Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm the parent of a current Sidwell junior and I'm much more anxious now than I was yesterday about the college admissions process. We're in the early stages of the process, so hearing that 2 of the 3 people in the CC office are leaving is very upsetting news. But if the college counselors were being mistreated by parents, then I can't blame them for wanting to leave the school. The behavior that was described or any similar behavior shouldn't be tolerated....ever.

At some schools a parent calling the Admissions Dept at a University to bad mouth their DC's classmate and fellow community member would be grounds to not renew that family's contract moving forward.

Does this parent have younger children in the school ?

If so, the family should be shown the door

Agreed. But that would mean Bryan Garman would have to possess the strength and morals to take a stand.
It wasn't just this year that pushed Patrick out the door. There were douchebag parents in the past 2 years who cursed and screamed at him because their kid "only" got into Yale but not Harvard. Seriously. Others who were indignant when the counseling office would suggest a non Ivy as an option, and refused to understand that "fit" is much more important than a "name brand" school". Another parent was in the parking lot one year asking students where they got in early to understand why her DC didn't get in. These people have lost all perspective. Why work with such a community, even if it's only a few bad apples? I have no idea if this happens elsewhere and don't care. As a member of the SFS community, I know that 99% of the families are great, but that 1% is toxic and you can imagine how much energy they demand from the college counselors. If Bryan Garman and SFS really believe the school's values of respect for others, these people should be shown the door. There are plenty of other families who would love to be there and could contribute in a more positive way.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm the parent of a current Sidwell junior and I'm much more anxious now than I was yesterday about the college admissions process. We're in the early stages of the process, so hearing that 2 of the 3 people in the CC office are leaving is very upsetting news. But if the college counselors were being mistreated by parents, then I can't blame them for wanting to leave the school. The behavior that was described or any similar behavior shouldn't be tolerated....ever.

At some schools a parent calling the Admissions Dept at a University to bad mouth their DC's classmate and fellow community member would be grounds to not renew that family's contract moving forward.

Does this parent have younger children in the school ?

If so, the family should be shown the door

I agree that what the parent did is beyond horrible, but you don't solve the problem by expelling an innocent kid.

Anonymous wrote:How did everyone learn that this parent called a college admissions office? Presumably he/she did not go around telling everyone about it.

The University in question likely went back to the Sidwell College Guidance office and then communications filtered from there. The irony, if you are the infracting parent, you didn't do your kid any favors either.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm the parent of a current Sidwell junior and I'm much more anxious now than I was yesterday about the college admissions process. We're in the early stages of the process, so hearing that 2 of the 3 people in the CC office are leaving is very upsetting news. But if the college counselors were being mistreated by parents, then I can't blame them for wanting to leave the school. The behavior that was described or any similar behavior shouldn't be tolerated....ever.

At some schools a parent calling the Admissions Dept at a University to bad mouth their DC's classmate and fellow community member would be grounds to not renew that family's contract moving forward.

Does this parent have younger children in the school ?

If so, the family should be shown the door

I agree, but it is more than likely that whoever did it, this is their only/last kid at the school, so what is the recourse?

How did everyone learn that this parent called a college admissions office? Presumably he/she did not go around telling everyone about it.

Anonymous wrote:I'm the parent of a current Sidwell junior and I'm much more anxious now than I was yesterday about the college admissions process. We're in the early stages of the process, so hearing that 2 of the 3 people in the CC office are leaving is very upsetting news. But if the college counselors were being mistreated by parents, then I can't blame them for wanting to leave the school. The behavior that was described or any similar behavior shouldn't be tolerated....ever.

At some schools a parent calling the Admissions Dept at a University to bad mouth their DC's classmate and fellow community member would be grounds to not renew that family's contract moving forward.

Does this parent have younger children in the school ?

If so, the family should be shown the door

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It was covered already and you keep asking. They 'reported' a classmate of their child to a common school of interest. I don't know the infraction and don't care, but no parent should be communicating with any admissions office and especially about another kid.

That’s it? I understood it was parents plural. Are you saying one child’s parents acted so egregiously and in a manner condemned by all that someone would change jobs because of it?

That sounds big time crazy to me, PP. What aren’t you understanding?
A parent or parents ‘reporting’ something about a student from the school that conflicts with what the school counselor already communicated is very damaging to the school and the counselor. I’d want out of crazy town if I could get out.

Anonymous wrote:The director was a nice guy, but meh.

The other one was in way over his head. Sorry to say, but true.

Maybe they should eliminate the position entirely and let parents take over

In other words, remove the veneer of meritocracy and stop asking education professionals to compromise their ethics

If parents want to run the show and can't abide their DC developing some personal agency then, let parents do their own college placement work

From home

Anonymous wrote:He’s not leaving because of a scandal. He’s leaving because this year’s senior class parents were so abhorrent that he was fed up with the community.
They need someone in that office who can tell parents to F off and have Bryan Garman back him/her up. But we know that won’t happen. Like most local heads, he likes feeling as if he’s part of the DC power circle.

I think its time this bubble burst.

Parents and teachers choose Private School environment because, among other things, they don't like Board of Eds, teach to the test, etc...

In a Private school Parent involvement is supposed to boost resources, but in DC Privates a line seems to have been crossed way back when we left tuition of 15 K a year well behind.

Parents are no longer helpful from a distance and things are out of wack if talented Admin and Teachers are leaving due to Parents corrupting the meritocracy that should be at heart of education

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Seems schools like Sidwell wants it both ways. They want to feed kids into competitive programs but limited by recruiting kids not necessarily geared or prepared for those programs. Recruiting kids are from certain privileged backgrounds definitely requires sacrificing kids who are better prepared academically...just my 2cents.

Why do you assume "recruited kids" are of lesser academic ability? Not my experience at all.

Because when you consider constraints of legacy, donors, influential parents, siblings, sports the admission seizes to be a meritorcracy, it will have to let less prepared kids slip in and possibly more than the admission committe would if it were a meritocracy.

I don't consider most on your list to be recruited. but YMMV.

Does admitted work better? I once heard people argue on semantics when they don’t have a point to make.

Admitted is not the same as recruited. Please refer to a dictionary before castigating others for your poor word choice.

Well if you felt castigated then it was for your inability to comprehend and argue on semantics rather than substance.

Ok, so let's argue reality. The school factors in Quakers, alumni, siblings and children of faculty and staff into the process. They could likely fill most of the lower school with just those applicants, the way other schools already do. But Sidwell doesn't do that. They spare about half the slots for those buckets while keeping about half the slots for families new to the school. That means for new families, you have about a 1/10 chance for a spot, but for the others, you have about a 1/3 or 1/4 chance. That doesn't water down the pool, because the children that don't meet basic testing or other requirements won't be a fit to begin with. You are making an assumption that the siblings or alumni kids or athletes (which isn't a stated priority) are somehow lesser applicants. They aren't, but they are considered within their smaller aggregate pool than the general public applying. There are plenty of alumni kids, siblings and Quakers turned away because there just isn't enough room on the campus for everyone who would like to come.

But these people are not "recruited" as you wrongly termed and they are also not watering down the quality of students at the school, as you suggest without evidence. I will submit that it is harder to know much about a prospective student when they are 4 as when they are 12 or 14. As such, there is attrition of kids admitted in younger years as they seek a better fit, just like those 12 and 14 year olds are applying into 7th or 9th grades because they feel they are a good fit for the middle or high school.

I admit it, I got sucked in and just read this thread from start to here. Why? It’s a little like watching reality TV, as horrific as it is you just can’t turn away. This thread reminds me how grateful I am our DC chose not to pursue any of the big three and is in a school that is a perfect fit without pretentious, petty drama.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Seems schools like Sidwell wants it both ways. They want to feed kids into competitive programs but limited by recruiting kids not necessarily geared or prepared for those programs. Recruiting kids are from certain privileged backgrounds definitely requires sacrificing kids who are better prepared academically...just my 2cents.

Why do you assume "recruited kids" are of lesser academic ability? Not my experience at all.

Because when you consider constraints of legacy, donors, influential parents, siblings, sports the admission seizes to be a meritorcracy, it will have to let less prepared kids slip in and possibly more than the admission committe would if it were a meritocracy.

I don't consider most on your list to be recruited. but YMMV.

Does admitted work better? I once heard people argue on semantics when they don’t have a point to make.

Admitted is not the same as recruited. Please refer to a dictionary before castigating others for your poor word choice.

Well if you felt castigated then it was for your inability to comprehend and argue on semantics rather than substance.

Anonymous wrote:I question how much the schools actually rely on these tests. They know what the research says. I talked to multiple testers and ADs and in the end it seems that the test is used to simply back up what they see on the play visit and read in the recommendations. They want to know if the child behaves well, is respectful, and exhibits no red flags for learning disabilities. From there, ADs are probably looking for families that can fill out the diversity profile, whether they are full pay, seem easy to work, appear willing to volunteer, and of course what they can contribute financially to the school.

What part of that, apart from legacy status, means that the kid will get into ivy

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It was covered already and you keep asking. They 'reported' a classmate of their child to a common school of interest. I don't know the infraction and don't care, but no parent should be communicating with any admissions office and especially about another kid.

That’s it? I understood it was parents plural. Are you saying one child’s parents acted so egregiously and in a manner condemned by all that someone would change jobs because of it?

It’s probably a pattern of abuse over the years by entitled parents demanding a reason why the guy didn’t get their kids into an ivy. Like the college counselor didn’t do his job.

Perhaps thos parents failed to bribe the right people.

I question how much the schools actually rely on these tests. They know what the research says. I talked to multiple testers and ADs and in the end it seems that the test is used to simply back up what they see on the play visit and read in the recommendations. They want to know if the child behaves well, is respectful, and exhibits no red flags for learning disabilities. From there, ADs are probably looking for families that can fill out the diversity profile, whether they are full pay, seem easy to work, appear willing to volunteer, and of course what they can contribute financially to the school.