Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder whether some Sidwell parents used Singer in the past and recommended him to the school. Which would raise new questions about the authenticity of those admissions. God forbid!

Regardless of the merits of the case, it is so ironic that he was used to evaluate her case and concluded that she was not qualified for the Ivies and yet at the same time he was getting other students into Ivies under false pretences.

I wonder if you used Singer. Maybe you referred him to Sidwell. I wonder if your kids cheated on their SATs. See how “wondering” works?

DP. And your wondering makes me wonder why you're so attached to him. I wonder if you paid him yourself? Perhaps you used him?

The first PP is spot on. Someone who is a liar and a fraud is being judged worthy to evaluate this girl's application? And you believe him? Really? Better than that, the folks at Sidwell believed him?

The rumors about Singer have been swirling for years. That anyone with any ethics or morals would come nearer to him than a 100 miles is too weird to be true. If you really think he is so trustworthy then I have a bridge I'd like you to see. I'll get you a good deal...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder whether some Sidwell parents used Singer in the past and recommended him to the school. Which would raise new questions about the authenticity of those admissions. God forbid!

Regardless of the merits of the case, it is so ironic that he was used to evaluate her case and concluded that she was not qualified for the Ivies and yet at the same time he was getting other students into Ivies under false pretences.

I wonder if you used Singer. Maybe you referred him to Sidwell. I wonder if your kids cheated on their SATs. See how “wondering” works?

Anonymous wrote:I wonder whether some Sidwell parents used Singer in the past and recommended him to the school. Which would raise new questions about the authenticity of those admissions. God forbid!

Regardless of the merits of the case, it is so ironic that he was used to evaluate her case and concluded that she was not qualified for the Ivies and yet at the same time he was getting other students into Ivies under false pretences.

Anonymous wrote:I wonder whether some Sidwell parents used Singer in the past and recommended him to the school. Which would raise new questions about the authenticity of those admissions. God forbid!

Regardless of the merits of the case, it is so ironic that he was used to evaluate her case and concluded that she was not qualified for the Ivies and yet at the same time he was getting other students into Ivies under false pretences.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s pretty clear that she got special, advantageous treatment from Sidwell. At the time she applied to college, Sidwell limited most students to just nine applications. They have since increased the limit slightly.

How can they limit how many school students apply to?

By not supporting the applications to schools above the limit.

If she applied to 13 schools she created a problem for herself - where does Sidwell push for her - all four ivies she applied to?

But why? Couldn’t they have emphasized the schools where were they wanted them to “push”? The balance of the school wouldn’t get any particular attention.

I don’t understand why the volume was such an issue. Doesn’t seem with in the schools purview to limit how many schools a child can apply to.

Sure it is, the school has to write/send out more recs, and it adds more management for each file. If one person does it, then 128 can do it, and all of the sudden you are dealing with 500 more applications.

It's all pretty automated. Once the recs and transcripts are prepared it takes a matter of minutes to send them to each additional college. Also, it is a college counselor's job to support and serve the students, not act as gatekeepers.

Apparently it's not. That's the most surprisingly thing to me about the complaint, which is that the counselor's assessment of the student relative to peers changed from school to school. So they really can manipulate the outcomes. This may be true at other private schools too - I am pretty sure it was not the case for my DC who went to MCPS in a class of 500 with many kids applying to 12-15 schools.

Anonymous wrote:I wonder whether some Sidwell parents used Singer in the past and recommended him to the school. Which would raise new questions about the authenticity of those admissions. God forbid!

Regardless of the merits of the case, it is so ironic that he was used to evaluate her case and concluded that she was not qualified for the Ivies and yet at the same time he was getting other students into Ivies under false pretences.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s pretty clear that she got special, advantageous treatment from Sidwell. At the time she applied to college, Sidwell limited most students to just nine applications. They have since increased the limit slightly.

How can they limit how many school students apply to?

By not supporting the applications to schools above the limit.

If she applied to 13 schools she created a problem for herself - where does Sidwell push for her - all four ivies she applied to?

But why? Couldn’t they have emphasized the schools where were they wanted them to “push”? The balance of the school wouldn’t get any particular attention.

I don’t understand why the volume was such an issue. Doesn’t seem with in the schools purview to limit how many schools a child can apply to.

Sure it is, the school has to write/send out more recs, and it adds more management for each file. If one person does it, then 128 can do it, and all of the sudden you are dealing with 500 more applications.

It's all pretty automated. Once the recs and transcripts are prepared it takes a matter of minutes to send them to each additional college. Also, it is a college counselor's job to support and serve the students, not act as gatekeepers.

Anonymous wrote:I wonder whether some Sidwell parents used Singer in the past and recommended him to the school. Which would raise new questions about the authenticity of those admissions. God forbid!

Regardless of the merits of the case, it is so ironic that he was used to evaluate her case and concluded that she was not qualified for the Ivies and yet at the same time he was getting other students into Ivies under false pretences.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s pretty clear that she got special, advantageous treatment from Sidwell. At the time she applied to college, Sidwell limited most students to just nine applications. They have since increased the limit slightly.

How can they limit how many school students apply to?

By not supporting the applications to schools above the limit.

If she applied to 13 schools she created a problem for herself - where does Sidwell push for her - all four ivies she applied to?

But why? Couldn’t they have emphasized the schools where were they wanted them to “push”? The balance of the school wouldn’t get any particular attention.

I don’t understand why the volume was such an issue. Doesn’t seem with in the schools purview to limit how many schools a child can apply to.

Sure it is, the school has to write/send out more recs, and it adds more management for each file. If one person does it, then 128 can do it, and all of the sudden you are dealing with 500 more applications.

It's all pretty automated. Once the recs and transcripts are prepared it takes a matter of minutes to send them to each additional college. Also, it is a college counselor's job to support and serve the students, not act as gatekeepers.

Anonymous wrote:The thing that stands out to me the most from this thread is the vitriol against this girl and her family coming from people who claim to be students or parents of students at Sidwell. I am not seeing any Quaker values. Heck, I'm not seeing any positive values at all. It is sad. And embarrassing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So who at Sidwell thought that hiring Singer was a bright idea?

You realize this was years ago, not within the last two months, right?

Why would any school in Washington think to hire Singer, even then? His business was largely in Southern California and, as the family’s lawyer showed in the deposition, Singer’s resume didn’t exactly add up. I’d be surprised, but did he work with any Sidwell students in the past? (It would be concerning if he had and then was working for the school.)

+1. This is...odd. Could be nothing there, but curious to know if any Sidwell students are tied to the scandal.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:According to DCUM, the plaintiff in the case should have been an easy admit for top schools as an AA. Somehow, an AA student athlete from Sidwell struck out across the board and sued the school.

But that doesn’t fit the narrative on this board, so that will be overlooked.

Maybe she had a mediocre high school academic record and aimed too high for mostly Ivys. Affirmative action in college admissions only goes so far.

She’s at Penn and her family sued. Chances are she wasn’t a mediocre student.

My point is simply that being an URM (and an athlete, at that) doesn’t guarantee admission into any school, even for really good students. According to DCUM, being URM is the biggest hook there is. EVERYtime someone is admitted to HYPS, someone inevitably implies that they must be URM, an athletic recruit, or legacy. This case shows otherwise. The student could check two of those boxes and it was still a “no”. That’s because acceptance is a crapshoot for everyone, other than those with major connections.

This poster has it. These are the most salient points. Everything else is sour grapes.