Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I spoke with Walls. They told me the GPA threshold to be considered this year was 3.7. So all kids with a 3.7 or higher were in the pool, and then they applied a score to each kid based on their GPA and teacher recs.

That's a lower GPA cut-off than last year.

Did they go into any details about how they scored the GPA and teacher recs? Did a 4.0 get 10 points, a 3.9 get 9 points, etc? Did they provide any details about the teacher recs?

Anonymous wrote:I spoke with Walls. They told me the GPA threshold to be considered this year was 3.7. So all kids with a 3.7 or higher were in the pool, and then they applied a score to each kid based on their GPA and teacher recs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP: I mean, did you even bother to have your kid apply to other schools like Banneker - McKinley or lottery for Latin - Basis? Walls has been cultivating absolute mediocrity for the past four years since getting rid of the test, yet everyone on this forum continues to act as if it is the only best high school in DC. It's not. Your kid deserves better.

This is hilarious! None of the other schools are test based either. So what are they?

SWW has been the same school for a long time. Just search this Board-same complaints from a decade ago. Plenty of the kids that were admitted under the "test" have struggled at SWW. It's a lot easier to have mommy pay from test prep than to have great exec functioning and determination to excel. Testing has it's place but it's certainly not the only factor for a scuccessful student.

1000% this. I’m a teacher, and this is very true. But you’ll never convince these people about that. Also, there is so much talk about Dartmouth bringing back the SATs for equity, but what isn’t talked about is that there is still inherent bias in these tests that negatively affect minorities and all girls. Bringing back the test may allow some underrepresented kids with high scores to get into their college of choice, but it does nothing for the kids who score low due to bias and less test prep (because test prep is expensive). There is enough research on this for us to understand how it works. Bringing back tests can raise up a few kids, but it’s really just a bandaid for inequity. And it’s just recycling old strategies rather than being innovative. Maybe there is a way to bring back testing AND eliminate the inherent racial, gender, and economic bias in testing—I don’t know. But everyone screaming for testing isn’t looking at it deeply enough. Also, if Dartmouth realized it wasn’t letting in enough under underrepresented applicants, they could have tried another way to ensure they admitted those students rather than relying on something that we know also operates with bias. I’m not sure what the answer is—sure, if reinstating the SAT helps a little, they should do it. I’m also worried that colleges will then say, here, we fixed the equity issues. We are now done. And we are so far from done. Speaking for my kids, who are also underrepresented.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP: I mean, did you even bother to have your kid apply to other schools like Banneker - McKinley or lottery for Latin - Basis? Walls has been cultivating absolute mediocrity for the past four years since getting rid of the test, yet everyone on this forum continues to act as if it is the only best high school in DC. It's not. Your kid deserves better.

This is hilarious! None of the other schools are test based either. So what are they?

SWW has been the same school for a long time. Just search this Board-same complaints from a decade ago. Plenty of the kids that were admitted under the "test" have struggled at SWW. It's a lot easier to have mommy pay from test prep than to have great exec functioning and determination to excel. Testing has it's place but it's certainly not the only factor for a scuccessful student.

1000% this. I’m a teacher, and this is very true. But you’ll never convince these people about that. Also, there is so much talk about Dartmouth bringing back the SATs for equity, but what isn’t talked about is that there is still inherent bias in these tests that negatively affect minorities and all girls. Bringing back the test may allow some underrepresented kids with high scores to get into their college of choice, but it does nothing for the kids who score low due to bias and less test prep (because test prep is expensive). There is enough research on this for us to understand how it works. Bringing back tests can raise up a few kids, but it’s really just a bandaid for inequity. And it’s just recycling old strategies rather than being innovative. Maybe there is a way to bring back testing AND eliminate the inherent racial, gender, and economic bias in testing—I don’t know. But everyone screaming for testing isn’t looking at it deeply enough. Also, if Dartmouth realized it wasn’t letting in enough under underrepresented applicants, they could have tried another way to ensure they admitted those students rather than relying on something that we know also operates with bias. I’m not sure what the answer is—sure, if reinstating the SAT helps a little, they should do it. I’m also worried that colleges will then say, here, we fixed the equity issues. We are now done. And we are so far from done. Speaking for my kids, who are also underrepresented.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP: I mean, did you even bother to have your kid apply to other schools like Banneker - McKinley or lottery for Latin - Basis? Walls has been cultivating absolute mediocrity for the past four years since getting rid of the test, yet everyone on this forum continues to act as if it is the only best high school in DC. It's not. Your kid deserves better.

This is hilarious! None of the other schools are test based either. So what are they?

SWW has been the same school for a long time. Just search this Board-same complaints from a decade ago. Plenty of the kids that were admitted under the "test" have struggled at SWW. It's a lot easier to have mommy pay from test prep than to have great exec functioning and determination to excel. Testing has it's place but it's certainly not the only factor for a scuccessful student.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For the last few years, Walls has been fixated on GPA but, with grade inflation in DC, the school is not necessary selecting the top students. For example, based on 9th grade PARRC results, over 30% of Walls 9th graders are below grade level in math. If they had an admission test, Walls could easily only select 9th graders who are at least grade level in math. Just compare Walls to Stuyvesant, a 82% minority magnet school in NYC, which has an admissions test and where no 9th grader is below grade level in math. Obviously, Walls is not focused on picking the top students in DC.

This year Walls changed the admissions system so that subjective teacher recs are worth three times more than a kid’s GPA. And the teacher recs are not based on any numerical rating. Thus, overworked Walls admissions staff are assigning numerical weights to these teacher recs based on general comments such as “this student is great” or “this student is solid” and using these comments to calculate the applicant’s overall numerical score to determine if he or she warrants an interview. As a result, a student with a relatively low GPA but excellent teacher recs will receive an interview over a kid with a stronger GPA who submitted more lukewarm teacher recs.

Based on this change, it is hard to see how Walls will be picking a stronger class this year than previous years. It will be interesting to see if the new class, like previous recent ones, includes a high percentage of “straight A” kids testing below grade level.

While I agree with you that the process leaves a lot to be desired (my 4.0 kid didn't get an interview), I also want to call into question two of your statements. First, Stuyvesant is something like 10% Black and Latino, so saying it's 82% minority effectively means it's 72% Asian. I don't think Asian kids are underrepresented in NYC's selective schools, so it doesn't seem right to include them in the minority stats.

Second, I don't think your comment about Walls choosing based on vague recommendations is correct. The recommendation forms have choices for teachers such as "5: reading level is far advanced for age and grade level," "4: Reads well above expectations for age and grade level," etc. So even though it's subjective based on the teacher's judgment, the admissions staff won't have to assign guesstimates to what "this student is solid" means.

Nice for you to supposedly have insight about what the teacher recommendation process looked like. Us mere mortal parents weren't provided transparency. So we'll have to take your word for it, I guess?

+100

Here is what a DC teacher who actually did Walls recs this year said:

"There are no rankings in the apps. I was never asked to rank kids or assign some numerical number."

I think you're reading too much into what the self-identified teacher said. First, they did not directly say that they did Walls recs this year. They said recommendations for all of the schools use the same form, and that they were "never asked" certain things, suggesting that they wrote recommendations during some period with a definitive endpoint, not that they filled out the form for SWW applicants in the past few months, so they may not even be a current teacher.

They also said their estimate of the SWW applications came from attending an open house, which would be an odd place to find a current DCPS MS Math or English teacher unless they happen to also have a current 8th grader. It's also interesting that the poster did not actually describe the recommendation letter form. They didn't say whether it asks for an open ended narrative, whether it asks short-answer or multiple choice questions, or anything else. All they said was the sentence you quoted, which is pretty sparse in detail.

And even if they are a current teacher and actually did SWW recs this year, the description you're responding to doesn't necessarily assign a "numerical number" or "rank kids." It describes a multiple choice question that asks the teacher to select the most appropriate description for the student's level. It does so in a way that would make it easy to assign a point value, but a teacher who uses the phrase "numerical number" might not spot that.

The description is also consistent with what I was told at the open house. I asked exactly this question because the admissions director talked about how their process was data driven, but it would be very difficult to be consistent about assigning point values to open ended narratives. I can't say I remember the exact answer, but I walked away thinking it would be pretty much what the poster above describes. That also makes sense because it's the only way they could reasonably assign point values to hundreds of recommendation letters within a couple of weeks.

Anonymous wrote:Walls is definitely doing some sort of balancing by middle school or ward.

I'm a teacher and the kids I recommended equally (and who had the same GPAs) did not all get interviews.

I was very methodical with my recommendations as I had to do a large number of them and wanted to be fair.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP: I mean, did you even bother to have your kid apply to other schools like Banneker - McKinley or lottery for Latin - Basis? Walls has been cultivating absolute mediocrity for the past four years since getting rid of the test, yet everyone on this forum continues to act as if it is the only best high school in DC. It's not. Your kid deserves better.

This is hilarious! None of the other schools are test based either. So what are they?

SWW has been the same school for a long time. Just search this Board-same complaints from a decade ago. Plenty of the kids that were admitted under the "test" have struggled at SWW. It's a lot easier to have mommy pay from test prep than to have great exec functioning and determination to excel. Testing has it's place but it's certainly not the only factor for a scuccessful student.

Anonymous wrote:Walls is definitely doing some sort of balancing by middle school or ward.

I'm a teacher and the kids I recommended equally (and who had the same GPAs) did not all get interviews.

I was very methodical with my recommendations as I had to do a large number of them and wanted to be fair.

Anonymous wrote:PP: I mean, did you even bother to have your kid apply to other schools like Banneker - McKinley or lottery for Latin - Basis? Walls has been cultivating absolute mediocrity for the past four years since getting rid of the test, yet everyone on this forum continues to act as if it is the only best high school in DC. It's not. Your kid deserves better.

Anonymous wrote:Walls is definitely doing some sort of balancing by middle school or ward.

I'm a teacher and the kids I recommended equally (and who had the same GPAs) did not all get interviews.

I was very methodical with my recommendations as I had to do a large number of them and wanted to be fair.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For the last few years, Walls has been fixated on GPA but, with grade inflation in DC, the school is not necessary selecting the top students. For example, based on 9th grade PARRC results, over 30% of Walls 9th graders are below grade level in math. If they had an admission test, Walls could easily only select 9th graders who are at least grade level in math. Just compare Walls to Stuyvesant, a 82% minority magnet school in NYC, which has an admissions test and where no 9th grader is below grade level in math. Obviously, Walls is not focused on picking the top students in DC.

This year Walls changed the admissions system so that subjective teacher recs are worth three times more than a kid’s GPA. And the teacher recs are not based on any numerical rating. Thus, overworked Walls admissions staff are assigning numerical weights to these teacher recs based on general comments such as “this student is great” or “this student is solid” and using these comments to calculate the applicant’s overall numerical score to determine if he or she warrants an interview. As a result, a student with a relatively low GPA but excellent teacher recs will receive an interview over a kid with a stronger GPA who submitted more lukewarm teacher recs.

Based on this change, it is hard to see how Walls will be picking a stronger class this year than previous years. It will be interesting to see if the new class, like previous recent ones, includes a high percentage of “straight A” kids testing below grade level.

While I agree with you that the process leaves a lot to be desired (my 4.0 kid didn't get an interview), I also want to call into question two of your statements. First, Stuyvesant is something like 10% Black and Latino, so saying it's 82% minority effectively means it's 72% Asian. I don't think Asian kids are underrepresented in NYC's selective schools, so it doesn't seem right to include them in the minority stats.

Second, I don't think your comment about Walls choosing based on vague recommendations is correct. The recommendation forms have choices for teachers such as "5: reading level is far advanced for age and grade level," "4: Reads well above expectations for age and grade level," etc. So even though it's subjective based on the teacher's judgment, the admissions staff won't have to assign guesstimates to what "this student is solid" means.

Nice for you to supposedly have insight about what the teacher recommendation process looked like. Us mere mortal parents weren't provided transparency. So we'll have to take your word for it, I guess?

+100

Here is what a DC teacher who actually did Walls recs this year said:

"There are no rankings in the apps. I was never asked to rank kids or assign some numerical number."