Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The fact is that Sidwell does not get kids into top tier schools at the same rate other private schools do. It's a mystery, but parents suspect that the grade deflation at Sidwell is hard to overcome. The average "GPA" at Sidwell is said to be 3.2. Many top colleges will not accept students below a 3.8 or so, and at Sidwell that is a small handful of students.
Please see ED/EA thread for a more informed view.
Anonymous wrote:The fact is that Sidwell does not get kids into top tier schools at the same rate other private schools do. It's a mystery, but parents suspect that the grade deflation at Sidwell is hard to overcome. The average "GPA" at Sidwell is said to be 3.2. Many top colleges will not accept students below a 3.8 or so, and at Sidwell that is a small handful of students.
Anonymous wrote:These schools all cost a fortune, and the parents are the ones who work hard to pay for the tuition that pays these counselors' salaries. Most of the top schools around here tout all of the colleges their graduates get into as a way to promote the school and increase applicants. Which means the college counselors they hire should know what they are doing and advise kids from a place of knowledge and experience. This is the guidance counselor's job, and they had to expect if they work at one of these privates that job security comes with results befitting the tuition they are charging.
Anonymous wrote:Uh-huh. And the queen bee at Sidwell who touted this philosophy got fired last year, not in small part because everyone resented her anti-parent attitude. They get the parents involved when they want money or want the parents to make their kids fall in line. All that passage is really is a disclaimer that if the kid misses an application deadline or doesn't sign up for the SAT when they are supposed to, then it's not the kids fault.
Anonymous wrote:The fact is that Sidwell does not get kids into top tier schools at the same rate other private schools do. It's a mystery, but parents suspect that the grade deflation at Sidwell is hard to overcome. The average "GPA" at Sidwell is said to be 3.2. Many top colleges will not accept students below a 3.8 or so, and at Sidwell that is a small handful of students.
Anonymous wrote:At my school a large donors child did not get into an ivy ED and it was discovered that the recs were negative. The recs were pulled and the head wrote a glowing rec instead. This info came from the donor parent involved.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:My colleague's son went to Sidwell and was in the top most tier of students. He was advised against applying to top schools, even the ivy where his parents met as undergrads. He applied to some top schools against sidwells advice and got into them all.
His parents remain very bitter and needless to say the checks to sidwell have stopped.
I sense some hyperbole in this statement, coming from second or third hand knowledge. "Top" students at Sidwell are not advised to avoid applying to at least a reach school or two. The very rare candidate gets into all of their reach schools. Perhaps they managed the family's expectations inelegantly, but I doubt the extremes you paint reflect the realities of the situation.
Can I know his exact rank at Sidwell? Of course not. My colleague shared the rest with me and that he felt that Sidwell chose to support other kids over his, who seemed equally qualified.
I really do find this troubling. I am sure your work friend was being truthful by his lights, but you know that parents are often (and understandably) not able to be objective about their own children. (Even been to a youth sporting event.) Your colleague could not know where his child stood class rank-wise either, because Sidwell doesn't publicize class rank. You don't know how that child's scores stacked up with others, nor the child's GPA, nor even the level of difficulty of the courses taken -- and your colleague wouldn't know that either. Yet you chose to believe his accusation that put one of the worst possible constructions on the college application process, and to air that on DCUM about a specific school.
How can people not see a lack of fairness in this approach?
Actually at these small schools the kids do know each others grades, they know what level of math and science people are taking, they know what their extracurriculars are, they know all about each other. They know who their main competition is and the parents are mostly successful people who don't underestimate the competition That is a fantasy of the school staff that the parents so successful are actually stupid about their kids.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:My colleague's son went to Sidwell and was in the top most tier of students. He was advised against applying to top schools, even the ivy where his parents met as undergrads. He applied to some top schools against sidwells advice and got into them all.
His parents remain very bitter and needless to say the checks to sidwell have stopped.
I sense some hyperbole in this statement, coming from second or third hand knowledge. "Top" students at Sidwell are not advised to avoid applying to at least a reach school or two. The very rare candidate gets into all of their reach schools. Perhaps they managed the family's expectations inelegantly, but I doubt the extremes you paint reflect the realities of the situation.
Can I know his exact rank at Sidwell? Of course not. My colleague shared the rest with me and that he felt that Sidwell chose to support other kids over his, who seemed equally qualified.
I really do find this troubling. I am sure your work friend was being truthful by his lights, but you know that parents are often (and understandably) not able to be objective about their own children. (Even been to a youth sporting event.) Your colleague could not know where his child stood class rank-wise either, because Sidwell doesn't publicize class rank. You don't know how that child's scores stacked up with others, nor the child's GPA, nor even the level of difficulty of the courses taken -- and your colleague wouldn't know that either. Yet you chose to believe his accusation that put one of the worst possible constructions on the college application process, and to air that on DCUM about a specific school.
How can people not see a lack of fairness in this approach?
Actually at these small schools the kids do know each others grades, they know what level of math and science people are taking, they know what their extracurriculars are, they know all about each other. They know who their main competition is and the parents are mostly successful people who don't underestimate the competition That is a fantasy of the school staff that the parents so successful are actually stupid about their kids.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
I am so tired of hearing about overinvolved parents. Hate to break it to you, but if parents paying a fortune to a private school caring about where their children will go to college (that they are also paying for) makes them overinvolved, then what does that make all of the moms on this site, some of whom post multiple times a day commenting, asking, complaining, snarking, etc. about thie child's school? Why bother having kids then? I don't know what generation the PP is from, but I know that my generation was raised for the most part with involved parents. These schools all cost a fortune, and the parents are the ones who work hard to pay for the tuition that pays these counselors' salaries. Most of the top schools around here tout all of the colleges their graduates get into as a way to promote the school and increase applicants. Which means the college counselors they hire should know what they are doing and advise kids from a place of knowledge and experience. This is the guidance counselor's job, and they had to expect if they work at one of these privates that job security comes with results befitting the tuition they are charging.
The following comes directly from the Sidwell College Counseling page, and is their statement of philosophy:
A key element in a student-centered approach to the college process is the clear expectation that the student will take control. We strive to enable students to develop a fuller sense of autonomy and responsibility. As such, our job is to guide, counsel, probe, refer, suggest and inform. The student is the one ultimately responsible for the key decisions in driving this process forward. Students must also be responsible for signing up for the appropriate standardized tests and meeting application deadlines.
No wonder there is so much dissatisfaction. What Sidwell clearly states it's going to do, intentionally, is at direct odds with what some parents want it to do.
Uh-huh. And the queen bee at Sidwell who touted this philosophy got fired last year, not in small part because everyone resented her anti-parent attitude. They get the parents involved when they want money or want the parents to make their kids fall in line. All that passage is really is a disclaimer that if the kid misses an application deadline or doesn't sign up for the SAT when they are supposed to, then it's not the kids fault.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:My colleague's son went to Sidwell and was in the top most tier of students. He was advised against applying to top schools, even the ivy where his parents met as undergrads. He applied to some top schools against sidwells advice and got into them all.
His parents remain very bitter and needless to say the checks to sidwell have stopped.
I sense some hyperbole in this statement, coming from second or third hand knowledge. "Top" students at Sidwell are not advised to avoid applying to at least a reach school or two. The very rare candidate gets into all of their reach schools. Perhaps they managed the family's expectations inelegantly, but I doubt the extremes you paint reflect the realities of the situation.
Can I know his exact rank at Sidwell? Of course not. My colleague shared the rest with me and that he felt that Sidwell chose to support other kids over his, who seemed equally qualified.