Anonymous wrote:I don't doubt this is all true and on some level necessary ... but there's something that just seems ugly about it. My DC goes to one of these schools and I feel (and DC also feels) that the culture of the school is dominated by the country-club set. The rest of us will never be fully accepted. I say this even though I also attend DC's school.

I don't see what seems ugly about all this. Reading some of the posts from people who have been involved in school boards, it sounds like the key ingredients boil down to (1) willingness and (2) usefulness. That makes sense to me, and it's really the same combination that leads certain people to rise to leadership positions in most community groups. For example, who's the parent everyone voted to put in charge of my neighborhood's soccer league?: The person who comes to all the games, is good at organizing/cajoling other people to get to games on weekend mornings, and always remembers to bring water for everyone to drink. Similarly, I remember my own mom being pushed into a leadership role in my public school's PTA when I was a kid (much to my horror), simply because she rolled up her sleeves and helped out with the organization at lots of school events. Willingness and usefulness. "80% of being successful is just showing up."

I totally understand that a private school board is very different from a neighborhood soccer league or even a public school PTA, but the principles seem the same. According to what I've seen posted here, people selected for the board are parents who get very involved in the school (willingness), and who can contribute lots of time/money/effort/know-how (usefulness). If you're heavily involved in school activities that are comparable to school board service (e.g., organizing an event rather than just cheering at the baseball game), I suspect you'll quickly get accepted (and even forced) into leadership roles at the school. I'm sure plenty of willing/useful parents aren't asked to serve on school boards, but I suspect the people asked to serve on the school board are going to be the parents that are most willing and most useful (in some combination).

All that said, I'm sure every school is different, so maybe some of them are less democratic than others in school board participation.

Anonymous wrote:

SAM2 wrote:
If you're the type to credit the WSJ/Worth methodology, then you might subscribe to my analysis, because it's just an extension of the same approach that makes it more robust. Alternatively, if you want a bigger palette of colleges, but few high schools and fewer years of data, then you'll likely subscribe to Matriculationstats.

My whole point is that your approach is not more robust and that Matriculationstats has more years of data and is much more current.

Perhaps I'm not making myself clear enough. I used the exact same data as Matriculationstats. In fact, I'm the one who led him to much of his DC data. In addition, I used the WSJ/Worth data. I suppose everyone is entitled to decide for herself whether or not the addition of extra years of data to the WSJ/Worth approach leads to something more robust than the original WSJ/Worth analysis. And I'm not suggesting my approach is better or worse than Matriculationstats' approach -- they're just different.

I give up trying to persuade you, and presume others wouldn't persuade you to change your methodology either, because then different schools might emerge on top in your rankings. I suspect there's some sort of a bias.

I'm disappointed by your accusation. I've tried to make clear that I really don't care which schools come out "on top," and I don't even think any of this analysis lends itself to ranking of schools. Take a look at NCS, for example. It's numbers are varied -- high in some respects, and not-so-high in others. I'd look at this data and say NCS has very strong students academically, but I don't think I could legitimately "rank" it as the 3rd or 4th best school, or the 1st or the 10th. It's just a good school like many others in DC/MD/VA. It might be the absolute perfect school for one child, but a terrible school for another.

Maybe one reason you and I are not seeing eye-to-eye is that you're more interested in using data to rank the schools, while I'm focused on using the data as just one tool for comparing and contrasting the schools. Maybe those different viewpoints come from where we are in life. My kids are far too young to attend any of these schools, so I'm more interested in studying them to consider which schools my children might one day attend. It sounds like you might have more of a connection to some of these schools.

In any event, I'm glad you're interested. If you can find more/better data on any schools, please let me know so I can include it.

Anonymous wrote:This is where you're running into some problems with your methodology, and it's a shame after all this hard work. I think most people would be more interested in what percentage of students actually attend top colleges, but you're admitting that your final percentage "is not really a reflection of that." Moreover, Matriculationstats is not trying to make any judgments as to which colleges are top colleges, it is merely relying on the gold standard that everyone uses, US News & World Report. As you've admitted, you're looking at what percentage attended certain top colleges, and that comes from a "blend" where two of your three surveys are one-year snapshots from 3-6 years ago! You're far better off copying the Matriculationstats methodology .... and then draw inferences on the matriculations to these same top colleges from the 3-4 local private schools that choose not to share matriculation data. Where you can't draw inferences, you're probably better off leaving those cells blank for "insufficient data."

Well, if I wanted to follow the exact same methodology at Matriculationstats, I wouldn't have wasted any time doing this work, and I'd instead just link to his analysis. I'm more from the Baskin-Robbins school of thought, where you can pick whichever flavor of analysis suits your tastes. If you're the type to credit the WSJ/Worth methodology, then you might subscribe to my analysis, because it's just an extension of the same approach that makes it more robust. Alternatively, if you want a bigger palette of colleges, but fewer high schools and fewer years of data, then you'll likely subscribe to Matriculationstats. I'd ultimately hope that people will look at both approaches and consider them as two different but informative perspectives on the same subject.

In the end, I suspect that for most people on DCUM, where you stand depends on where you sit. Those that vehemently insist on one methodology over another are likely the ones whose favorite school scores higher under one methodology than another. Like I said before though, I think someone looking at schools would be best served by thinking of each methodology as a different porthole for viewing the same target.

Anonymous wrote:My suggestion would be to blend in the hard matriculation data that the schools make available ...

That's exactly what I did. For example, I used the 2004 WSJ number for NCS (22 students at 10 examined colleges in 2003), and then added to that the numbers NCS supplies for those exact same 10 colleges for the period 2005-2009 (97 students at 10 colleges for that period). I performed that same analysis for NCS for the colleges studied by the 2007 WSJ report (8 colleges), and for the 2002 Worth report (3 colleges). Then I averaged the resulting percentages to obtain a blended result. The final percentage is not really a reflection of what percentage of students actually attend all top colleges in the country -- that's more what Matriculationstats was trying to examine by making judgments as to which colleges are top colleges. Instead, my analysis looks at what percentage attended certain top colleges, and just extends the WSJ/Worth methodologies to several additional years where data is available.

Anonymous wrote:Regarding the results shown in your table, I find it interesting just how much better the magnet schools (and many of the publics) are doing - on all the variables you show. I am wondering, for a smart kid that would qualify, how much more competitive it is to get into the magnets compared to getting into the BIG privates and how different the experience in a magnet is compared to the private. Any leads / earlier threads on this by any chance?

Public magnets in DC and other places do put up some absolutely incredible numbers. I have no magic insight, but my best guess is that part of the answer for their success is that they are selecting applicants in the 8th grade, so they have a good "body of work" they can use to predict how students will do in 9th-12th. By contrast, many of the K-12 private schools only select about 20-30% of their high school classes from 8th grade applicants. The large majority of the high school class is made up of students who applied many years (perhaps even 10 years) earlier at younger grades. Predicting the future abilities of those young applicants many years in advance is probably very hard. Some might blossom into superstars, but others might not show much academically. I've been trying for a while now to think up some way to compare/contrast between those multi-year applicant pools. I've got a couple ideas, but have had no time to try the math yet. If you have ideas for approaches, please let me know. (The one interesting exception I've seen is Hunter in NYC, which selects its classes at K, and then teaches them up through 12th.)

Also, I think most magnets select students largely on the basis of standardized test performance, so the skills that lead applicants to do well on the standardized admissions tests will readily lend themselves to high performance on other standardized tests like the PSAT and SAT, which in turn leads to strong numbers in the NMSF and Presidential Scholar analysis.

No matter how you slice it, top public magnets and top privates all seem to turn out incredibly smart graduates. I think trying to compare different schools in a ranking sense is really a futile effort. The best that you could possibly do is create some broad and vaguely differentiated tiers. There's also the very important point that your individual child (or mine) is going to develop best if she's matched carefully to the proper school, and not just forced into a top-performing school that does not mesh with her innate abilities.

I haven't studied the admissions percentages at public magnets, so I am not much help there. I've seen various private school admission rates that range from 1:7 to 1:15, but I have no idea how accurate those numbers are. I think I recall seeing sometime a report from Thomas Jefferson that detailed the exact numbers for that school, and I think the ratio was something like 1:8 or 1:10. (If you're motivated to find that data, I think it was the Blue Ribbon report that was studying the lack of racial diversity at TJ.)

I hope this helps.

Anonymous wrote: ... the methodology is out of whack. For example, a website that someone mentioned on another thread, www.matriculationstats.org, has far more accurate and useful data on college matriculation (provided by most of the private schools themselves!) than this poster's reliance on a WSJ survey that includes Pomona, but excludes Yale and Dartmouth. This is why previous posters troubled by a few select schools' reluctance to make matriculation data available have a valid point. Until the last few local schools make their matriculation data available, anyone can spin any statistics any way they care to in order to achieve a desired, non-objective result.

I absolutely agree that matriculationstats.org has great data presentation -- far better than what I put together, and covering many more schools around the country. But I'd like to clarify the slightly different approach I took, and perhaps correct a couple misunderstandings you might have.

First of all, you should understand that Matriculationstats is focused on evaluating NYC schools, while I am focused on DC schools, so our aims are slightly different. Because he is focused on NYC schools, it does not matter as much to him that there are gaps in his DC school list (e.g., Sidwell, GDS, Potomac, G'town Visi, etc.). For my approach, it was important to try to fill those gaps.

When I looked for ways to fill those gaps, the best data I could find comes from two Wall Street Journal studies, and one Worth Magazine study, all of which are commonly cited here on DCUM. Those studies obtained data on many of the DC schools that don't routinely report college matriculations (e.g., Sidwell, GDS, Potomac). However, each of those studies only focused on a handful of colleges, and only for a limited time period (1 year for WSJ, and 4 years for Worth). In making my own analysis, I wanted to make use of the deep research those studies did, but also extend the coverage of those existing studies. So I used the same methodology those studies did, and focused on the same colleges they did. If you want to criticize the use of colleges like Pomona, blame the WSJ, not me. (Also, you are incorrect to suggest that Yale and Dartmouth are excluded; data on those colleges is covered.)

Other than the WSJ/Worth data (which I use and he doesn't), I'm pretty sure most of the other data Matriculationstats and I use is exactly the same -- it all comes directly from the schools' own websites. If you're interested in further research, I cited links to most of the data sources in my spreadsheet. I think Matriculationstats also used some non-public data from certain NYC schools, which he obtained directly from those NYC schools or people associated with the schools. I was not interested in contacting DC schools to ask for private matriculation data, so all my analysis is based on publicly available data. If anyone wants to PM me with credible private data, I'd be happy to incorporate it.

In the end, I've blended the results of the three studies from WSJ and Worth, and added data from several DC schools. This means that the analysis for every school includes at least three years worth of data for 3-14 different colleges, and some have up to 10 years of data included. It's all public data available to anyone, and I've "shown my work" by making obvious the calculations and underlying numbers, so with a little effort, anyone can check my work and evaluate the numbers. I have not selectively excluded any data, or "spun" the data in any direction. I'm usually a pretty skeptical critic of my own work, and I think this analysis is a pretty good rough representation of college matriculations for these schools. I completely agree this analysis is not perfect -- I wish I had 10 years of data on every school, so I could dissect and re-synthesize it in various ways. But I don't have that data, so I proceeded with the tools that presented themselves.

Thanks for all the kind words, and even for the constructive criticism. If anyone has good ideas on how to make this analysis stronger, or sources for additional data, please let me know.

Whether Jeff has endorsed this thread or not, it would appear it has some official status as it is on top of the forum. This space is usually reserved for moderator sanctioned threads.

I’m pretty sure no one will ever get confused and think Jeff endorsed this thread, since it’s been emphasized several times in the first three pages that he was not involved in preparing the FAQ. Just to make it unquestionably clear, I’ll add a specific note to the FAQ. Also, this is not the first time Jeff had sticky’ed a FAQ-type thread that someone else drafted: http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/forums/show/2.page .

… stats grid is speculative, incomplete, inaccurate … she is relying own questionable data which is incomplete and she fails to cite references with footnotes (Wikipedia style) or even assign years for this data. The fact of the matter is that the grid is incorrect … and her data is skewed.

This baseless criticism is frustrating because I spent a lot of time researching this data and working to check its accuracy. If you think any data points are speculative/incomplete/inaccurate/questionable/incorrect/skewed, then please find and post a link to credible data that is accurate. I’m happy to make corrections, but you’ll need to back up your accusations with some research.

Some of your comments also make me think you’re not too familiar with how spreadsheets work. Contrary to your claim that I did not “assign years for this data,” several of the tabs include many years of specifically labeled data (in some cases up to 13 years worth). Moreover, the spreadsheet comments contain several reference citations to my data sources. You can access these comments by hovering your cursor over particular cells. If you need further assistance, the Google help files are very informative.

To make it easier for anyone interested in sources, here is an overview. Data on Presidential Scholars all comes directly from the US Department of Education website. The Department of Education is also the source for most of the class sizes, and all the diversity stats. Most of the NMSF data was published by the Washington Post. Other NMSF is published by Montgomery and Fairfax County public school systems. And some comes from the schools themselves. In many years, the data can be confirmed from multiple sources. The college success rates come from the news articles cited on that tab.

I hope this helps. I really appreciate the support others have offered. It’s probably best that I step away from here for a few days.

Thanks for the support, Jeff.

I am not interested in revealing my name, or any other identifying details about myself or my family. I will say that I am not some school admin, faculty, educational consultant, or alum. I am merely a local parent, and certainly no expert. I went through the application process with my children, and I spent some time researching the various schools and issues.

I've tried to address some of the common questions parents face in the FAQ, in an effort to help other parents going through the process next year. I have no interest in re-hashing stale debates. I've worked pretty hard to avoid any editorial comments on these questions, and just to lead parents to places they can find more information. If you want to add something to the FAQ, or if you don't like how I've addressed something, feel free to post your own proposed FAQ responses in this thread. At the very least, new parents will be able to read your counter-points, and can make their own judgments. I really hope people will propose useful additions.

Safe travels.

1:40 wrote:But, what you missed is that according to NCS's website one of there were 10 Presidential candidates plus 1 Presidential Semifinalist which for some reason you fail to list.

Those numbers are already reported as well. See Presidential Scholar tab at columns F & N.

1:40 wrote:As for comment about Scholar candidates not pursuing it. I suggest you to read the following article from the Washington Post.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/answer-sheet/college-admissions/any-merit-to-national-merit-pr.html

I actually think the college counselor quoted is correctly referring to the many Presidential Scholarship programs offered by several California universities. I searched for "california university presidential scholarship," and quickly spotted about half a dozen of them. I think the error that's confusing is not the college counselors reference to NMSF as a qualifier, but rather the Post's incorrect linking of the words "Presidential Scholarship" to the national Presidential Scholars Foundation website.

00:12 wrote:Please compare your treatment of sibs/legacies with your treatment of diversity. Your attempt at balance in the diversity discussion ends up really one-sided ....

I apologize, but I'm not following your points. Maybe you could just develop a short and balanced statement that you think would help answer the common questions on this topic, which I can try to incorporate into the FAQ.

The Candidate numbers already are part of the data (column E on the Overview tab, and also column C on the Presidential Scholar tab). They've been there ever since I posted my very first message.

21:38, thanks for your comments.

(1) In the absence of better info, I'm inclined to stick with Washington Examiner data. The number that newspaper provided is consistent with the very high NMSF, Presidential Scholar Semifinalist, and Presidential Scholar Candidate numbers for the school.
(2) Thanks for catching my typo. I had 702 for the reading score instead of 707. I believe my other numbers were correct.
(3a) I'm pretty certain I do understand the Presidential Scholar program. I provided people with both Semifinalist and Candidate numbers. If you want to advocate on behalf of your favorite school by arguing why you think Candidate numbers are more significant, feel free. I'm just posting the data.
(3b) I'm curious about your claims that "many candidates don't bother to pursue the next level" and "many candidates decide not to pursue further the scholarship." What support do you have for these statements? I'd think that any student smart and motivated enough to score 1570+ on her SATs (or whatever score was needed for Candidate status that year) would also be smart and motivated enough to submit materials for consideration as a Semifinalist. If you'd provide credible support for those claims, I'd be very interested to read it.

Thanks again for your comments.

Posters from today (3/29), I hear your point about defining the "Big 3" and the conflict that causes. And I have no desire to rank the schools in this FAQ. But the simple fact is that many people on DCUM use the term "Big 3," and it seems like someone new asks for a definition about once every 2-3 months, and more often during application season. In fact, seeing that question asked repeatedly (and the new fight that starts each time it is asked) is one of the things that made me think we need a FAQ.

Ignoring that frequently-asked question, or refusing to answer it directly, doesn't make much sense to me. I'll try to work us some more language for that section to make clear that everyone needs to make her own evaluation of which school is best for her own children.

For those that posted on admissions for older children (and SSAT + ISEE), I think that's a great item to add. But I don't know much about it. Could one of you please work up a short and informative statement about those tests, with links to helpful threads? If you can post something like that, I'll insert it into the FAQ so it stays at the top of this thread.

Finally, I'm not Jeff and he's had no input into this FAQ. So please direct all criticism at me, and spare him the headaches. For running these boards, he should get nothing but our thanks.

Thanks for the kind words. I added the link for the excellent thread on admissions committee process. I think Jeff already sticky'ed the thread, so it should remain easily findable, at least as long as it remains useful and productive.

Part 3

Financial Aid
[I haven’t followed this topic closely enough to give much advice. From what I’ve read, if your HHI is more than about $150,000, your odds of financial aid are slender.]

Bad Behavior and Other Hot-Button Issues

Be careful about ranking or rating schools.
Asking people to rank 3-4 different schools is just asking for a fight.

Don't be a jerk.
Application season is a very tense time for everyone. Everyone cares deeply about their children and the schools they attend. Please try to be respectful of others. Be careful to avoid unintentionally offending others. Also, if someone wrongly accuses you of being offensive, don't take it personally, because she's probably just stressed about her own child.

Watch out for people who play on these strong emotions to create drama.
Some people just like to pick fights. Often they will use sock puppets. Similarly, some people supposedly will trash schools during admissions season to deter competition and/or open up waitlist spots for their own children. Be appropriately skeptical.

Watch your phrasing.
Some people will write that "we are applying" or "we are enrolling" at particular schools. Often, this phrasing draws criticism because some other people think the use of "we" means you're a helicopter parent who is trying to live vicariously through your child (because you didn't write that "DC is enrolling"). Try to be reasonable and respectful. If you're the one who's irked by "we," try to recognize that not everyone writes the same way you do and consider holding back your criticism. If you're the one being criticized, try to keep it in perspective and don't take undue offense. The real point is that people will make snap judgments about everything you post during admissions season.

I hope people will find this FAQ helpful. I will add/delete/supplement with new info. If others have useful info, please post it, so I can include it. Note that I am just a local parent, so I have no special insight into the inner workings of these schools. All info posted here is public info. Any views are my own, and do not necessarily reflect what Jeff or anyone else on DCUM thinks. Thanks.

Part 2

The Application Process

What should I look for at school open houses? What questions should I ask, or not ask? What should I wear?
Several threads discuss these issues. Many people suggest avoiding questions that are designed to show how smart or accomplished your child is ("Will this school allow my four year old to work with the precalculus group?"). For dress, most people seem to suggest avoiding the extremes -- not too casual, but not overly dressy either. Here are a few useful links: http://fwd4.me/Crq and http://fwd4.me/Crr . Also, the NAIS (Nat'l Association of Independent Schools) has an excellent list of tips for applying to independent schools, and the AISGW has suggestions as well.

What is the WPPSI? What about the WISC and the ERB?
These are all different IQ tests that many private schools require for younger children. They generally seem to cost about $200-400. Many school websites list nearby places that administer the test, and there are several threads in the DCUM archive with comments about different testers. Be sure to check your application materials closely to make sure your child takes the correct test.

What do the scores mean?
Your child’s test results likely will have a verbal score, a performance score, and a full-scale IQ (FSIQ) scores. The report might also include a percentile score for each category (for example, 70th percentile). Here is one website that converts IQ scores to percentiles: http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/IQtable.aspx . The report also may contain a short written description of your child from the tester. Here is a link to a sample WPPSI report that describes the different scores: http://www.iupui.edu/~flip/testreport.pdf .

Are these test scores reliable?
Like everything else, opinions differ on this. Some people say the tests are worthless, while others think the tests have strong predictive value. Here is one academic who studies these things: http://faculty.education.uiowa.edu/dlohman/ . And here are a few threads discussing the topic at length:
http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/90254.page
http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/81620.page

What if there is a big split in my child's scores?
Some people say that a significant difference between verbal and performance scores can suggest cognitive issues that should be evaluated further. Your tester can help evaluate the scores and their significance for your child. There are many threads in the DCUM archive that discuss this issue. Here are a few:
http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/36048.page
http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/25964.page
http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/44755.page

Why are all these people saying their kids scored 99%? How is that possible?
Statistically, only about 1 in 100 children should score 99% FSIQ (1 in 72 if you count those who might round up from 98.6%). But when you see someone posting on DCUM about their child’s 99% score, you’re hearing from people who are interested enough in education to be considering private schools and putting their children through testing, affluent enough to be able to afford those things, and proud enough of their child’s score to post the result. Thus, the odds of a 99% score are much higher here on DCUM threads. Also, believe it or not, some parents are known to exaggerate their child’s successes, particularly on an anonymous message board. Here are a few threads on the topic:
http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/39002.page
http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/90984.page

Do certain schools have cut-offs in what WPPSI’s they’ll accept?
Some people claim that certain schools look for a score above the 85th percentile, or above the 70th percentile. But plenty of people report admissions success at a number of schools with various scores. Here are some threads discussing this issue:
http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/76695.page
http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1098.page

Watch out: Many people have very strong opinions about WPPSI scores and their meaning.
There are probably many reasons for this. For example, many people may find it frustrating that three-year-old children are having their IQs judged, and that the results can significantly affect their educational futures. If you post a question about WPPSI scores and their meaning, you may get better responses if you are careful how you phrase it, and you should expect some controversy regardless.

What about the SSAT/ISEE tests for applicants to upper grades?
[I don't know much about these tests. If someone will write a summary, I will insert it here.]

How are admissions decisions made?
Here is one thread with several thoughtful posts from people who seem to have been involved in the process, relaying their experiences:
http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/88757.page

How important or unimportant is diversity to the application process?
Most people on DCUM seem to agree that schools put some weight on applicant diversity, and many of the schools’ websites seem to support this view. Different schools likely value diversity differently. Note also that there is a practical question about how much of a role diversity plays, and a separate but related policy question about what role diversity should play. (See, for example: http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/78193.page .) Also, many people are quick to point out that diversity extends well beyond race, to include such topics as religion, geography, socioeconomic status (SES), etc.

Is my non-diverse child going to be squeezed out of a slot by a diversity applicant? Or alternatively, will people assume my diverse child was given some preference, and not admitted on pure merit?
These are some extremely controversial issues, and they’ve been explored several times. See, for example:
http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/29055.page

Watch out: Race and diversity are sensitive ones that should be treated respectfully.
This should be obvious. Private school admissions issues are already highly controversial, and when they’re paired with issues of race/diversity, the combination is volatile. Even the terms of the discussion (diversity, color, non-white, minority, etc) can be highly charged. Use care and respect.

How important is sibling/legacy status?
It seems most schools will give some preference to siblings, but how much preference might vary from school to school. As for legacies, it seems generally assumed that most schools will give some preference to legacies, but how much is unclear. There are plenty of examples of people on DCUM being disappointed when their legacy/sibling child was denied by their preferred school. Similarly, there are plenty of examples of wholly unconnected children being accepted to various schools.