Anonymous wrote:GDS since its inception has had a truly progressive policy on racial inclusion. Quite a contrast.

.. and you wonder why people mock the GDS boosters?

Anonymous wrote:Before the Clintons, and certainly after the Obamas chose the school for their children, it went from being on par with the others and somewhat less insider-ish than either STA and NCS, to being the most overtly concerned with money, connections, and insider status of the bunch. Somewhere along the way, the real meaning and spirit of our Quaker values as practiced in the old days was lost. Sometimes too much popularity and too many connections morph into a less healthy pretense and over concern with the status markets of a material world. I used to consider among the most values driven school, but not so today. GDS today is probably more akin to the Sidwell of old. I wish it could go back to the way it was.

The interesting thing is that GDS supposedly was the Obamas' top choice school. But the Secret Service basically vetoed it because they had reservations about security on the GDS lower-middle campus in the Palisades. The Secret Service knew Sidwell from the Clinton years, so it was just easier to go with Sidwell in the end.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:it was popular WELL BEFORE Chelsea went there. In the 80s, it was very sought after as well, and i'm sure before that too. it's a good school.

yes, it was. But as PP said, the parent community has changed ENORMOUSLY. And not for the better.

NP. How would you know "the parent community has changed enormously ... and not for the better"? Surely you weren't a parent there in both the 1980s and now 30 years later, were you? Sounds to me like you're making shit up.

Everyone knows this. I'm among many who have posted about it on this thread. I was a student there in the 80s and 90s and am now a parent who knows MANY people who send their kids there. Seriously, you're arguing the sky is not blue.

Before you get too nostalgic for the 80s and 90s, I remind you that, at that time, the teachers were paid below the 50th percentile as compared to peer schools, the facilities were shabby, less than 10% of students were supported by FA (versus 25% today) and the endowment was de minimis. If a strong recession had come along in the late 90s, like the one we had in 2007-2010, who knows how the school would have fared.

I also can't shake the hypocrisy of community members who conveniently forget the fact that the school had an explicit policy of only allowing one AA child per grade after Brown v. Ed and only started graduating Black children in the 70s.

Yes, the school has changed ENORMOUSLY, and for the better!

GDS since its inception has had a truly progressive policy on racial inclusion. Quite a contrast.

This site never fails to entertain. Who knew that the admissions staff was more important to a school's ability to educate than the teachers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If their goal is to reduce applications, they are doing a good job.

Good lord, if what you're saying is accurate and the school is losing tons of applications because of not-warm-enough admissions people, then imagine how much more ridiculous the odds against admissions would be if they did a better job at sucking up to parents!

Ha! No, I don't think they lose many. Just 1 or 2 here or there. We just happen to be 1.

Anonymous wrote:If their goal is to reduce applications, they are doing a good job.

Good lord, if what you're saying is accurate and the school is losing tons of applications because of not-warm-enough admissions people, then imagine how much more ridiculous the odds against admissions would be if they did a better job at sucking up to parents!

If you’ve been to an admissions visit at other schools, you’d see the difference.

Anonymous wrote:IMHO, if you want to have an actual conversation with one of the admissions people, then call them at the office when they have time to talk. At open house day, you have a small crew of admissions people responsible for shuttling 300 (?) parents around in 90 minutes. They simply don't have time for warm small talk then. Sure, maybe there are some who can fake warmth and are skilled that smiling while giving short answers that end the conversation, but those will never be real answers anyway.

It's sort of like when some stranger tries to start a conversation while you're juggling the needs of two small children; you just don't have time or bandwidth to engage warmly. Now multiply that juggling x100.

How about during the parent interview? That's what I -- PP above -- was talking about.

IMHO, if you want to have an actual conversation with one of the admissions people, then call them at the office when they have time to talk. At open house day, you have a small crew of admissions people responsible for shuttling 300 (?) parents around in 90 minutes. They simply don't have time for warm small talk then. Sure, maybe there are some who can fake warmth and are skilled that smiling while giving short answers that end the conversation, but those will never be real answers anyway.

It's sort of like when some stranger tries to start a conversation while you're juggling the needs of two small children; you just don't have time or bandwidth to engage warmly. Now multiply that juggling x100.

Office staff actually have a major impact on how patients feel about their physicians. First impressions matter. And when you visit these schools sometimes your only sustained personal interaction is with these folks. Regardless, you can’t deny that cold boring admissions people don’t help get the best applicants.

Everyone advises to go to the admissions events to get a feel for the school. It's one of the key sources of info you have.

And I didn't find that they were lacking with substantive info. I thought they were lacking in warmth -- like refusing to engage in basic, normal,humanizing small talk in the 0.5 minutes if walking down the hall.

I hated the atmosphere when we looked for DC1, so we phoned in his application. When it came to DC2, we didn't even consider applying there.

If theirgoal is to reduce applications, they are doing a good job.

Deciding on which school to send your kid based on the perceived personality of an admissions staffer is like choosing a surgeon based on the receptionist.

I thought the admissions staff improved after that drip left a few years ago. Hard to imagine they're as boring as that guy.

Lifer family who was very happy at Sidwell. We had the same reaction to the difference between Admissions and all others in the community. And through many changes in admissions staff, it's always been the same although they are lovely, warm people inside the community. My guess is that 1. The numbers applying are massive and the staff is small 2. Perhaps subconsciously they don't want to set up false hope and do a disservice to families, which might result in them not applying widely. We all understand how tough admissions is for all the schools. 3. To ratchet down the intensity and divert basic questions to other resources. There's a lot of information on the website. I used to help with tours and it is amazing how many families just visit because they're curious and don't do any homework. And why the crazy about Sidwell? At least for this family, it was the best experience I could ever imagine for my kid and the whole family. It went way beyond the education. That community saw us through happy and really bad times. Made friends for life within the school and families.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Why do they maintain an Admissions set-up/team that is such a turn-off? Shouldn't Admissions reflect well on the school?

I had no issues with the Admissions staff or how they conducted themselves.

Like the poster to whom I was responding, I found them humorless and guarded.

I had no problem with the admissions people. Try to look at the difficult situation they're in. They know from experience that many of the parents there are just itching to spot any perceived misstep they can broadcast on DCUM in a negative light, which is a danger not only for the school, but also for the individual admissions people because posts like that often identify the particular admissions person which can lead to job consequences. Parents often ask insulting and tone-deaf question, or make offensive comments, which are difficult to handle. Meanwhile the crowd is massive, so it's impossible to spend warm time with any individual family. Probably lots of other reasons as well. Seems like a really tough and unrewarding job.