Too funny...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, due to this, I for one am choosing to no longer participate on this board.

I think it's very disingenuous to name 3 particular schools as the "Big 3" in a FAQ that's posted at the top of this forum - especially given how hotly this definition has been debated in the past. It is insinuating that it should be taken as fact that these are the 3 best schools - many future parents will read it that way (unfortunate for them).

Mark this as the day that DCUM lost its impartiality and started (even passively) endorsing viewpoints. I may be alone in feeling this, but I feel strongly enough to decide I can/will no longer contribute in good conscience to this debate any further.

And I'll bet my last dollar that SAM2 has a kid at one of those schools.

And I for one am pleased at your departure! I guess you will have to "contribute to this debate" at the hairdressers'/Starbucks/grocery store/carpool line, but I'm sure others of us in DCUM Cyberland will be able to soldier on without your input. But, no doubt, you won't read this because of your highly principled anonymous departure from an anonymous message board!

SAM2 wrote:

Whether Jeff has endorsed this thread or not, it would appear it has some official status as it is on top of the forum. This space is usually reserved for moderator sanctioned threads.

I’m pretty sure no one will ever get confused and think Jeff endorsed this thread, since it’s been emphasized several times in the first three pages that he was not involved in preparing the FAQ. Just to make it unquestionably clear, I’ll add a specific note to the FAQ. Also, this is not the first time Jeff had sticky’ed a FAQ-type thread that someone else drafted: http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/forums/show/2.page .

… stats grid is speculative, incomplete, inaccurate … she is relying own questionable data which is incomplete and she fails to cite references with footnotes (Wikipedia style) or even assign years for this data. The fact of the matter is that the grid is incorrect … and her data is skewed.

This baseless criticism is frustrating because I spent a lot of time researching this data and working to check its accuracy. If you think any data points are speculative/incomplete/inaccurate/questionable/incorrect/skewed, then please find and post a link to credible data that is accurate. I’m happy to make corrections, but you’ll need to back up your accusations with some research.

Look, I know you put a lot into your research but there are gaping holes and questionable data and if you really want us to take this seriously you need to make it cite where you are receiving your data and equally important what years your data is derived from and if it is an average. You need to specify this for each school and also specify class size in each school. Which brings me to: What years are you referencing for the NMSF, Presidential Scholar Candidates ? It is completely unclear whether these are averages of 2009 & other years - you NEED to state the years and have a footnote which cites each piece of data. Looking at 2009 numbers alone, I find Sidwell 12.5% PSC and NCS had 12.8% PSC. So I have to assume you are averaging several years of data. Please provide this information. For example, in 2009 Georgetown Visitation had 3 Presidential Scholar candidates, but according to your "research" they had .84% - so are you saying that were 355 students in the senior class? I doubt that. Which brings us to class size. It would be extremely helpful if you provided this for us. Another "oversight" no doubt would be you forgot to list the 1 student at NCS that was a Presidential Semi-finalists? As I have stated before the Presidential Candidates reflect solely top SAT's scores and this is the most important piece of data in terms of college boards scores data at schools. I realize you list the candidates but it is misleading to not at the very least list the score next to the NMSF - because this is your best apples for apples comparison because both of these are derived specifically from Test scores. The Presidential Scholar is a very prestigious honor - far greater than NMS but sadly the recipients receive no scholarship, so many people don't even bother to continue with the process in terms of competing to be the scholar. There is a lot of data on this all over the web, most commonly on the website College Confidential. I urge you to read more about it - students elect to not to put all the time and energy into it because on 130 are named in the country - and there is no scholarship money provided. Really if you are going to list those sort of accolades (there are only 500 PSSM nationwide), you should list the NMF and NM Scholars (did you know that there are 16,000 NMSF and 15 NMF?? And NM Scholars because there are 5 times more NM scholars than there are Presidential Semi-Finalists.

As for SAT scores apparently you are basing your numbers on the Washington Examiner (which is NOT known for accurate fact-checking). The National Examiner was off about the NCS SATs which is the only online data I can find listed on a website. I welcome any other factual pieces of data from school websites but are hard to find. At any rate, it the National Examiner was incorrect about one school, why should we believe it about another school??

I know you have good intentions and I hope you take this a constructive criticism and can fill the holes.

Anonymous wrote:Well, due to this, I for one am choosing to no longer participate on this board.

I think it's very disingenuous to name 3 particular schools as the "Big 3" in a FAQ that's posted at the top of this forum - especially given how hotly this definition has been debated in the past. It is insinuating that it should be taken as fact that these are the 3 best schools - many future parents will read it that way (unfortunate for them).

Mark this as the day that DCUM lost its impartiality and started (even passively) endorsing viewpoints. I may be alone in feeling this, but I feel strongly enough to decide I can/will no longer contribute in good conscience to this debate any further.

And I'll bet my last dollar that SAM2 has a kid at one of those schools.

And I for one am pleased at your departure! I guess you will have to "contribute to this debate" at the hairdressers'/Starbucks/grocery store/carpool line, but I'm sure others of us in DCUM Cyberland will be able to soldier on without your input. But, no doubt, you won't read this because of your highly principled anonymous departure from an anonymous message board!

Dear SAM2,
You have done a great job in terms of your original FAQ post, your willingness to add and amend as necessary, and your incredibly polite responses to many of the responsive posts that were less than balanced in tone (and that is an understatement). I am really sorry that you had to come in for such abuse, but please know your efforts are appreciated by many. If it's any consolation, the responsive posts certainly validated your conclusions as to which subjects are controversial! (Now anybody starting a thread on "what schools are in the Big 3" MUST be looking for an argument!) Again, kudos and thanks.

Whether Jeff has endorsed this thread or not, it would appear it has some official status as it is on top of the forum. This space is usually reserved for moderator sanctioned threads.

I’m pretty sure no one will ever get confused and think Jeff endorsed this thread, since it’s been emphasized several times in the first three pages that he was not involved in preparing the FAQ. Just to make it unquestionably clear, I’ll add a specific note to the FAQ. Also, this is not the first time Jeff had sticky’ed a FAQ-type thread that someone else drafted: http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/forums/show/2.page .

… stats grid is speculative, incomplete, inaccurate … she is relying own questionable data which is incomplete and she fails to cite references with footnotes (Wikipedia style) or even assign years for this data. The fact of the matter is that the grid is incorrect … and her data is skewed.

This baseless criticism is frustrating because I spent a lot of time researching this data and working to check its accuracy. If you think any data points are speculative/incomplete/inaccurate/questionable/incorrect/skewed, then please find and post a link to credible data that is accurate. I’m happy to make corrections, but you’ll need to back up your accusations with some research.

Some of your comments also make me think you’re not too familiar with how spreadsheets work. Contrary to your claim that I did not “assign years for this data,” several of the tabs include many years of specifically labeled data (in some cases up to 13 years worth). Moreover, the spreadsheet comments contain several reference citations to my data sources. You can access these comments by hovering your cursor over particular cells. If you need further assistance, the Google help files are very informative.

To make it easier for anyone interested in sources, here is an overview. Data on Presidential Scholars all comes directly from the US Department of Education website. The Department of Education is also the source for most of the class sizes, and all the diversity stats. Most of the NMSF data was published by the Washington Post. Other NMSF is published by Montgomery and Fairfax County public school systems. And some comes from the schools themselves. In many years, the data can be confirmed from multiple sources. The college success rates come from the news articles cited on that tab.

I hope this helps. I really appreciate the support others have offered. It’s probably best that I step away from here for a few days.

Anonymous wrote:Thanks SAM2. I think the point is that while many people on DCUM use Big 3... some mean Cathedral/Sidwell/GDS, while others mean Maret/Cathedral/Sidwell, while others mean Potomac/Sidwell/Cathedral, etc, etc. It is incorrect to assume that all, or even the majority, of posters consider the same three schools to be the "Big 3" (many of us on this board believe that some very vocal GDS boosters try and promulgate this definition in order to help the perceived rank of their school).

Posting a list of 3 schools as the Big 3 in a FAQ at the top of the page gives the appearance that DCUM is endorsing the view that these 3 schools are the best in the region. I think you can answer the question without naming any schools.

Was with you until you bashed GDS parents - then you betrayed your own agenda.

Before you begin bashing the statistics that SAM2 worked hard to compile and has made available for everyone's use, or non-use, as they see fit, note that SAM2 has also compiled a large number of useful links to make life easier for anyone who is interested in the topics discussed in this thread. Those links are provided certainly contain much opinion but are of nonetheless of value. Please keep that in mind when chastising.

(And in the interest of full disclosure, I am certainly pleased that my son's and my website is one of the links included).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Now that Jeff has endorsed this Stay at Home Anonymous poster -- people may rely to their detriment on her postings. That's not good.

Whether Jeff has endorsed this thread or not, it would appear it has some official status as it is on top of the forum. This space is usually reserved for moderator sanctioned threads. While the OP may want to be of service, it is concerning that part of her "data on test scores and other academic awards is compiled" http://fwd4.me/Jes which includes stats grid is speculative, incomplete, inaccurate. Yes there are some accuracies, but she is relying own questionable data which is incomplete and she fails to cite references with footnotes (Wikipedia style) or even assign years for this data. The fact of the matter is that the grid is incorrect. I would not mind her post if it were not tacked on at the top of the private school forums - which makes it look official. No one elected this person moderator or deemed her to be fair and her data is skewed. It is misleading that she has taken it upon herself to post her thread at the top of the forum.

I feel strongly the post needs to be removed from it's current status at the top of the forum.

Please consider this Jeff.
Thank you!!

Looking back through this thread, I see that you raised a number of issues with her data. In each case, she addressed your point and, in almost every case, data that you thought was missing was actually there. So, I am not clear on what problems you believe remain.

I have to say that I am shocked and disappointed at the hostile reactions to SAM2's efforts. She has shown that she is willing to accept input from others. If anyone sees short-comings in what she has done, I am sure she would welcome assistance to correct problems

You are absolutely correct that nobody elected SAM2 to anything. She stepped up and did a lot of work to produce something that can be very helpful to others. Throwing stones is not going to make her work better. To the contrary, nobody will ever want to try something similar again. If you are not happy with what SAM2 has produced, then do something to improve it. Step up to the plate just like SAM2 did.

Again, it's been said before, but SAM2 didn't make the thread a "sticky". She does not have that ability. I made it a sticky and I did so because I believe it is a useful resource for users and I want it to be easy to find.

"Whether Jeff has endorsed this thread or not, it would appear it has some official status as it is on top of the forum. This space is usually reserved for moderator sanctioned threads. While the OP may want to be of service, it is concerning that part of her "data on test scores and other academic awards is compiled" http://fwd4.me/Jes which includes stats grid is speculative, incomplete, inaccurate. Yes there are some accuracies, but she is relying own questionable data which is incomplete and she fails to cite references with footnotes (Wikipedia style) or even assign years for this data. The fact of the matter is that the grid is incorrect. I would not mind her post if it were not tacked on at the top of the private school forums - which makes it look official. No one elected this person moderator or deemed her to be fair and her data is skewed. It is misleading that she has taken it upon herself to post her thread at the top of the forum."

I agree with this.

Anonymous wrote:Now that Jeff has endorsed this Stay at Home Anonymous poster -- people may rely to their detriment on her postings. That's not good.

Whether Jeff has endorsed this thread or not, it would appear it has some official status as it is on top of the forum. This space is usually reserved for moderator sanctioned threads. While the OP may want to be of service, it is concerning that part of her "data on test scores and other academic awards is compiled" http://fwd4.me/Jes which includes stats grid is speculative, incomplete, inaccurate. Yes there are some accuracies, but she is relying own questionable data which is incomplete and she fails to cite references with footnotes (Wikipedia style) or even assign years for this data. The fact of the matter is that the grid is incorrect. I would not mind her post if it were not tacked on at the top of the private school forums - which makes it look official. No one elected this person moderator or deemed her to be fair and her data is skewed. It is misleading that she has taken it upon herself to post her thread at the top of the forum.

I feel strongly the post needs to be removed from it's current status at the top of the forum.

Please consider this Jeff.
Thank you!!

Anonymous wrote:Now that Jeff has endorsed this Stay at Home Anonymous poster -- people may rely to their detriment on her postings. That's not good.

Huh? I am not sure that I can think of anything worth less than my endorsement. I'd rather have her endorsement. And, let's please not stoop to ad hominem attacks.

Anonymous wrote:Well, due to this, I for one am choosing to no longer participate on this board.

I think it's very disingenuous to name 3 particular schools as the "Big 3" in a FAQ that's posted at the top of this forum - especially given how hotly this definition has been debated in the past. It is insinuating that it should be taken as fact that these are the 3 best schools - many future parents will read it that way (unfortunate for them).

I'm sorry, but this sort of response is ridiculous. Never mind the absurdity of getting bent out of shape over which schools are considered the "Big 3". Nobody is actually naming which schools are the Big 3. SAM2 merely listed the three schools that most users mean when they use that term. Those users may all be on crack and not able to distinguish WIS from WES, but that doesn't change what they mean when they use that term. I haven't seen that point disputed. There may well be three schools that are absolutely, beyond the shadow of a doubt, better. That is a completely separate issue and one that you are welcome to document and add to the FAQ.

Now that Jeff has endorsed this Stay at Home Anonymous poster -- people may rely to their detriment on her postings. That's not good.

Well, due to this, I for one am choosing to no longer participate on this board.

I think it's very disingenuous to name 3 particular schools as the "Big 3" in a FAQ that's posted at the top of this forum - especially given how hotly this definition has been debated in the past. It is insinuating that it should be taken as fact that these are the 3 best schools - many future parents will read it that way (unfortunate for them).

Mark this as the day that DCUM lost its impartiality and started (even passively) endorsing viewpoints. I may be alone in feeling this, but I feel strongly enough to decide I can/will no longer contribute in good conscience to this debate any further.

And I'll bet my last dollar that SAM2 has a kid at one of those schools.

Best to all.

Thanks for the support, Jeff.

I am not interested in revealing my name, or any other identifying details about myself or my family. I will say that I am not some school admin, faculty, educational consultant, or alum. I am merely a local parent, and certainly no expert. I went through the application process with my children, and I spent some time researching the various schools and issues.

I've tried to address some of the common questions parents face in the FAQ, in an effort to help other parents going through the process next year. I have no interest in re-hashing stale debates. I've worked pretty hard to avoid any editorial comments on these questions, and just to lead parents to places they can find more information. If you want to add something to the FAQ, or if you don't like how I've addressed something, feel free to post your own proposed FAQ responses in this thread. At the very least, new parents will be able to read your counter-points, and can make their own judgments. I really hope people will propose useful additions.

Safe travels.