Anonymous wrote:I agree...I also wonder why some anonymous person gets to act like an expert without putting their name out there

To be fair, she has logged in which is more than can be said about most posters here. Moreover, her posts should be judged by the quality of her work rather than her identify. I happen to think her work is quite good. As far as the "Big 3" goes, here is what she wrote: "When someone posts about the "Big 3," she's usually referring to Sidwell, StAlbans/NCS, and GDS." Do those of you who are getting so upset disagree that people generally are referring to those schools? Or, do you simply disagree that those schools are the Big 3? Because in my experience, it is hard to argue the first. The second is a separate issue.

Finally, anyone else who wants to make the effort is welcome to "act like an expert". I won't even make you reveal your name.

Anonymous wrote:

SAM2 wrote:Posters from today (3/29), I hear your point about defining the "Big 3" and the conflict that causes. And I have no desire to rank the schools in this FAQ. But the simple fact is that many people on DCUM use the term "Big 3," and it seems like someone new asks for a definition about once every 2-3 months, and more often during application season. In fact, seeing that question asked repeatedly (and the new fight that starts each time it is asked) is one of the things that made me think we need a FAQ.

Ignoring that frequently-asked question, or refusing to answer it directly, doesn't make much sense to me. I'll try to work us some more language for that section to make clear that everyone needs to make her own evaluation of which school is best for her own children.

For those that posted on admissions for older children (and SSAT + ISEE), I think that's a great item to add. But I don't know much about it. Could one of you please work up a short and informative statement about those tests, with links to helpful threads? If you can post something like that, I'll insert it into the FAQ so it stays at the top of this thread.

Finally, I'm not Jeff and he's had no input into this FAQ. So please direct all criticism at me, and spare him the headaches. For running these boards, he should get nothing but our thanks.

SAM2 - if you are not a forum administrator, yet are posting a sticky FAQ message at the top of the forum that all future readers of DCUM will assume is factual and endorsed by DCUM, then I think it's only appropriate that you disclose any bias you might have in writing the FAQ. This would include any formal or informal ties that you have to a particular independent school/schools in the DC area (as a parent, student, alum, faculty or admin member, etc, etc).

I for one think it is very odd that a random poster, who likely does carry some bias (perhaps evidenced by her "Big 3" definition?), is able to represent herself as the unbiased "fact-based" opinion of DCUM.

I agree...I also wonder why some anonymous person gets to act like an expert without putting their name out there

Actually, I don't have a child at any of those schools--my kids are still too little. But I know that when I first came on DCUrbanMom as a young parent, I kept seeing people refer to the "Big 3" all the time and I wondered what schools they were referring to. And I've seen other posters wonder about that as well. It would have saved me a lot of time, if I the FAQ had been available back then.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think you were right to list the schools that most people refer to as the Big 3--Sidwell, GDS and the Cathedral Schools. Since the term "Big 3" is used so often on this board, it might be confusing for new people to know which schools people are referring to--like it was for me at first. You don't have to AGREE with which schools make up the Big 3, but it is a shorthand way of referring to that particular group of schools.

Written like a true booster of one of these 3 schools. I take it you do not have a kid at Maret?

Let me revise my post:

Big 3 is a relative term that, depending on who's using it, means three of the following schools: Sidwell, GDS, NCS/STA or Maret. It can also include schools outside of DC, like Potomac and Holton. For obvious reasons, it's a controversial term.

Why not keep it simple?

Big 3 is a relative term that, depending on who's using it, means three of the following schools: Sidwell, GDS, NCS/STA or Maret. Please note it's a controversial term.

Let me suggest the below as a better definition for the Big 3 definition. SAM2, any problems with the description below? If not, can you replace the text above with this?


What are the "Big X"? When someone posts about the "Big X," he/she is usually referring to schools which are considered the "top tier". People will debate at length how many schools are "Big X" schools (the "Big 3", the "Big 5," or the "Big 10.") There really is no way to rank any of the schools definitively. Some people only consider the schools based in the District of Columbia in their definition, others include schools in Maryland and Virginia. Some only include schools that are K-12, while others include schools that only go from K-8.

In defining the "top tier", posters often point to outside publications that have tried to rank schools. These include The Washington Examiner - http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/local/40314672.html Worth Magazine http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/43718.page#295235 and the Wall St Journal http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-COLLEGE0711-sort.html

In addition, many posters will argue that certain public schools belong in the Big X discussion, particularly given that a school like Thomas Jefferson in Virginia has been ranked by US News and World Report as the #1 public high school in the nation http://www.usnews.com/articles/education/high-schools/2009/12/09/virginia-high-school-is-best-in-the-nation.html

The point that many posters usually make in these discussions is that the "best" school is really a subjective matter and the best fit for one family might not be the best fit for another.

It's probably a good idea to avoid all of these "Big ___" terms whenever you can, because they really gets some people upset and can quickly lead a discussion thread off-topic with debates about terminology and rankings. It's often best just to refer to specific schools by name, or to refer generically to "well-regarded schools" or something similar. If you search the DCUM archive, you can easily find a dozen threads with people fighting about these terms and their implications.

Anonymous wrote:I think you were right to list the schools that most people refer to as the Big 3--Sidwell, GDS and the Cathedral Schools. Since the term "Big 3" is used so often on this board, it might be confusing for new people to know which schools people are referring to--like it was for me at first. You don't have to AGREE with which schools make up the Big 3, but it is a shorthand way of referring to that particular group of schools.

Written like a true booster of one of these 3 schools. I take it you do not have a kid at Maret?

I think you were right to list the schools that most people refer to as the Big 3--Sidwell, GDS and the Cathedral Schools. Since the term "Big 3" is used so often on this board, it might be confusing for new people to know which schools people are referring to--like it was for me at first. You don't have to AGREE with which schools make up the Big 3, but it is a shorthand way of referring to that particular group of schools.

SAM2 wrote:Posters from today (3/29), I hear your point about defining the "Big 3" and the conflict that causes. And I have no desire to rank the schools in this FAQ. But the simple fact is that many people on DCUM use the term "Big 3," and it seems like someone new asks for a definition about once every 2-3 months, and more often during application season. In fact, seeing that question asked repeatedly (and the new fight that starts each time it is asked) is one of the things that made me think we need a FAQ.

Ignoring that frequently-asked question, or refusing to answer it directly, doesn't make much sense to me. I'll try to work us some more language for that section to make clear that everyone needs to make her own evaluation of which school is best for her own children.

For those that posted on admissions for older children (and SSAT + ISEE), I think that's a great item to add. But I don't know much about it. Could one of you please work up a short and informative statement about those tests, with links to helpful threads? If you can post something like that, I'll insert it into the FAQ so it stays at the top of this thread.

Finally, I'm not Jeff and he's had no input into this FAQ. So please direct all criticism at me, and spare him the headaches. For running these boards, he should get nothing but our thanks.

SAM2 wrote:Posters from today (3/29), I hear your point about defining the "Big 3" and the conflict that causes. And I have no desire to rank the schools in this FAQ. But the simple fact is that many people on DCUM use the term "Big 3," and it seems like someone new asks for a definition about once every 2-3 months, and more often during application season. In fact, seeing that question asked repeatedly (and the new fight that starts each time it is asked) is one of the things that made me think we need a FAQ.

Ignoring that frequently-asked question, or refusing to answer it directly, doesn't make much sense to me. I'll try to work us some more language for that section to make clear that everyone needs to make her own evaluation of which school is best for her own children.

For those that posted on admissions for older children (and SSAT + ISEE), I think that's a great item to add. But I don't know much about it. Could one of you please work up a short and informative statement about those tests, with links to helpful threads? If you can post something like that, I'll insert it into the FAQ so it stays at the top of this thread.

Finally, I'm not Jeff and he's had no input into this FAQ. So please direct all criticism at me, and spare him the headaches. For running these boards, he should get nothing but our thanks.

SAM2 - if you are not a forum administrator, yet are posting a sticky FAQ message at the top of the forum that all future readers of DCUM will assume is factual and endorsed by DCUM, then I think it's only appropriate that you disclose any bias you might have in writing the FAQ. This would include any formal or informal ties that you have to a particular independent school/schools in the DC area (as a parent, student, alum, faculty or admin member, etc, etc).

I for one think it is very odd that a random poster, who likely does carry some bias (perhaps evidenced by her "Big 3" definition?), is able to represent herself as the unbiased "fact-based" opinion of DCUM.

1:40 wrote:But, what you missed is that according to NCS's website one of there were 10 Presidential candidates plus 1 Presidential Semifinalist which for some reason you fail to list.

Those numbers are already reported as well. See Presidential Scholar tab at columns F & N.

1:40 wrote:As for comment about Scholar candidates not pursuing it. I suggest you to read the following article from the Washington Post.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/answer-sheet/college-admissions/any-merit-to-national-merit-pr.html

I actually think the college counselor quoted is correctly referring to the many Presidential Scholarship programs offered by several California universities. I searched for "california university presidential scholarship," and quickly spotted about half a dozen of them. I think the error that's confusing is not the college counselors reference to NMSF as a qualifier, but rather the Post's incorrect linking of the words "Presidential Scholarship" to the national Presidential Scholars Foundation website.

00:12 wrote:Please compare your treatment of sibs/legacies with your treatment of diversity. Your attempt at balance in the diversity discussion ends up really one-sided ....

I apologize, but I'm not following your points. Maybe you could just develop a short and balanced statement that you think would help answer the common questions on this topic, which I can try to incorporate into the FAQ.

SAM2 wrote:The Candidate numbers already are part of the data (column E on the Overview tab, and also column C on the Presidential Scholar tab). They've been there ever since I posted my very first message.

Ok. I see it. My apologies. But, what you missed is that according to NCS's website one of there were 10 Presidential candidates plus 1 Presidential Semifinalist which for some reason you fail to list. I am sure there are discrepancies with other schools, but I am choosing to use NCS as an example because the school presents by far the most transparency in terms of what information is listed on their website.

Also,

As for comment about Scholar candidates not pursuing it. I suggest you to read the following article from the Washington Post.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/answer-sheet/college-admissions/any-merit-to-national-merit-pr.html

Here is a quote from the Director of College Counseling of San Francisco University High School on how students don't follow-up on the Presidential Candidacy (He actually is a little mis-lead as the Presidential Candidacy are based on SATs NOT PSATs and have no correlation to NMSF) but you'll get the point:

"Every year, my school gets a big, expensive-looking packet from one of the Cal. State Universities (not nearby) addressed to each NMSF (National Merit Scholarship finalist) inviting them to apply for the Presidential Scholarship at that school. [Meaning students who are invited to apply are a candidates - you can deduct this from the Presidential Scholar website] I dutifully hand them out, but no one ever applies. And you wonder why the public system in California is in financial distress."

Please compare your treatment of sibs/legacies with your treatment of diversity. Your attempt at balance in the diversity discussion ends up really one-sided (is my non-diverse kid discriminated against vs. was my diverse kid admitted on some basis other than pure merit. Both questions you've identified are based on the same underlying logic -- and that logic (white are discriminated against in private school admissions) is hotly disputed. And it really rubs me the wrong way to have that followed up with this is a touchy subject, especially when the alternative POV hasn't been voiced.) One way to handle the issue would be to combine the two discussions under the heading admissions and building a school community (or even the myth of meritocracy, LOL!).

The Candidate numbers already are part of the data (column E on the Overview tab, and also column C on the Presidential Scholar tab). They've been there ever since I posted my very first message.

SAM2 wrote:21:38, thanks for your comments.

(1) In the absence of better info, I'm inclined to stick with Washington Examiner data. The number that newspaper provided is consistent with the very high NMSF, Presidential Scholar Semifinalist, and Presidential Scholar Candidate numbers for the school.
(2) Thanks for catching my typo. I had 702 for the reading score instead of 707. I believe my other numbers were correct.
(3a) I'm pretty certain I do understand the Presidential Scholar program. I provided people with both Semifinalist and Candidate numbers. If you want to advocate on behalf of your favorite school by arguing why you think Candidate numbers are more significant, feel free. I'm just posting the data.
(3b) I'm curious about your claims that "many candidates don't bother to pursue the next level" and "many candidates decide not to pursue further the scholarship." What support do you have for these statements? I'd think that any student smart and motivated enough to score 1570+ on her SATs (or whatever score was needed for Candidate status that year) would also be smart and motivated enough to submit materials for consideration as a Semifinalist. If you'd provide credible support for those claims, I'd be very interested to read it.

Thanks again for your comments.

There are only 3000 Presidential Candidates per year and there are 16,000 NMSF. There are only 500 Presidential Semi-Finalists and there are 15,000 NMF. There are 130 Presidential Scholars (1 female, 1 male per state plus a handful more) while there are are 8,200 National Merit Scholars. So I hope you can understand that there are TWICE (nearly three times) as many National Merit Scholars than there are Presidential Candidates. Also, the Candidates are determined by the college boards purely on scores. My point is: don't let the "semi-finalist" label translate to think they are comparable levels of recognition. Why on earth would you leave off the Candidacy - if you're trying to provide real comparable data per school. You may as well, not list anything but National Merit Scholars and forget about the NMSF - because that is how you are treating the Presidential Candidates- you are not acknowledging this group when it is much harder to earn the candidacy honors than to hear a National Merit Scholarship. There are five times more NMFs than there Presidential Candidates. You don't seem to understand the importance of what the honor it is to be a Presidential Candidate, but seem caught up in the semantics of "Semi-Finalist." And, honestly, your lack of understanding or even choosing to want to understand this point, concerns me. I feel you have an agenda or at least some sort of skewed perception and by not providing the Candidates which as I pointed out - Candidacy honors based soley on SATs/ACTs are harder to come by than National Merit Scholarships - is leaving out a significant piece of data.

21:38, thanks for your comments.

(1) In the absence of better info, I'm inclined to stick with Washington Examiner data. The number that newspaper provided is consistent with the very high NMSF, Presidential Scholar Semifinalist, and Presidential Scholar Candidate numbers for the school.
(2) Thanks for catching my typo. I had 702 for the reading score instead of 707. I believe my other numbers were correct.
(3a) I'm pretty certain I do understand the Presidential Scholar program. I provided people with both Semifinalist and Candidate numbers. If you want to advocate on behalf of your favorite school by arguing why you think Candidate numbers are more significant, feel free. I'm just posting the data.
(3b) I'm curious about your claims that "many candidates don't bother to pursue the next level" and "many candidates decide not to pursue further the scholarship." What support do you have for these statements? I'd think that any student smart and motivated enough to score 1570+ on her SATs (or whatever score was needed for Candidate status that year) would also be smart and motivated enough to submit materials for consideration as a Semifinalist. If you'd provide credible support for those claims, I'd be very interested to read it.

Thanks again for your comments.