Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know two Maret families this happened to last year -- younger sib not accepted. Both very upset (moms were anyway). One reapplying, the other I think isn't.

Wha?? I thought the entire rap on Maret was that they took ALL sibs and faculty kids. Was it a non-expansion year? What explanation was given? That goes against everything I've heard about the school...

For at least the past two years, they've rejected some siblings and faculty kids for K. Not sure about other grades.

Not entitled at all. The institution has values and they do not include behaving compassionately towards families. I think it is wonderful that you are happy with those values. Good for you.

Sorry about the insult to the less qualified kids but you do realize they often feel this way about themselves, right? In fact, I am quoting a kid who felt very much out of their league amongst what she considered to be "geniuses".

Anonymous wrote:Here is what you don't understand 10:17 when you reject a sibling qualified or not you make the families life more difficult. Carpooling, afterschool events, it all becomes very difficult to manage. And resentment grows over time. You can be human and compassionate understand there is a real consequence for families or not care. You obviously do not care. Perhaps that attitude is what truly comes through after all.

I do understand, I understand completely. Remember, I have two kids at two different schools. I had a younger sibling rejected. So I don't know how you can say I don't care. Its one thing to say its disappointing and difficult. But its another to insult the kids who did get in and to act as if your child is somehow entitled. The disappointment and the hassle do not justify that.

Anonymous wrote:I know two Maret families this happened to last year -- younger sib not accepted. Both very upset (moms were anyway). One reapplying, the other I think isn't.

Wha?? I thought the entire rap on Maret was that they took ALL sibs and faculty kids. Was it a non-expansion year? What explanation was given? That goes against everything I've heard about the school...

Completely agree with you 11:32. That is the other side of the coin. But the admissions staff would say the kids who are struggling should be there because it serves the schools institutional interests ($$$). Some parents are content with this and some are not.

I think many parents do recognize their kids should be in a different school but it is often too late. Their children have a social network they are not willing to give up. So who does this serve? The schools.

YMMV

Anonymous wrote:Where did anyone get the idea that any of these schools operate as a strict meritocracy? Seriously, they don't say that themselves. They accept kids for all sorts of reasons and reject them for all sorts of reasons and none of us is entitled to have a child accepted, even a sibling. I get that its disappointing, but when you refer to kids as "stoopid" or "mediocre" -- well, just remember that these are children you are talking about. Say what you will about parents, but you really shouldn't talk about kids this way, no matter why they were accepted. And I would match your nastiness up against the parents who are rich or connected or whatever any day.

I say this as a parent of a sibling who was rejected by a big three.

Unfortunately as mean as it sounds, she is correct. Schools accept some sibs or new applicants who clearly are not able to handle the work or meet the requirements that they usually say if they are connected or have money. It is one of the downsides of private schools. because the work requirements become too overwhelming. I have seen it happen more times than I can count. I wish the parents would recognize that their kids are individuals and might be better off in a different school.

The most sought-after schools could fill each PK and K class with siblings and "connected" students, with no slots left over for families new to the school. What should they do?

Here is what you don't understand 10:17 when you reject a sibling qualified or not you make the families life more difficult. Carpooling, afterschool events, it all becomes very difficult to manage. And resentment grows over time. You can be human and compassionate understand there is a real consequence for families or not care. You obviously do not care. Perhaps that attitude is what truly comes through after all.

The PP who calls children who got admitted "stoopid" is showing his/her true colors with each post. Perhaps the school knows how obnoxious this parent is to work with and wants not to have him/her around more years. His/her sense of entitlement is unreasonable.

Where did anyone get the idea that any of these schools operate as a strict meritocracy? Seriously, they don't say that themselves. They accept kids for all sorts of reasons and reject them for all sorts of reasons and none of us is entitled to have a child accepted, even a sibling. I get that its disappointing, but when you refer to kids as "stoopid" or "mediocre" -- well, just remember that these are children you are talking about. Say what you will about parents, but you really shouldn't talk about kids this way, no matter why they were accepted. And I would match your nastiness up against the parents who are rich or connected or whatever any day.

I say this as a parent of a sibling who was rejected by a big three.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems schools are in a very tough balancing act -- admit the siblings vs. admit the most qualified applicants. It works out best if the siblings ARE the most qualified, but unfortunately that doesn't always happen. No matter which side of the balance they favor, they will suffer lots of criticism.

I feel for the disappointed parents posting here too. It's sad there's no easy answer that makes everyone happy.

Not wanting to argue because you seem sincere but I can guarantee my sib was extremely qualified. Less qualified kids were admitted. This was not a case of underqualified sibling. I Kind of feel now that it was a rejection of the family even though they barely knew us. They knew other families better I suppose. Trust me, parents from the School dont believe me when I tell them kid was rejected. thye say it must have been a mistake . I dont explain that no it was definitely intentional. I know other people keep trying but it seemed pretty cruel to do that to dc.

You can guarantee your dc was "extremely qualified," but you can't guarantee there was not another extremely qualified applicant that was a better one for the school. Admissions committees are putting together a school community, not just admitting one student at a time.

Nope. You are wrong. Know my kid and the kids they accepted. They weren't building a community, they were addressing other interests of the school. Having nothing to do with the actual students or the "makeup of the class". Let's be vague and call them institutional interests. The institutional interests often trump best candidate status. Probably the right thing for the school to do in the short term but really silly thing to do long term.

You clearly do not understand the school admissions process. It's not just about you or your kids. It is also about what you call institutional interests, and you and I disagree as to whether insitutional goals are valid interests when building a school community. Ironically, your poor reaction to the rejction and your evident inability to understand the importance of school goals shows that your school was right not to put too much store in your family.

Burst out laughing!! The fact that my family is unhappy with the criteria that rejects a member of my family validates the criteria. Very funny and of course ridiculously self serving.
Which admission office do you work in by the way?
Look, I don't really give a sh#t about the school. Meaning I don't care about it. It is meaningless to me. I don't hate it or have any emotion toward the school. Which I think is not what the school wants. The school helped to create this attitude by pretending they accept the best and the brightest when they clearly don't. I clearly DO understand the school admission process as I brought up institutional interests and was being kind in not explicitly calling out stoopid rich kids, or mediocre legacies or politically connected dolts.

Just responding to the OP. Siblings get rejected even if they are extremely qualified.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems schools are in a very tough balancing act -- admit the siblings vs. admit the most qualified applicants. It works out best if the siblings ARE the most qualified, but unfortunately that doesn't always happen. No matter which side of the balance they favor, they will suffer lots of criticism.

I feel for the disappointed parents posting here too. It's sad there's no easy answer that makes everyone happy.

Not wanting to argue because you seem sincere but I can guarantee my sib was extremely qualified. Less qualified kids were admitted. This was not a case of underqualified sibling. I Kind of feel now that it was a rejection of the family even though they barely knew us. They knew other families better I suppose. Trust me, parents from the School dont believe me when I tell them kid was rejected. thye say it must have been a mistake . I dont explain that no it was definitely intentional. I know other people keep trying but it seemed pretty cruel to do that to dc.

You can guarantee your dc was "extremely qualified," but you can't guarantee there was not another extremely qualified applicant that was a better one for the school. Admissions committees are putting together a school community, not just admitting one student at a time.

Nope. You are wrong. Know my kid and the kids they accepted. They weren't building a community, they were addressing other interests of the school. Having nothing to do with the actual students or the "makeup of the class". Let's be vague and call them institutional interests. The institutional interests often trump best candidate status. Probably the right thing for the school to do in the short term but really silly thing to do long term.

You clearly do not understand the school admissions process. It's not just about you or your kids. It is also about what you call institutional interests, and you and I disagree as to whether insitutional goals are valid interests when building a school community. Ironically, your poor reaction to the rejction and your evident inability to understand the importance of school goals shows that your school was right not to put too much store in your family.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems schools are in a very tough balancing act -- admit the siblings vs. admit the most qualified applicants. It works out best if the siblings ARE the most qualified, but unfortunately that doesn't always happen. No matter which side of the balance they favor, they will suffer lots of criticism.

I feel for the disappointed parents posting here too. It's sad there's no easy answer that makes everyone happy.

Not wanting to argue because you seem sincere but I can guarantee my sib was extremely qualified. Less qualified kids were admitted. This was not a case of underqualified sibling. I Kind of feel now that it was a rejection of the family even though they barely knew us. They knew other families better I suppose. Trust me, parents from the School dont believe me when I tell them kid was rejected. thye say it must have been a mistake . I dont explain that no it was definitely intentional. I know other people keep trying but it seemed pretty cruel to do that to dc.

You can guarantee your dc was "extremely qualified," but you can't guarantee there was not another extremely qualified applicant that was a better one for the school. Admissions committees are putting together a school community, not just admitting one student at a time.

Nope. You are wrong. Know my kid and the kids they accepted. They weren't building a community, they were addressing other interests of the school. Having nothing to do with the actual students or the "makeup of the class". Let's be vague and call them institutional interests. The institutional interests often trump best candidate status. Probably the right thing for the school to do in the short term but really silly thing to do long term.

It happened to us and for all the right reasons -- the school was just not a good fit for 2nd child. I was not offended.

I am surprised by PP who wrote it doesn't happen in DC. It happens all the time. there is never, ever a guarantee for the sibling and some great sibs get rejected.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems schools are in a very tough balancing act -- admit the siblings vs. admit the most qualified applicants. It works out best if the siblings ARE the most qualified, but unfortunately that doesn't always happen. No matter which side of the balance they favor, they will suffer lots of criticism.

I feel for the disappointed parents posting here too. It's sad there's no easy answer that makes everyone happy.

Not wanting to argue because you seem sincere but I can guarantee my sib was extremely qualified. Less qualified kids were admitted. This was not a case of underqualified sibling. I Kind of feel now that it was a rejection of the family even though they barely knew us. They knew other families better I suppose. Trust me, parents from the School dont believe me when I tell them kid was rejected. thye say it must have been a mistake . I dont explain that no it was definitely intentional. I know other people keep trying but it seemed pretty cruel to do that to dc.

You can guarantee your dc was "extremely qualified," but you can't guarantee there was not another extremely qualified applicant that was a better one for the school. Admissions committees are putting together a school community, not just admitting one student at a time.