Anonymous wrote:PP is neglecting the multiple other factors related to college admissions. High achieving well balanced students who fulfill the demographics in which colleges are seeking to attain at any given moment in time will be accepted and all others will not.

Truly high achieving well balanced students who meet the criterion in which elite colleges are seeking will be accepted to such schools. Students who fail to meet those standards will not be accepted as freshmen to those school regardless of the reputations of the high schools they attended.

This is a sane analysis, except I think the latest fad in college admissions is to accept kids with a "passion," who excel one or two areas, instead of the "well-rounded" kids they sought to admit in the 1980s and 1990s. From what I've heard, admissions committees now laugh, laugh I tell you, at the kids with 20 extra curriculars all over the map. Not saying this is fair to these kids. But it is the current trend in admissions.

In any case, it's certainly true that no Ivy is going to accept more than a couple of kids from any school, even a top 3 DC school. I don't have a feel for whether attending a super-competitive private raises, or lowers, your admissions chances relative to excelling at a good private like Bullis.

Anonymous wrote:It's not clear that a higher profile does bring in more money (either in the form of tuition or giving), and, even if it does, the question is where those resources will be allocated. Boarman doesn't seem terribly interested in academics, so it's not clear that this aspect of the school will benefit. Right now Bullis has a solid cohort of students who are academic high-achievers -- not as large as Sidwell/STA/NCS/GDS -- but not incosiderable either (and remember that at those schools not every child is above average either). Whether that cohort expands, stays steady or declines in the Bullis of the future is not clear.

I think you're also the person who posted at 20:34. You're one of the sanest and most coherent posters on DCUM I've come across.

Boarman is trying to up the profile of the school and satisfy alums/donors with the sports stuff but if you look at his track record at Eleanor Roosevelt and the North Carolina School of Science and Mathematics you'll discover that he is interested in academics. Tom Farquhar, now at Sidwell, did great things for the Bullis humanities curriculum, teacher development and capital improvements. Boarman was hired to beef up science, technology and mathematics and improve the faltering sports program. Whether or not his sports tactic works or not and what effect it may have on the academic program overall does remain to be seen. He's a bit bombastic and uncouth - the antithesis of Tom Farquhar - but he may just drive the school forward. Time will tell.

Anonymous wrote:^^^Couldn't agree with you more. I am a recent Bullis parent. My child, a Bullis grad, and in at least the top 15% of her graduating class is at a top 20 college. She is at a school with GDS, St Albans and Potomac grads who, no doubt, were probably in the top quarter of their classes but not more. There is a difference, but I genuinely feel that she received a fine education at Bullis and the exposure to the arts and the opportunity to play on a varsity team in addition to solid academics made the tuition worth it.

This was supposed to be a response to 20:34. My bad.

It's not clear that a higher profile does bring in more money (either in the form of tuition or giving), and, even if it does, the question is where those resources will be allocated. Boarman doesn't seem terribly interested in academics, so it's not clear that this aspect of the school will benefit. Right now Bullis has a solid cohort of students who are academic high-achievers -- not as large as Sidwell/STA/NCS/GDS -- but not incosiderable either (and remember that at those schools not every child is above average either). Whether that cohort expands, stays steady or declines in the Bullis of the future is not clear.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bullis is an academic joke. But if suburban parents want to pay big bucks so their kids can get a mediocre education in the hopes of reflected glory from recruited athletes given athletic scholarships, enjoy.

Can this writer explain to me the dynamic where in a thread containing proud notes from a school's grad you feel a need to jump into the gutter? To restate, anonymity is the last refuge of a scoundrel, imho.

You are aware of the irony of anonymously critiquing an anonymous poster, right?

Really? Never occurred to me

I know the ability to be nasty behind a closed door is much of the appeal around here, but there are moments when I think it goes over the top. That was my point...too nuanced? I realize I'm spitting in the wind on this one.

There are a limited numbers of students admitted to top-tier colleges. Top-tier colleges review applications from students from around the world who have had remarkable achievements in the classroom and beyond. This means the majority of the students graduating from the schools listed above will not be attending those elite colleges.

Students who graduate in the middle of their classes or below will not be attending top-tier colleges in their freshman year regardless of the pedigree of their high schools.

Students should finish their summer reading, work hard during this school this year ahead, prepare and score well on their SATs and return next year to share your success stories with us.

Work hard and do well. Make your parents and our community proud of you all.

Anonymous wrote:PP is neglecting the multiple other factors related to college admissions. High achieving well balanced students who fulfill the demographics in which colleges are seeking to attain at any given moment in time will be accepted and all others will not.

Truly high achieving well balanced students who meet the criterion in which elite colleges are seeking will be accepted to such schools. Students who fail to meet those standards will not be accepted as freshmen to those school regardless of the reputations of the high schools they attended.

Bullis doesn't have many truly high achieving students; as seen by the paucity of National Merit Semi-finalists.

^^^and Holton too.

^^^Couldn't agree with you more. I am a recent Bullis parent. My child, a Bullis grad, and in at least the top 15% of her graduating class is at a top 20 college. She is at a school with GDS, St Albans and Potomac grads who, no doubt, were probably in the top quarter of their classes but not more. There is a difference, but I genuinely feel that she received a fine education at Bullis and the exposure to the arts and the opportunity to play on a varsity team in addition to solid academics made the tuition worth it.

Criteria is the plural

PP is neglecting the multiple other factors related to college admissions. High achieving well balanced students who fulfill the demographics in which colleges are seeking to attain at any given moment in time will be accepted and all others will not.

Truly high achieving well balanced students who meet the criterion in which elite colleges are seeking will be accepted to such schools. Students who fail to meet those standards will not be accepted as freshmen to those school regardless of the reputations of the high schools they attended.

Anonymous wrote:This thread must surely be student/teenager driven. The notion that attendance at one of these aforementioned schools rather than another will make a toots worth of difference to a college admissions director is absurd.

College admissions depends on at least a dozen different variables if not more. Simply graduating from a particular high school will not guarantee acceptance to any single college or even any group of colleges.

High achieving well balanced students will be accepted by top-tier colleges and lower achieving students probably will not. In all likelihood all of the schools mentioned in this thread have a mixture of higher and lower achieving students.

Certainly the distasteful rancor on this thread about "my school is better than your school" must be driven by student rivalries and not by mature responsible knowing adults.

If you talk to college admissions people, the reputation/profile of the school does matter. Is it dispositive? Of course not. Is a 4.0 average at St. Albans/Sidwell/GDS/NCS looked at as more difficult to achieve than a 4.0 at Bullis? Yes. That's why colleges still rely on standardized scores -- to allow them to compare apples to apples. And many highly selective schools have long-time admissions staff that are quite aware of the gradations in rigor of the area independents.

If people are paying top dollar, it is reasonable that they know what they are getting. For Bullis, the academic reputation and strength of the cohort are not as strong as for a number of other schools (compare the National Merit Semifinalist totals for a proxy look at strength of cohort). Are students who attend Bullis nevertheless getting the benefit of strong teaching from dedicated and skilled teachers, in small class sizes? I'm sure they are.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bullis is an academic joke. But if suburban parents want to pay big bucks so their kids can get a mediocre education in the hopes of reflected glory from recruited athletes given athletic scholarships, enjoy.

Can this writer explain to me the dynamic where in a thread containing proud notes from a school's grad you feel a need to jump into the gutter? To restate, anonymity is the last refuge of a scoundrel, imho.

say what?

This thread must surely be student/teenager driven. The notion that attendance at one of these aforementioned schools rather than another will make a toots worth of difference to a college admissions director is absurd.

College admissions depends on at least a dozen different variables if not more. Simply graduating from a particular high school will not guarantee acceptance to any single college or even any group of colleges.

High achieving well balanced students will be accepted by top-tier colleges and lower achieving students probably will not. In all likelihood all of the schools mentioned in this thread have a mixture of higher and lower achieving students.

Certainly the distasteful rancor on this thread about "my school is better than your school" must be driven by student rivalries and not by mature responsible knowing adults.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bullis is an academic joke. But if suburban parents want to pay big bucks so their kids can get a mediocre education in the hopes of reflected glory from recruited athletes given athletic scholarships, enjoy.

Can this writer explain to me the dynamic where in a thread containing proud notes from a school's grad you feel a need to jump into the gutter? To restate, anonymity is the last refuge of a scoundrel, imho.

You are aware of the irony of anonymously critiquing an anonymous poster, right?