Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you think that Hardy students were at a disadvantage because DCPS wants them to go to MacArthur and therefore didn't offer many an interview? My kid is at Hardy and I have heard of very few who were offered an interview. I'm sure DCPS wants MacArthur to be a success and Hardy is the ONLY school that feeds to it.

I think it's more likely that Hardy teachers failed to understand the import of the recommendations and/or failed to spend appropriate time on them. I blame Hardy leadership. My kid is at Hardy and we got numerous complaints this year from teachers about their recommendation burden and I know her teachers submitted her recs very very late. I don't have any confidence that they accurately reflected anything other than the teachers' resentment of having to complete them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder how many of the 4.0 kids who did get offered an interview and end up being offered a spot at SWW will turn it down because the families suspect their kid will not be part of a cohort that is actually motivated, prepared and achieving. Deal and Hardy kids might prefer to take their chances at Jackson Reed...which will be great for the waitlist, I guess.

Since when are kids with 3.7 and 3.8 not “actually motivated, prepared and achieving?” Some of You folks are just downright mean. And maybe crazy. Life is more than testing well and getting a 4.0. The system isn’t great. But come on. If your kids reflect some of these attitudes in the classroom, of course their recommendations were poor.

Come on. A 3.7 at Deal (end of year GPA) is not a strong GPA at all. I bet it is easily under the 50% mark for the grade. It basically means that the kid did not turn in things.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder how many of the 4.0 kids who did get offered an interview and end up being offered a spot at SWW will turn it down because the families suspect their kid will not be part of a cohort that is actually motivated, prepared and achieving. Deal and Hardy kids might prefer to take their chances at Jackson Reed...which will be great for the waitlist, I guess.

Since when are kids with 3.7 and 3.8 not “actually motivated, prepared and achieving?” Some of You folks are just downright mean. And maybe crazy. Life is more than testing well and getting a 4.0. The system isn’t great. But come on. If your kids reflect some of these attitudes in the classroom, of course their recommendations were poor.

Come on. A 3.7 at Deal (end of year GPA) is not a strong GPA at all. I bet it is easily under the 50% mark for the grade. It basically means that the kid did not turn in things.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder how many of the 4.0 kids who did get offered an interview and end up being offered a spot at SWW will turn it down because the families suspect their kid will not be part of a cohort that is actually motivated, prepared and achieving. Deal and Hardy kids might prefer to take their chances at Jackson Reed...which will be great for the waitlist, I guess.

Since when are kids with 3.7 and 3.8 not “actually motivated, prepared and achieving?” Some of You folks are just downright mean. And maybe crazy. Life is more than testing well and getting a 4.0. The system isn’t great. But come on. If your kids reflect some of these attitudes in the classroom, of course their recommendations were poor.

Anonymous wrote:I wonder how many of the 4.0 kids who did get offered an interview and end up being offered a spot at SWW will turn it down because the families suspect their kid will not be part of a cohort that is actually motivated, prepared and achieving. Deal and Hardy kids might prefer to take their chances at Jackson Reed...which will be great for the waitlist, I guess.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The way admissions are being handled this year will not ensure a class of 150 high achieving, on grade level students.

My kid didn't get a spot either, but please don't rain on a bunch of hard working middle school kids who got an opportunity.

+100

Comments like PP are just gross. You can be upset your kid didn’t get an interview and think the process is unfair. Fine. Claiming that the kids who did get an interview are not high achieving makes you an a**hole.

Notably, PP didn't say this. PP didn't say none of the kids who got interviews are high-achieving. Just that the process does not ensure a class of 150 high achieving, on grade level students. It doesn't. It is likely that many of the kids being interviewed (and who will eventually take places at the school) are in fact high-achieving, but the process does nothing to exclude kids who are below grade level, and it doesn't necessarily result in the 300 highest achieving students in the applicant pool being interviewed.

And I would argue the admissions test did not ensure the 300 highest achieving students were interviewed. Or that the class was 150 high achieving students. There were years when the test cutoff for an interview was 50% on the math test.

Still, you’d probably rather have someone on the right side of that 50% in the class than on the wrong side.

All in all, I think testing is the best way to do admissions to a selective school. Grades and GPA mean totally different things at different schools. The finterviews were clearly silly. The letters of rec process they came up with is bizarre. These could all be components of admission, but they shouldn’t have more weight than an admissions test.

True.

Jeremiah Quinlan, the dean of undergraduate admissions at Yale, said in a written statement released by the university that Yale had determined that test scores, while imperfect, were predictive of academic success in college.

“Simply put,” he said, “students with higher scores have been more likely to have higher Yale G.P.A.s, and test scores are the single greatest predictor of a student’s performance in Yale courses in every model we have constructed.”

I am so pleased with my alma mater. Their statement also said that, unexpectedly and unintentionally, the admissions data showed that going test optional hurt kids from the poorest backgrounds. So there's also that. Testing of some kind should 100% be at least a significant consideration in admissions to a magnet school. PARCC or independent test. You can have lower standards for at risk kids or kids who attend T1s. You can also reserve a portion of the class for at risk kids. There are ways to ensure diversity and a qualified class. Pretending that a 4.0 at BASIS is the same as a 4.0 at Wheatley is not it. Allowing LORs -- which were mandated as coming from particular teachers -- to be the deciding factor is also not it.

Yeah, having a type of quota system is far preferable to upending your entire admissions system. There's no reason why, within a particular demographic category, you shouldn't be taking the highest-performing kids who will benefit the most from what SWW has to offer, and the current system is not set up to do that.

Quotas invite litigation. Boston Latin had to scrap interviews in the early 2000s after a white dad sued in the late 90s. His daughter wasn't admitted, to enable Latin to maintain an admission quota for URMs to fill one-third of spots. The quota had been in place since the mid 80s. PS. Once the quota was dropped, Asians flooded into Latin while the white percentage changed little.

Quotas based on at-risk status are 100% unequivocally legal even based on this SC's decisions. Newsflash: They are used now by DCPS in the lottery with at risk "set asides." They could do exactly the same thing w/ Walls admissions.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The way admissions are being handled this year will not ensure a class of 150 high achieving, on grade level students.

My kid didn't get a spot either, but please don't rain on a bunch of hard working middle school kids who got an opportunity.

+100

Comments like PP are just gross. You can be upset your kid didn’t get an interview and think the process is unfair. Fine. Claiming that the kids who did get an interview are not high achieving makes you an a**hole.

Notably, PP didn't say this. PP didn't say none of the kids who got interviews are high-achieving. Just that the process does not ensure a class of 150 high achieving, on grade level students. It doesn't. It is likely that many of the kids being interviewed (and who will eventually take places at the school) are in fact high-achieving, but the process does nothing to exclude kids who are below grade level, and it doesn't necessarily result in the 300 highest achieving students in the applicant pool being interviewed.

And I would argue the admissions test did not ensure the 300 highest achieving students were interviewed. Or that the class was 150 high achieving students. There were years when the test cutoff for an interview was 50% on the math test.

Still, you’d probably rather have someone on the right side of that 50% in the class than on the wrong side.

All in all, I think testing is the best way to do admissions to a selective school. Grades and GPA mean totally different things at different schools. The finterviews were clearly silly. The letters of rec process they came up with is bizarre. These could all be components of admission, but they shouldn’t have more weight than an admissions test.

True.

Jeremiah Quinlan, the dean of undergraduate admissions at Yale, said in a written statement released by the university that Yale had determined that test scores, while imperfect, were predictive of academic success in college.

“Simply put,” he said, “students with higher scores have been more likely to have higher Yale G.P.A.s, and test scores are the single greatest predictor of a student’s performance in Yale courses in every model we have constructed.”

I am so pleased with my alma mater. Their statement also said that, unexpectedly and unintentionally, the admissions data showed that going test optional hurt kids from the poorest backgrounds. So there's also that. Testing of some kind should 100% be at least a significant consideration in admissions to a magnet school. PARCC or independent test. You can have lower standards for at risk kids or kids who attend T1s. You can also reserve a portion of the class for at risk kids. There are ways to ensure diversity and a qualified class. Pretending that a 4.0 at BASIS is the same as a 4.0 at Wheatley is not it. Allowing LORs -- which were mandated as coming from particular teachers -- to be the deciding factor is also not it.

Yeah, having a type of quota system is far preferable to upending your entire admissions system. There's no reason why, within a particular demographic category, you shouldn't be taking the highest-performing kids who will benefit the most from what SWW has to offer, and the current system is not set up to do that.

Quotas invite litigation. Boston Latin had to scrap interviews in the early 2000s after a white dad sued in the late 90s. His daughter wasn't admitted, to enable Latin to maintain an admission quota for URMs to fill one-third of spots. The quota had been in place since the mid 80s. PS. Once the quota was dropped, Asians flooded into Latin while the white percentage changed little.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The way admissions are being handled this year will not ensure a class of 150 high achieving, on grade level students.

My kid didn't get a spot either, but please don't rain on a bunch of hard working middle school kids who got an opportunity.

+100

Comments like PP are just gross. You can be upset your kid didn’t get an interview and think the process is unfair. Fine. Claiming that the kids who did get an interview are not high achieving makes you an a**hole.

Notably, PP didn't say this. PP didn't say none of the kids who got interviews are high-achieving. Just that the process does not ensure a class of 150 high achieving, on grade level students. It doesn't. It is likely that many of the kids being interviewed (and who will eventually take places at the school) are in fact high-achieving, but the process does nothing to exclude kids who are below grade level, and it doesn't necessarily result in the 300 highest achieving students in the applicant pool being interviewed.

And I would argue the admissions test did not ensure the 300 highest achieving students were interviewed. Or that the class was 150 high achieving students. There were years when the test cutoff for an interview was 50% on the math test.

Still, you’d probably rather have someone on the right side of that 50% in the class than on the wrong side.

All in all, I think testing is the best way to do admissions to a selective school. Grades and GPA mean totally different things at different schools. The finterviews were clearly silly. The letters of rec process they came up with is bizarre. These could all be components of admission, but they shouldn’t have more weight than an admissions test.

True.

Jeremiah Quinlan, the dean of undergraduate admissions at Yale, said in a written statement released by the university that Yale had determined that test scores, while imperfect, were predictive of academic success in college.

“Simply put,” he said, “students with higher scores have been more likely to have higher Yale G.P.A.s, and test scores are the single greatest predictor of a student’s performance in Yale courses in every model we have constructed.”

I am so pleased with my alma mater. Their statement also said that, unexpectedly and unintentionally, the admissions data showed that going test optional hurt kids from the poorest backgrounds. So there's also that. Testing of some kind should 100% be at least a significant consideration in admissions to a magnet school. PARCC or independent test. You can have lower standards for at risk kids or kids who attend T1s. You can also reserve a portion of the class for at risk kids. There are ways to ensure diversity and a qualified class. Pretending that a 4.0 at BASIS is the same as a 4.0 at Wheatley is not it. Allowing LORs -- which were mandated as coming from particular teachers -- to be the deciding factor is also not it.

Yeah, having a type of quota system is far preferable to upending your entire admissions system. There's no reason why, within a particular demographic category, you shouldn't be taking the highest-performing kids who will benefit the most from what SWW has to offer, and the current system is not set up to do that.

Quotas invite litigation. Boston Latin had to scrap interviews in the early 2000s after a white dad sued in the late 90s. His daughter wasn't admitted, to enable Latin to maintain an admission quota for URMs to fill one-third of spots. The quota had been in place since the mid 80s. PS. Once the quota was dropped, Asians flooded into Latin while the white percentage changed little.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The way admissions are being handled this year will not ensure a class of 150 high achieving, on grade level students.

My kid didn't get a spot either, but please don't rain on a bunch of hard working middle school kids who got an opportunity.

+100

Comments like PP are just gross. You can be upset your kid didn’t get an interview and think the process is unfair. Fine. Claiming that the kids who did get an interview are not high achieving makes you an a**hole.

Notably, PP didn't say this. PP didn't say none of the kids who got interviews are high-achieving. Just that the process does not ensure a class of 150 high achieving, on grade level students. It doesn't. It is likely that many of the kids being interviewed (and who will eventually take places at the school) are in fact high-achieving, but the process does nothing to exclude kids who are below grade level, and it doesn't necessarily result in the 300 highest achieving students in the applicant pool being interviewed.

And I would argue the admissions test did not ensure the 300 highest achieving students were interviewed. Or that the class was 150 high achieving students. There were years when the test cutoff for an interview was 50% on the math test.

Still, you’d probably rather have someone on the right side of that 50% in the class than on the wrong side.

All in all, I think testing is the best way to do admissions to a selective school. Grades and GPA mean totally different things at different schools. The finterviews were clearly silly. The letters of rec process they came up with is bizarre. These could all be components of admission, but they shouldn’t have more weight than an admissions test.

True.

Jeremiah Quinlan, the dean of undergraduate admissions at Yale, said in a written statement released by the university that Yale had determined that test scores, while imperfect, were predictive of academic success in college.

“Simply put,” he said, “students with higher scores have been more likely to have higher Yale G.P.A.s, and test scores are the single greatest predictor of a student’s performance in Yale courses in every model we have constructed.”

I agree. How did SF bring back the test for Lowell -- who was pushing back? Can parents start to advocate for a return of the test?

I am in for this effort!

Anonymous wrote:I wonder how many of the 4.0 kids who did get offered an interview and end up being offered a spot at SWW will turn it down because the families suspect their kid will not be part of a cohort that is actually motivated, prepared and achieving. Deal and Hardy kids might prefer to take their chances at Jackson Reed...which will be great for the waitlist, I guess.

Anonymous wrote:Just so you guys know, we are at a charter where teachers were not overwhelmed with recommendations and my kid still got a rejection email, so even less overwhelmed teachers still for whatever reason couldn't produce good enough recommendations.

Anonymous wrote:Do you think that Hardy students were at a disadvantage because DCPS wants them to go to MacArthur and therefore didn't offer many an interview? My kid is at Hardy and I have heard of very few who were offered an interview. I'm sure DCPS wants MacArthur to be a success and Hardy is the ONLY school that feeds to it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The way admissions are being handled this year will not ensure a class of 150 high achieving, on grade level students.

My kid didn't get a spot either, but please don't rain on a bunch of hard working middle school kids who got an opportunity.

+100

Comments like PP are just gross. You can be upset your kid didn’t get an interview and think the process is unfair. Fine. Claiming that the kids who did get an interview are not high achieving makes you an a**hole.

Notably, PP didn't say this. PP didn't say none of the kids who got interviews are high-achieving. Just that the process does not ensure a class of 150 high achieving, on grade level students. It doesn't. It is likely that many of the kids being interviewed (and who will eventually take places at the school) are in fact high-achieving, but the process does nothing to exclude kids who are below grade level, and it doesn't necessarily result in the 300 highest achieving students in the applicant pool being interviewed.

And I would argue the admissions test did not ensure the 300 highest achieving students were interviewed. Or that the class was 150 high achieving students. There were years when the test cutoff for an interview was 50% on the math test.

Still, you’d probably rather have someone on the right side of that 50% in the class than on the wrong side.

All in all, I think testing is the best way to do admissions to a selective school. Grades and GPA mean totally different things at different schools. The finterviews were clearly silly. The letters of rec process they came up with is bizarre. These could all be components of admission, but they shouldn’t have more weight than an admissions test.

True.

Jeremiah Quinlan, the dean of undergraduate admissions at Yale, said in a written statement released by the university that Yale had determined that test scores, while imperfect, were predictive of academic success in college.

“Simply put,” he said, “students with higher scores have been more likely to have higher Yale G.P.A.s, and test scores are the single greatest predictor of a student’s performance in Yale courses in every model we have constructed.”

I am so pleased with my alma mater. Their statement also said that, unexpectedly and unintentionally, the admissions data showed that going test optional hurt kids from the poorest backgrounds. So there's also that. Testing of some kind should 100% be at least a significant consideration in admissions to a magnet school. PARCC or independent test. You can have lower standards for at risk kids or kids who attend T1s. You can also reserve a portion of the class for at risk kids. There are ways to ensure diversity and a qualified class. Pretending that a 4.0 at BASIS is the same as a 4.0 at Wheatley is not it. Allowing LORs -- which were mandated as coming from particular teachers -- to be the deciding factor is also not it.

Yeah, having a type of quota system is far preferable to upending your entire admissions system. There's no reason why, within a particular demographic category, you shouldn't be taking the highest-performing kids who will benefit the most from what SWW has to offer, and the current system is not set up to do that.