rigorous math class does not make a person a stem mom. There is a reason for different levels of coursework. Not everyone is at the same place or ability in math or science or history or whatever. It is fine for there to be very challenging coursework in different diciplines and also less challenging options

Not everyone is at the same place in reading comprehension either, apparently.

Just because I think challenging courses and challenging grading is advantageous instead of disadvantageous does not mean I can't read. I just have a different opinion.

No one wrote or suggested that everyone gets bad grades in the most rigorous math and science classes.

There is a poster that would like less rigorous grading in the most challenging courses so more students can receive higher grades. I don't agree with this strategy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The top boarding schools most certainly did this but it has been 60+ years since that was true!