Sidwell College Admissions This Year

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No. All Sidwell GPA is unweighted.

Not true. When your kid is in one of these classes, they are given specifics about the weighted bump.

Very clearly you are not Sidwell parent. Or you DC get special treatment?

This isn't private information. When they send out the junior year GPA, they tell you how to calculate the "advanced' classes.

Maybe in your imagination. Same GPA as the rest of the regular courses

I am literally looking at the email with the documentation as to how to calculate the bump. Whatever.

Really? LOL.

Yes, really.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I heard they were excellent. A lot of the disappointed kids from ED got good news.

Really? Curious as I kind of heard the opposite. Happy to be corrected. Do you have any details?

No details- just rumors from my DD (a senior who does not go there but is friends with some kids who do go there). But I do know some kids with acceptances at high ranking SLACs, UVA, etc.

Good grief.

Thanks, though, for making clear how unhelpful and uninformed your initial comment was.

Plenty of disappointment. Top students had impressive outcomes, but many more are committing to safeties. They'll all do well in the end, but it is tough.

But aren’t many of the safeties top 30 schools or highly regarded SLACs. Gone are the days of 1/3 of a private school class getting Ivy admits but that doesn’t mean it isn’t a good year. Most kids would be thrilled to go to many of the schools on Sidwell’s list.

Even Exetor and Andover are not sending 1/3 of their classes to Ivies anymore. The colleges and universities are diversifying their applicant pool. On a macro level, that is a good thing. Obviously it stings becauase the classes of 2021 and 2022 at school like Sidwell are at the tip of the spear for this change, but so be it. No one is entitled to a seat at an Ivy or any other school.

No one is entitled to those spots? Really? You obviously don't know the details of those who buy or influence their way in. Not talking about URM or first gen kids. I applaud the steps for diversity. But there are massive flaws in this process when you see who else gets in. F those colleges. Our Big 3 students will be perfectly happy and successful at places that appreciate them.

Is this seriously a Sidwell parent complaining about the privilege of others who "buy or influence their way" into admissions at top universities? In a thread about how the school didn't do enough to help kids gain admission to those same schools?

Wow.

[Anonymous]

In the past there presence was over 60 percent of these classes. What’s so bad about overrepresentation at 30% if not for greed, arrogance, and entitlement?

What is so special or distinctive about Sidwell?

Is it that Obama’s children attended? How does this translate to intellect and academic performance? Is it the Sidwell lacrosse or soccer programs?

Educate us here. Some of us are Directors of Admission at Colleges.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No. All Sidwell GPA is unweighted.

Not true. When your kid is in one of these classes, they are given specifics about the weighted bump.

Very clearly you are not Sidwell parent. Or you DC get special treatment?

This isn't private information. When they send out the junior year GPA, they tell you how to calculate the "advanced' classes.

Maybe in your imagination. Same GPA as the rest of the regular courses

I am literally looking at the email with the documentation as to how to calculate the bump. Whatever.

Really? LOL.

If you are really a Sidwell parent, you should be able to access this

https://veracross-files.s3.amazonaws.com/sfs/1117/GPA%20Chart.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No. All Sidwell GPA is unweighted.

Not true. When your kid is in one of these classes, they are given specifics about the weighted bump.

Very clearly you are not Sidwell parent. Or you DC get special treatment?

This isn't private information. When they send out the junior year GPA, they tell you how to calculate the "advanced' classes.

Maybe in your imagination. Same GPA as the rest of the regular courses

I am literally looking at the email with the documentation as to how to calculate the bump. Whatever.

Really? LOL.

If you are really a Sidwell parent, you should be able to access this

https://veracross-files.s3.amazonaws.com/sfs/1117/GPA%20Chart.pdf

I’m a Sidwell senior parent and have never seen this chart in my life nor has CCO ever mentioned it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No. All Sidwell GPA is unweighted.

Not true. When your kid is in one of these classes, they are given specifics about the weighted bump.

Very clearly you are not Sidwell parent. Or you DC get special treatment?

This isn't private information. When they send out the junior year GPA, they tell you how to calculate the "advanced' classes.

Maybe in your imagination. Same GPA as the rest of the regular courses

I am literally looking at the email with the documentation as to how to calculate the bump. Whatever.

Really? LOL.

If you are really a Sidwell parent, you should be able to access this

https://veracross-files.s3.amazonaws.com/sfs/1117/GPA%20Chart.pdf

I’m a Sidwell senior parent and have never seen this chart in my life nor has CCO ever mentioned it.

You did. You just never bothered to look. It is sent to all juniors when they receive their "official GPA" email, and instead of accepting what another parent was trying to tell you, you went on for several pages denying it and belittling. Try looking up an email you received from the registrar during junior year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In the past there presence was over 60 percent of these classes. What’s so bad about overrepresentation at 30% if not for greed, arrogance, and entitlement?

What is so special or distinctive about Sidwell?

Is it that Obama’s children attended? How does this translate to intellect and academic performance? Is it the Sidwell lacrosse or soccer programs?

Educate us here. Some of us are Directors of Admission at Colleges.

and some of us are God.

[Anonymous]

Sidwell (step) Mom here. My DS (Dear Son) had a 2.8 GPA at Sidwell, and was recently accepted to Harvard, Princeton and Columbia (Penn did not go our way unfortunately, but we are working on changing that). Some of his safeties did not work out, such as Tufts and Rice. We consider ourselves pretty unlucky and are quite upset with the CCO. We see other parents here upset with the CCO and are hoping for a little bit of sympathy. What a frustrating year! Am I right! How does an SAT score of 1250 and one sport (3 seasons JV, one varsity) not get you into these places these days! Should've sent my DS (Dear Son) to GDS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sidwell (step) Mom here. My DS (Dear Son) had a 2.8 GPA at Sidwell, and was recently accepted to Harvard, Princeton and Columbia (Penn did not go our way unfortunately, but we are working on changing that). Some of his safeties did not work out, such as Tufts and Rice. We consider ourselves pretty unlucky and are quite upset with the CCO. We see other parents here upset with the CCO and are hoping for a little bit of sympathy. What a frustrating year! Am I right! How does an SAT score of 1250 and one sport (3 seasons JV, one varsity) not get you into these places these days! Should've sent my DS (Dear Son) to GDS.

I'm a Sidwell dad. My son was absolutely thrilled to get accepted into 4 Ivies! It's nice to see someone else who actually utilized the CCOs resources rather than being lazy and expecting to go their way (like some parents on this forum). We found that our counselor was incredibly helpful and we are so grateful. This has been sons dream for years since we enrolled him in Pre-K at Sidwell. He had a 1450 and a 3.6 GPA, so he was a shoe in at all the Ivies! I don't know why everyone else is getting rejected and WL. Surprisingly we were WL at Harvard, but a quick call to the admissions office should surely change that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No. All Sidwell GPA is unweighted.

Not true. When your kid is in one of these classes, they are given specifics about the weighted bump.

Very clearly you are not Sidwell parent. Or you DC get special treatment?

This isn't private information. When they send out the junior year GPA, they tell you how to calculate the "advanced' classes.

Maybe in your imagination. Same GPA as the rest of the regular courses

I am literally looking at the email with the documentation as to how to calculate the bump. Whatever.

Really? LOL.

If you are really a Sidwell parent, you should be able to access this

https://veracross-files.s3.amazonaws.com/sfs/1117/GPA%20Chart.pdf

In the transcript, no weighted GPA. This chart is just for the reference if you want to re-calculate GPA for some other purposes. But the official transcript does not calculate weighted GPA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No. All Sidwell GPA is unweighted.

Not true. When your kid is in one of these classes, they are given specifics about the weighted bump.

Very clearly you are not Sidwell parent. Or you DC get special treatment?

This isn't private information. When they send out the junior year GPA, they tell you how to calculate the "advanced' classes.

Maybe in your imagination. Same GPA as the rest of the regular courses

I am literally looking at the email with the documentation as to how to calculate the bump. Whatever.

Really? LOL.

If you are really a Sidwell parent, you should be able to access this

https://veracross-files.s3.amazonaws.com/sfs/1117/GPA%20Chart.pdf

In the transcript, no weighted GPA. This chart is just for the reference if you want to re-calculate GPA for some other purposes. But the official transcript does not calculate weighted GPA.

Well obviously the reason to want to recalculate a GPA for other purpose is to see how it stacks up against systems that do use weighting for GPAs.

[Anonymous]

Hey everybody, my double D's (dear daughters) go to GDS and both have a 3.7-3.8 GPA. One got into 6 Ivy's (and Stanford) and the other one (3.7) got into only five Ivy's (not including Stanford). We might have to try the ROTC strategy next year for my DS. I will be devastated if my double D's do not get to continue their academic pursuits by each others sides. We were truly hoping for better news on colleges this admission cycle but hopefully a quick email should save this travesty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hey everybody, my double D's (dear daughters) go to GDS and both have a 3.7-3.8 GPA. One got into 6 Ivy's (and Stanford) and the other one (3.7) got into only five Ivy's (not including Stanford). We might have to try the ROTC strategy next year for my DS. I will be devastated if my double D's do not get to continue their academic pursuits by each others sides. We were truly hoping for better news on colleges this admission cycle but hopefully a quick email should save this travesty.

There is no “ROTC strategy.” I’ve heard it can indicate that you’re full pay (since the student, IF they get the FULL ROTC scholarship, doesn’t have to pay) but that’s it.

[Anonymous]

The last 6 posts look fake to me.... advanced troll posting here

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In the past there presence was over 60 percent of these classes. What’s so bad about overrepresentation at 30% if not for greed, arrogance, and entitlement?

What is so special or distinctive about Sidwell?

Is it that Obama’s children attended? How does this translate to intellect and academic performance? Is it the Sidwell lacrosse or soccer programs?

Educate us here. Some of us are Directors of Admission at Colleges.

"there presence"? Do you grade students' admissions essays?