Anonymous wrote: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.
No one is saying it should be the only factor. Stop erecting straw men.
What is hilarious is you defending the ridiculous Rube Goldberg admissions system that Walls has come up with. No other magnet school uses anything like it.
Really... See Banneker. Been doing it for years. That's the system SWW is using now.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Maybe some kids are straight A kids but are jerks in the classroom?
Who cares? It's DCPS's job to educate all kids who live in DC who want to attend DCPS schools. If Walls is appropriate academically for you, they should not be turning you down for being annoying. You're going to be just as annoying at your neighborhood high school.
Anonymous wrote:Maybe some kids are straight A kids but are jerks in the classroom?
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.
Empirical research disagrees with you: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/07/briefing/the-misguided-war-on-the-sat.html
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.
No one is saying it should be the only factor. Stop erecting straw men.
What is hilarious is you defending the ridiculous Rube Goldberg admissions system that Walls has come up with. No other magnet school uses anything like it.
Anonymous wrote:
Wow. Honestly, with grade inflation and retake policies, etc., 3.7 is pretty low. I wouldn't think a 3.7 student would be very strong (probably at the median distribution point of a grade/class?).
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: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:The lowest GPA to get an interview was 3.7. That is 4 points. Assume that person had perfect teacher recs, which would be 30 points. That suggests that the cut-off for interviews was 34/35 points.
Assume that a kid had a 4.0 and would get 5 points. Also assume that kid had slightly imperfect teacher recs, receiving 28 of 30 points. That kid would have 33/35 points and not receive an interview.
So, Walls' subjective evaluation of the teacher recs as having a score of 14 each (instead of 15 points each) would be enough to sink a candidate who earned a significantly higher GPA.
How does that make sense?
Wow. So basically it was a lottery based on who your teachers were and how they chose to complete the rec.
I'm sure there were teachers who:
-gave all A students a 15
-gave all A students a 14 (because it's human nature for some reviewers to never pick the highest possible rating on any scale)
-spread A students out between 13 and 15, based on subtleties of their performance.
Anonymous wrote:The lowest GPA to get an interview was 3.7. That is 4 points. Assume that person had perfect teacher recs, which would be 30 points. That suggests that the cut-off for interviews was 34/35 points.
Assume that a kid had a 4.0 and would get 5 points. Also assume that kid had slightly imperfect teacher recs, receiving 28 of 30 points. That kid would have 33/35 points and not receive an interview.
So, Walls' subjective evaluation of the teacher recs as having a score of 14 each (instead of 15 points each) would be enough to sink a candidate who earned a significantly higher GPA.
How does that make sense?