Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:it was popular WELL BEFORE Chelsea went there. In the 80s, it was very sought after as well, and i'm sure before that too. it's a good school.

yes, it was. But as PP said, the parent community has changed ENORMOUSLY. And not for the better.

NP. How would you know "the parent community has changed enormously ... and not for the better"? Surely you weren't a parent there in both the 1980s and now 30 years later, were you? Sounds to me like you're making shit up.

Everyone knows this. I'm among many who have posted about it on this thread. I was a student there in the 80s and 90s and am now a parent who knows MANY people who send their kids there. Seriously, you're arguing the sky is not blue.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:it was popular WELL BEFORE Chelsea went there. In the 80s, it was very sought after as well, and i'm sure before that too. it's a good school.

yes, it was. But as PP said, the parent community has changed ENORMOUSLY. And not for the better.

NP. How would you know "the parent community has changed enormously ... and not for the better"? Surely you weren't a parent there in both the 1980s and now 30 years later, were you? Sounds to me like you're making shit up.

Tale as old as time...it is an old money versus new money thing.

No.
When I went there it was heavily a scholarly immigrant or dual income white collar couples amongst the majority of the parents. Tuitions percent of HHi was less for the median D.C. family. I even had friends with two more senior federal employee parents. Not the case today.
Today the majority of the parent construct is very wealthy and high income, plus the subsidized aid/scholarship kids plus the double lawyer or double doctor working couples. Some of the mtgs now bifurcate into the country club clique/ DC social pages, and then everyone else (double working couples or low income couples). It's a larger percentage of families than one would see at a top college. Oh well, lower school kids haven't figured it out yet - who goes to social fundraisers on a monthly basis or not.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I want to add to the poster above. Many of Sidwell's recent admits to HYPS have parents whose accomplishments and achievements you can easily Google. Your daughter's class might have been an exception. It should come as no surprise that accomplished parents often raise ambitious, intelligent children. In the classes I know well, the better known, more famous parents always had their children admitted to the top colleges.

I suppose the real question is whether the school support your ordinary, no-connections kid, as strongly as it does for the connected kids, for college placement among the HYPS? Are the non-connected kids disadvantaged in college placement?

It does. We are truly working class and our first child (unusually intelligent) who went all the way through Sidwell on significant FA is now at an ivy league college. Our second child is thriving there. He is happy and learning a lot. Both have had amazing opportunities ( foreign travel, singing opera with a professional orchestra, talking to a supreme court justice) that he would never have had in public school.We feel accepted by the Sidwell community. We love the school. If you don't think its right for your family I can understand.

You just proved PP's point: the average MC or UMC kid is not recruited nor focused on. Only wealthy or lower income merit scholarship aid kids. Barbell approach for sure.

NP. Seems to me you're changing the question. PP's original question was about treatment of no-connections kids vs. connected kids. The answer to that seems to be that the school treats all kids the same. But now though, you're moving the goalposts to talk about recruiting of an "average MC or UMC kid." I'll let the Sidwell parent who posted before answer for herself, but it seems to me the implication of PP's response is that any child admitted to Sidwell (no matter whether "connected", merely well-off, middle-class, or otherwise) will get treated similarly. If you really want to complain that the school isn't doing enough to recruit upper middle class white kids, then go for it ... but I don't think you're going to get too many sympathetic ears.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I want to add to the poster above. Many of Sidwell's recent admits to HYPS have parents whose accomplishments and achievements you can easily Google. Your daughter's class might have been an exception. It should come as no surprise that accomplished parents often raise ambitious, intelligent children. In the classes I know well, the better known, more famous parents always had their children admitted to the top colleges.

I suppose the real question is whether the school support your ordinary, no-connections kid, as strongly as it does for the connected kids, for college placement among the HYPS? Are the non-connected kids disadvantaged in college placement?

It does. We are truly working class and our first child (unusually intelligent) who went all the way through Sidwell on significant FA is now at an ivy league college. Our second child is thriving there. He is happy and learning a lot. Both have had amazing opportunities ( foreign travel, singing opera with a professional orchestra, talking to a supreme court justice) that he would never have had in public school.We feel accepted by the Sidwell community. We love the school. If you don't think its right for your family I can understand.

You just proved PP's point: the average MC or UMC kid is not recruited nor focused on. Only wealthy or lower income merit scholarship aid kids. Barbell approach for sure.

Anonymous wrote:We went to sidwell friend's open house past weekend, I was not very impressed of either the curriculum or the facilities(including outdoor play areas) of the lower school. So I guess I must have missed something. Are teachers better? I guess it is a highly sought-after school, so they don't have to impress any one? Or the strength is at middle/higher school and people just want to get into the school earlier?

Are you by any chance a native speaker of a language other than English?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I want to add to the poster above. Many of Sidwell's recent admits to HYPS have parents whose accomplishments and achievements you can easily Google. Your daughter's class might have been an exception. It should come as no surprise that accomplished parents often raise ambitious, intelligent children. In the classes I know well, the better known, more famous parents always had their children admitted to the top colleges.

I suppose the real question is whether the school support your ordinary, no-connections kid, as strongly as it does for the connected kids, for college placement among the HYPS? Are the non-connected kids disadvantaged in college placement?

It does. We are truly working class and our first child (unusually intelligent) who went all the way through Sidwell on significant FA is now at an ivy league college. Our second child is thriving there. He is happy and learning a lot. Both have had amazing opportunities ( foreign travel, singing opera with a professional orchestra, talking to a supreme court justice) that he would never have had in public school.We feel accepted by the Sidwell community. We love the school. If you don't think its right for your family I can understand.

Anonymous wrote:


"The OP is disappointed in the SFS Lower School's facilities. Indeed, most of the other area privates have "nicer" facilities, I agree. I say this as a long-time Sidwell parent. To a significant degree, SFS is intentionally modest -- because that comports with Quaker values.

OP here, makes sense. Thank you. "

Long time Sidwell parent. This is an absurd statement.

1. Which schools have nicer facilities than Sidwell's lower school? I disagree that Sidwell is materially inferior to any lower school in the area. Beauvoir's awesome playground, aside, no other school really comes to mind. Lower school as a newish gym. large grass fields and updated pk-4 classrooms.

2. The "Quaker values" argument is undermined by the huge expansion planned for the Wisconsin Avenue campus. The $75 million gym, new turf football field was put in about six years ago. In the ultimate irony on Quaker values, you should check out new high tech multi-million dollar "Meeting Room" at the Wisconsin Ave. campus.

That number is high by a couple of factors. Yes, expensive, but it also opened up additional space on campus, for the meeting house, which has become incredibly important to the community.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:it was popular WELL BEFORE Chelsea went there. In the 80s, it was very sought after as well, and i'm sure before that too. it's a good school.

yes, it was. But as PP said, the parent community has changed ENORMOUSLY. And not for the better.

NP. How would you know "the parent community has changed enormously ... and not for the better"? Surely you weren't a parent there in both the 1980s and now 30 years later, were you? Sounds to me like you're making shit up.

Tale as old as time...it is an old money versus new money thing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:it was popular WELL BEFORE Chelsea went there. In the 80s, it was very sought after as well, and i'm sure before that too. it's a good school.

yes, it was. But as PP said, the parent community has changed ENORMOUSLY. And not for the better.

NP. How would you know "the parent community has changed enormously ... and not for the better"? Surely you weren't a parent there in both the 1980s and now 30 years later, were you? Sounds to me like you're making shit up.

"The OP is disappointed in the SFS Lower School's facilities. Indeed, most of the other area privates have "nicer" facilities, I agree. I say this as a long-time Sidwell parent. To a significant degree, SFS is intentionally modest -- because that comports with Quaker values.

OP here, makes sense. Thank you. "

Long time Sidwell parent. This is an absurd statement.

1. Which schools have nicer facilities than Sidwell's lower school? I disagree that Sidwell is materially inferior to any lower school in the area. Beauvoir's awesome playground, aside, no other school really comes to mind. Lower school as a newish gym. large grass fields and updated pk-4 classrooms.

2. The "Quaker values" argument is undermined by the huge expansion planned for the Wisconsin Avenue campus. The $75 million gym, new turf football field was put in about six years ago. In the ultimate irony on Quaker values, you should check out new high tech multi-million dollar "Meeting Room" at the Wisconsin Ave. campus.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It got popular when Chelsea went there, and then when the Obama girls went there. This city is full of a$$ kissers, and people wanted to be there just to be able to say they send their kids to school with the president's kids.

This is true. Many, many people want it for the social climbing aspect.
- Mid 90s Sidwell grad who saw the change when Chelsea came

it was popular WELL BEFORE Chelsea went there. In the 80s, it was very sought after as well, and i'm sure before that too. it's a good school.

yes, it was. But as PP said, the parent community has changed ENORMOUSLY. And not for the better.

Anonymous wrote:Not to be a jerk, but its one fewer application! sure they won't mind.

+1

Anonymous wrote:The OP is disappointed in the SFS Lower School's facilities. Indeed, most of the other area privates have "nicer" facilities, I agree. I say this as a long-time Sidwell parent. To a significant degree, SFS is intentionally modest -- because that comports with Quaker values.

OP here, makes sense. Thank you.

Soon enough the lower school will be in DC

The OP is disappointed in the SFS Lower School's facilities. Indeed, most of the other area privates have "nicer" facilities, I agree. I say this as a long-time Sidwell parent. To a significant degree, SFS is intentionally modest -- because that comports with Quaker values.