Sidwell College Admissions This Year

[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.

Agreed on this and I don't think it applies to just 1-5 students!

Also - not a good message for a kid that you should only take that class if you are going to get a good grade.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:+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.

I have heard Robbie say things to suggest he believes certain things could change in ways that he thinks would be an improvement and more consistent with best practices (I am not talking about grading in particular). But then in the next breath he says that it is up to individual teachers and they will not be able to get teachers to make changes that they do not want to make. So frustrating...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:+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.

I have heard Robbie say things to suggest he believes certain things could change in ways that he thinks would be an improvement and more consistent with best practices (I am not talking about grading in particular). But then in the next breath he says that it is up to individual teachers and they will not be able to get teachers to make changes that they do not want to make. So frustrating...

Been at Sidwell a long time. Individually most of the teachers/advisors etc are fine/good/very good and may even be aware of needs changes. However, the system will not change. Not anytime soon. Make the best of it and move on.

Sidwell's non-stellar showing in admissions outcomes will ultimately lead to lower in interest in the school. Perhaps they will re-think the structure then. But all institutions are slow to change. Sidwell has entrenched players with very little reason to do anything different.

[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.

Agreed on this and I don't think it applies to just 1-5 students!

Also - not a good message for a kid that you should only take that class if you are going to get a good grade.

Not a good message if you don't actually hurt yourself badly in the admissions process. If you do get hurt, it may very well be a good message!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:+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.

I agree with your comment regarding feedback and would add that the signal is that they don't want it (not just that they won't adapt).

But I really think the complaints about top track grading and college admissions are off base. No matter which school your child attends (public, private, where ever) , there is a choice of whether to take a more rigorous class or not (and on how many to take).

Taking the more rigorous class means you may end up with a lower grade. The increased work also takes away from your time to spend on other classes. Some students will still get the highest grades in all their classes despite taking the most rigorous course load. Some may face a slight decrease in the rigorous class (or some other class) as a result. And some will definitely get lower grades as a result.

Kids across the country are making the same decisions. Schools that know Sidwell should be able to figure this out. And it's just a fact that if a kid is gunning for Ivy/T10 and they can't take the rigorous classes without keeping up with some classmates, it will show. It's not knee capping anyone - it's merely identifying which students can still thrive with that level of rigor and which end up a step behind (and it may only be a half step for some, and a couple steps for others).

In the end, if the Ivy/T10 cares about that step - they will make decisions based on that information.... Or if they don't, they will be ok with someone being a step back....or maybe even someone who chose not to take the rigorous class.

I'm all for talking about course options such as some honors applied math track (between regular applied math and theoretical Math 1-4 tracks), or honors english/history. Also for talking about consistency in teaching/grading across different sections of the same course. Or consistency in teaching methods of faculty overall.

But the idea that students are kneecapped doesn't sit right and sounds like jealousy and excuses. It's just competitive to get into top schools, period.

[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.

Agreed on this and I don't think it applies to just 1-5 students!

Also - not a good message for a kid that you should only take that class if you are going to get a good grade.

Not a good message if you don't actually hurt yourself badly in the admissions process. If you do get hurt, it may very well be a good message!

Still a bad message. If you are teaching your kid to only care about the grade or care about whether they get into a more prestigious school, it's a parent fail. It's better to strive to learn and improve, not just for a good grade. And to know that they can get a great education at a lower ranked school and succeed in life. It's up to you to make the most of your own opportunities - not to rely on some sort of prestige stamp,

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Then calculate weighted GPA that is fair for every student

[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.

Agreed on this and I don't think it applies to just 1-5 students!

Also - not a good message for a kid that you should only take that class if you are going to get a good grade.

Not a good message if you don't actually hurt yourself badly in the admissions process. If you do get hurt, it may very well be a good message!

Still a bad message. If you are teaching your kid to only care about the grade or care about whether they get into a more prestigious school, it's a parent fail. It's better to strive to learn and improve, not just for a good grade. And to know that they can get a great education at a lower ranked school and succeed in life. It's up to you to make the most of your own opportunities - not to rely on some sort of prestige stamp,

Exactly. So many threads carrying on about admissions. If the applicant is not demonstrating mastery of the difficult coursework in high school, that does not just magically disappear in college. It gets harder not easier.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:+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.

The AO's get the school profile. They understand the GPA's in context. Stop with the false narrative.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Sidwell needs to find some path so that the top 5-25 percent oof students don't look worse than they ought to -- in comparison with students at peer institutions. This is what the current structure of grades/classes is doing.

At the same time, they should not dilute achievement of the top students at Sidwell by given everyone good grades in the top classes.

How to achieve this balance is what Sidwell should focus on if they want to well by their strong/very strong students. I doubt that the school even thinks in thees terms. What I have seen so far is status quo bias with good Quaker PR to deal with parents - most of whom are too afraid/unaware to say anything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:+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.

I have heard Robbie say things to suggest he believes certain things could change in ways that he thinks would be an improvement and more consistent with best practices (I am not talking about grading in particular). But then in the next breath he says that it is up to individual teachers and they will not be able to get teachers to make changes that they do not want to make. So frustrating...

Been at Sidwell a long time. Individually most of the teachers/advisors etc are fine/good/very good and may even be aware of needs changes. However, the system will not change. Not anytime soon. Make the best of it and move on.

Sidwell's non-stellar showing in admissions outcomes will ultimately lead to lower in interest in the school. Perhaps they will re-think the structure then. But all institutions are slow to change. Sidwell has entrenched players with very little reason to do anything different.

There is no proof of this, even with the challenges of the class of 2022 and COVID, Test optional etc.

The results I have seen thus far have been mostly on par with previous years. Perhaps not quite as many at Ivys, but then the days of sending 9+ to each of Penn, Yale, Harvard and brown are long gone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Then calculate weighted GPA that is fair for every student

There is a GPA bump for taking advanced sciences and Maths.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Sidwell needs to find some path so that the top 5-25 percent oof students don't look worse than they ought to -- in comparison with students at peer institutions. This is what the current structure of grades/classes is doing.

At the same time, they should not dilute achievement of the top students at Sidwell by given everyone good grades in the top classes.

How to achieve this balance is what Sidwell should focus on if they want to well by their strong/very strong students. I doubt that the school even thinks in thees terms. What I have seen so far is status quo bias with good Quaker PR to deal with parents - most of whom are too afraid/unaware to say anything.

They are competing within the high school. Particularly for really elite colleges that are very familiar with prestigious private schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Sidwell needs to find some path so that the top 5-25 percent oof students don't look worse than they ought to -- in comparison with students at peer institutions. This is what the current structure of grades/classes is doing.

At the same time, they should not dilute achievement of the top students at Sidwell by given everyone good grades in the top classes.

How to achieve this balance is what Sidwell should focus on if they want to well by their strong/very strong students. I doubt that the school even thinks in thees terms. What I have seen so far is status quo bias with good Quaker PR to deal with parents - most of whom are too afraid/unaware to say anything.

How do the top 5-25% of the class look worse than they ought to? Serious question.

[Anonymous]

Curious parent of middle schooler here. What is the specific distinction in the curriculum in the advanced math and sciences classes? What do they study in the advanced classes that's different?
Here's all I see online about math: The Upper School math program offers courses in algebra, geometry, precalculus, calculus, and statistics. Courses are offered at differing levels of rigor. The program emphasizes writing mathematics properly and focuses on depth rather than breadth of understanding of mathematical principles.