Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NCS

https://www.instagram.com/cathedral.2025?igsh=N3JnZHhqN3ZnNmNi

Damn. Not a great year for NCS.

They have great results. Out of a class of 80 they have 4 to Cornell, 4 to Chicago, 3 to UVA, 2 to Princeton, girls going to Yale, Brown, Dartmouth, Georgetown, Michigan, Duke, several to Boston College, Emory, St. Andrews, Tufts, several to Wake, several to top 10 liberal arts schools like: Bates, Bowdoin, Hamilton, etc...

And Harvard and Williams. Great year.

Anonymous wrote:I appreciate the poster who included most all of the instagrams in one place for all DMV schools as a comparison. In adding a southern Frederick school district, I was trying to be comprehensive. I probably didn’t do the reply post correctly. Anyway, I appreciate the thoroughness of seeing public versus private matriculations. It’s good for parents to see for decision-making.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Adding Frederick - Urbana High School
https://www.instagram.com/urbanaseniors25/

Why are you adding this mediocre PUBLIC high school, with its equally mediocre college matriculations, to this PRIVATE school thread?

Yes, why is just anyone allowed into our exclusionary gated community here on an anonymous free forum on the wide open internet!?!

PP, perhaps you could pay the mod $50k/yr to maintain your bubble?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NCS

https://www.instagram.com/cathedral.2025?igsh=N3JnZHhqN3ZnNmNi

Damn. Not a great year for NCS.

They have great results. Out of a class of 80 they have 4 to Cornell, 4 to Chicago, 3 to UVA, 2 to Princeton, girls going to Yale, Brown, Dartmouth, Georgetown, Michigan, Duke, several to Boston College, Emory, St. Andrews, Tufts, several to Wake, several to top 10 liberal arts schools like: Bates, Bowdoin, Hamilton, etc...

And Harvard and Williams. Great year.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Adding Frederick - Urbana High School
https://www.instagram.com/urbanaseniors25/

Why are you adding this mediocre PUBLIC high school, with its equally mediocre college matriculations, to this PRIVATE school thread?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Adding Frederick - Urbana High School
https://www.instagram.com/urbanaseniors25/

Why are you adding this mediocre PUBLIC high school, with its equally mediocre college matriculations, to this PRIVATE school thread?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Adding Frederick - Urbana High School
https://www.instagram.com/urbanaseniors25/

Why are you adding this mediocre PUBLIC high school, with its equally mediocre college matriculations, to this PRIVATE school thread?

Anonymous wrote:Adding Frederick - Urbana High School
https://www.instagram.com/urbanaseniors25/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow. Impressive list so far for Sidwell - Columbia, UPenn, MIT, Stanford, Brown, Yale, Cornell, Darthmouth, Princeton...

Athletes and legacies.

Yawn.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NCS

https://www.instagram.com/cathedral.2025?igsh=N3JnZHhqN3ZnNmNi

Damn. Not a great year for NCS.

Anyone that starts a sentence with "damn" is either poorly educated or just unpolished. Neither of whom I would take advice from regarding college admissions.

Oh ffs, your two sentences are a hot mess. I’d advise you to never call anyone uneducated or unpolished again, particularly not when it comes to English language usage and grammar.

In the meantime, I will fix them for you:

Your sentences:
Anyone that starts a sentence with "damn" is either poorly educated or just unpolished. Neither of whom I would take advice from regarding college admissions.

Corrected sentences:

Anyone WHO* starts a sentence with "damn" is either poorly educated or [CUT: just] unpolished. [REWRITE NEXT SENTENCE AS FOLLOWS:] I would not take advice from such a person regarding college admissions.**

Explanations:
*When referring to people (as opposed to, say, teapots), please don’t use “that”
(or “which”) as a pronoun. Use “who” or “whom” instead. (Bonus tip: if you’re not sure which is correct, for the love of god, please stick with “who.” Few grammar errors are more embarrassing to listen to than “whom” flung around incorrectly.)
**You’ve got a mixed-up modifier here. “Whom” would seem to refer back to “anyone” (both pronouns referring to people), and yet “neither of” suggests you are referring back to “poorly educated or unpolished”—yet those are adjectives, not nouns.

"That" is okay when used in a restrictive clause. Plus it's more common usage. Obviously, in a non-restrictive clause, it would look odd.

Joe, that lives in Florida, is so MAGA.

See?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NCS

https://www.instagram.com/cathedral.2025?igsh=N3JnZHhqN3ZnNmNi

Damn. Not a great year for NCS.

I must be looking at a different list. Almost 30% posted going IVY/Ivy+, no?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NCS

https://www.instagram.com/cathedral.2025?igsh=N3JnZHhqN3ZnNmNi

Damn. Not a great year for NCS.

Anyone that starts a sentence with "damn" is either poorly educated or just unpolished. Neither of whom I would take advice from regarding college admissions.

Oh ffs, your two sentences are a hot mess. I’d advise you to never call anyone uneducated or unpolished again, particularly not when it comes to English language usage and grammar.

In the meantime, I will fix them for you:

Your sentences:
Anyone that starts a sentence with "damn" is either poorly educated or just unpolished. Neither of whom I would take advice from regarding college admissions.

Corrected sentences:

Anyone WHO* starts a sentence with "damn" is either poorly educated or [CUT: just] unpolished. [REWRITE NEXT SENTENCE AS FOLLOWS:] I would not take advice from such a person regarding college admissions.**

Explanations:
*When referring to people (as opposed to, say, teapots), please don’t use “that”
(or “which”) as a pronoun. Use “who” or “whom” instead. (Bonus tip: if you’re not sure which is correct, for the love of god, please stick with “who.” Few grammar errors are more embarrassing to listen to than “whom” flung around incorrectly.)
**You’ve got a mixed-up modifier here. “Whom” would seem to refer back to “anyone” (both pronouns referring to people), and yet “neither of” suggests you are referring back to “poorly educated or unpolished”—yet those are adjectives, not nouns.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NCS

https://www.instagram.com/cathedral.2025?igsh=N3JnZHhqN3ZnNmNi

Damn. Not a great year for NCS.

Anyone that starts a sentence with "damn" is either poorly educated or just unpolished. Neither of whom I would take advice from regarding college admissions.

Oh ffs, your two sentences are a hot mess. I’d advise you to never call anyone uneducated or unpolished again, particularly not when it comes to English language usage and grammar.

In the meantime, I will fix them for you:

Your sentences:
Anyone that starts a sentence with "damn" is either poorly educated or just unpolished. Neither of whom I would take advice from regarding college admissions.

Corrected sentences:

Anyone WHO* starts a sentence with "damn" is either poorly educated or [CUT: just] unpolished. [REWRITE NEXT SENTENCE AS FOLLOWS:] I would not take advice from such a person regarding college admissions.**

Explanations:
*When referring to people (as opposed to, say, teapots), please don’t use “that”
(or “which”) as a pronoun. Use “who” or “whom” instead. (Bonus tip: if you’re not sure which is correct, for the love of god, please stick with “who.” Few grammar errors are more embarrassing to listen to than “whom” flung around incorrectly.)
**You’ve got a mixed-up modifier here. “Whom” would seem to refer back to “anyone” (both pronouns referring to people), and yet “neither of” suggests you are referring back to “poorly educated or unpolished”—yet those are adjectives, not nouns.

Original sentences were grammatically correct. Sure editing is always allowed and can improve writing but there is nothing grammatically incorrect about the original version.