’The mom's in purple.....is very sad"

Anonymous wrote:Why is the class size so large at SJC? I was surprised to hear from several colleagues that just moved from Shac that their classes were the same size as many public schools.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unnecessary to correct misstatements of fact?

You should know you’re not allowed to say anything about Sidwell that can remotely be perceived as a compliment. If you dare, someone will race to the post to put you “snobby Sidwell parents” in your place!

Please. The thread is expressly NOT about Sidwell. Second, it wasn't a misstatement. PP offered an average range among a group of schools for a broad comparison. So yes, unnecessary to point out this year's actual number for one of those schools. Nobody cares if it's 10, 11, or zero.

This thread may not be about Sidwell, but the OP mentioned Sidwell in his/her initial post. Since then, several other posters have invoked Sidwell’s name. In case you weren’t aware, conversations are allowed to organically evolve and include additional information.

Btw, Sidwell’s average number of NMSFs over the past 3 years is ~12 so the PP would still be wrong. You don’t have to care about the number of Sidwell’s NMSFs, but I care about accuracy. I will continue to correct the record where I see fit. You will deal.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s essentially IMG with weekly Mass, plus a healthy smattering of DCPS refugees whose parents prioritized a whole-house reno /addition in NWDC at some point over paying school tuitions. They kept the kids in DCPS for too long and now don’t have other HS options since Walls didn’t pan out.

IOW this PP is entirely ignorant on this subject.

It’s a troll but I laughed. Gonna work “IMG with weekly Mass” into my passive aggressive cocktail chats.

IMG with weekly Mass is the new Public School with Tuition. I don't believe either about SJC, for the record I think it's a great school, but I think this is funny.

"Wilson with tuition" was the classic taunt, but just doesn't rhyme as well since it would have to be "Jackson Reed with tuition" now.

However it would be more accurate to say "coed Gonzaga with less latin"

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unnecessary to correct misstatements of fact?

You should know you’re not allowed to say anything about Sidwell that can remotely be perceived as a compliment. If you dare, someone will race to the post to put you “snobby Sidwell parents” in your place!

Please. The thread is expressly NOT about Sidwell. Second, it wasn't a misstatement. PP offered an average range among a group of schools for a broad comparison. So yes, unnecessary to point out this year's actual number for one of those schools. Nobody cares if it's 10, 11, or zero.

This thread may not be about Sidwell, but the OP mentioned Sidwell in his/her initial post. Since then, several other posters have invoked Sidwell’s name. In case you weren’t aware, conversations are allowed to organically evolve and include additional information.

Btw, Sidwell’s average number of NMSFs over the past 3 years is ~12 so the PP would still be wrong. You don’t have to care about the number of Sidwell’s NMSFs, but I care about accuracy. I will continue to correct the record where I see fit. You will deal.

Point taken. You can now f**k off.

I doubt you actually care that much about accuracy in general, so let's not pull shit like that.

You first.

I and others have been adding to the SJC discussion, while you are here to simply try to correct the record on Sidwell.

You obviously don't have anything to offer on SJC.

I am sure there is some thread about STA or GDS where someone has mistakenly attributed something or other to Sidwell. Your talents are needed elsewhere.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unnecessary to correct misstatements of fact?

You should know you’re not allowed to say anything about Sidwell that can remotely be perceived as a compliment. If you dare, someone will race to the post to put you “snobby Sidwell parents” in your place!

Please. The thread is expressly NOT about Sidwell. Second, it wasn't a misstatement. PP offered an average range among a group of schools for a broad comparison. So yes, unnecessary to point out this year's actual number for one of those schools. Nobody cares if it's 10, 11, or zero.

This thread may not be about Sidwell, but the OP mentioned Sidwell in his/her initial post. Since then, several other posters have invoked Sidwell’s name. In case you weren’t aware, conversations are allowed to organically evolve and include additional information.

Btw, Sidwell’s average number of NMSFs over the past 3 years is ~12 so the PP would still be wrong. You don’t have to care about the number of Sidwell’s NMSFs, but I care about accuracy. I will continue to correct the record where I see fit. You will deal.

Point taken. You can now f**k off.

I doubt you actually care that much about accuracy in general, so let's not pull shit like that.

You first.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unnecessary to correct misstatements of fact?

You should know you’re not allowed to say anything about Sidwell that can remotely be perceived as a compliment. If you dare, someone will race to the post to put you “snobby Sidwell parents” in your place!

Please. The thread is expressly NOT about Sidwell. Second, it wasn't a misstatement. PP offered an average range among a group of schools for a broad comparison. So yes, unnecessary to point out this year's actual number for one of those schools. Nobody cares if it's 10, 11, or zero.

This thread may not be about Sidwell, but the OP mentioned Sidwell in his/her initial post. Since then, several other posters have invoked Sidwell’s name. In case you weren’t aware, conversations are allowed to organically evolve and include additional information.

Btw, Sidwell’s average number of NMSFs over the past 3 years is ~12 so the PP would still be wrong. You don’t have to care about the number of Sidwell’s NMSFs, but I care about accuracy. I will continue to correct the record where I see fit. You will deal.

Point taken. You can now f**k off.

I doubt you actually care that much about accuracy in general, so let's not pull shit like that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unnecessary to correct misstatements of fact?

You should know you’re not allowed to say anything about Sidwell that can remotely be perceived as a compliment. If you dare, someone will race to the post to put you “snobby Sidwell parents” in your place!

Sidwell?

Isn’t that where Protestants teach Jews to be good Quakers?

Aren’t you clever. 🙄

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unnecessary to correct misstatements of fact?

You should know you’re not allowed to say anything about Sidwell that can remotely be perceived as a compliment. If you dare, someone will race to the post to put you “snobby Sidwell parents” in your place!

Please. The thread is expressly NOT about Sidwell. Second, it wasn't a misstatement. PP offered an average range among a group of schools for a broad comparison. So yes, unnecessary to point out this year's actual number for one of those schools. Nobody cares if it's 10, 11, or zero.

This thread may not be about Sidwell, but the OP mentioned Sidwell in his/her initial post. Since then, several other posters have invoked Sidwell’s name. In case you weren’t aware, conversations are allowed to organically evolve and include additional information.

Btw, Sidwell’s average number of NMSFs over the past 3 years is ~12 so the PP would still be wrong. You don’t have to care about the number of Sidwell’s NMSFs, but I care about accuracy. I will continue to correct the record where I see fit. You will deal.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unnecessary to correct misstatements of fact?

You should know you’re not allowed to say anything about Sidwell that can remotely be perceived as a compliment. If you dare, someone will race to the post to put you “snobby Sidwell parents” in your place!

Please. The thread is expressly NOT about Sidwell. Second, it wasn't a misstatement. PP offered an average range among a group of schools for a broad comparison. So yes, unnecessary to point out this year's actual number for one of those schools. Nobody cares if it's 10, 11, or zero.

This thread may not be about Sidwell, but the OP mentioned Sidwell in his/her initial post. Since then, several other posters have invoked Sidwell’s name. In case you weren’t aware, conversations are allowed to organically evolve and include additional information.

Btw, Sidwell’s average number of NMSFs over the past 3 years is ~12 so the PP would still be wrong. You don’t have to care about the number of Sidwell’s NMSFs, but I care about accuracy. I will continue to correct the record where I see fit. You will deal.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unnecessary to correct misstatements of fact?

You should know you’re not allowed to say anything about Sidwell that can remotely be perceived as a compliment. If you dare, someone will race to the post to put you “snobby Sidwell parents” in your place!

Please. The thread is expressly NOT about Sidwell. Second, it wasn't a misstatement. PP offered an average range among a group of schools for a broad comparison. So yes, unnecessary to point out this year's actual number for one of those schools. Nobody cares if it's 10, 11, or zero.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where to begin?

First, the Catholic locals, which is a large group of people here, would be offended by your identifying Gonzaga or Prep or even St John’s “second tier”. For this group, the Catholic schools are the top tier and they very rarely even consider sending their kids to non-Catholic private schools including the Big 3 or Big 5. These schools are where the Catholic lawyers, doctors, etc. send their kids.

From what I see, St John’s appeals to several groups:

Legacies – St Johns has a large group of alumni who have strong feelings about the school even though the St Johns of today is vastly different from the one they attended through 2000. It used to be all boys with a significant military presence. The school went into a deep dive in the 1990’s and alumni helped resurrect it. The new buildings and athletic fields bear the names of some of these people.

Catholics from local Parish schools – Who want to continue at a Catholic high school and 90%+ of them do. Many of these parishes are located in NW DC and Montgomery County. St John’s does very, very well attracting students from these parishes. The school now even challenges Gonzaga and Prep for the best students and athletes including those from families that could pay the sky-high tuition at other schools.

DC Residents looking for an alternative to DCPS.

Non-Catholics looking for a safety school or for a lower-priced alternative to most other private schools. (You appear to be in this group)

Through the years, St John's has done all sorts of things to make itself more attractive. They went co-ed, they have all sorts of academic programs for different kinds of students, and they have invested huge amounts of donated money in athletic fields and the sports programs

I don’t know where you are from, but most areas have large, co-ed Catholic schools that have excellent sports teams and that have a range of students attending. That's what St Johns has become.

If you live close by, go to a St, John's football game this Fall. You'll see the student body and the alumni and get a sense of the energy of the place. The experience will answer questions you wouldn't even think af asking.

OP: Gotcha, thanks. Definitely didn't mean to offend anyone so glad to know that categorizing these schools as second tier could come off as insulting. We're non-practicing Catholics from the Midwest where most of the Catholic schools are single sex. We're in DCPS now and probably will look at local parish schools in the next couple of years. I went to a place that seems similar to what I think I know about NCS. Academically very rigorous, bad at sports. Good idea on the football game. Probably will do that!

As I wrote above, StJohn’s went co-Ed because it had allowed itself to be driven into a ditch enrollment-wise.

While others that are chiming in about the dominance of sports there, there’s more to it than that. I am always surprised to hear that kids I felt sure would end up at one of the Catholic “Big 4” (Prep and Gonzaga for boys and Visitation and Stone Ridge for girls) instead opted for St Johns.

I marvel at what the school has been able to achieve.

I admit I had to laugh at the idea of someone suggesting that Gonzaga was a second tier school in front of a group of purple-clad moms. Sort of like hitting a hornets nest with a stick.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unnecessary to correct misstatements of fact?

You should know you’re not allowed to say anything about Sidwell that can remotely be perceived as a compliment. If you dare, someone will race to the post to put you “snobby Sidwell parents” in your place!