Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
entirely NP here and parent of senior. You shouldn't believe me because this is an anonymous site full of trolls and bots, but I am certain that in the class of 2022 there are very few kids who are comfortably above at 3.9. I hate this reality, but, the very top kids in this class competitively talk among themselves. We know well one of them who's had a single grade less than an A. They have very little company. We should assume that this doesn't change significantly from year to year.

Point being, the tail on grade distribution curve above 3.8 is verrrrrry narrow. And at that point, the difference of the 0.1 is not tipping factor for admission at the T-10/20/30 schools

This is generally true. There just aren't a whole lot of kids, if any, who graduate with a 4.00 from Sidwell. Sure it happens, but not frequently, and certainly not to the point where there are a whole bunch of them in any given year.

Anonymous wrote:
entirely NP here and parent of senior. You shouldn't believe me because this is an anonymous site full of trolls and bots, but I am certain that in the class of 2022 there are very few kids who are comfortably above at 3.9. I hate this reality, but, the very top kids in this class competitively talk among themselves. We know well one of them who's had a single grade less than an A. They have very little company. We should assume that this doesn't change significantly from year to year.

Point being, the tail on grade distribution curve above 3.8 is verrrrrry narrow. And at that point, the difference of the 0.1 is not tipping factor for admission at the T-10/20/30 schools

PP - just because your kid has a 3.7 doesn't mean it is because of grade deflation. You do know there are kids getting higher grades, right? And kids getting lower ones. I'd assume colleges will know the broad grade distribution of SFS applicants each year and will know where your 3.7 kid fits compared to the others in the class (even if they do not rank).

Anonymous wrote:Because it’s difficult to get into sidwell, and your child will be surrounded by other very talented kids and get a very rigorous education, you will think logically that your child will have a shot at a college perhaps similar to Sidwell in competitiveness. However, for those applying, think long and hard about the reality. You will be paying >50 k a year for a school that actually does not take a real interest in celebrating your kids or helping your kids get in to college. Rather, they want you to be grateful for the Quaker education that will prepare your children for life. You will be encouraged —strongly—to make sure your child’s college list includes schools like American U, Drexel, Sarah Lawrence, Indiana U, VCU, Loyola Marymount. This despite the fact that your child may have scored a 1550 on the SAT with a 3.7 GPA. In the current test-optional environment, schools that have grade deflation and unweighted GPAs, like Sidwell, do their students a disservice. The landscape has totally changed. The message is the same for all students. You might want to put that $ in the bank and have your child find a really successful niche at your public school. The teaching at Sidwell can be very good, but it’s not exceptional. The quality of the kids is outstanding. But the administration cares more deeply about the school’s reputation than the kids themselves. (this is not written about the lower school).

Anonymous wrote:Because it’s difficult to get into sidwell, and your child will be surrounded by other very talented kids and get a very rigorous education, you will think logically that your child will have a shot at a college perhaps similar to Sidwell in competitiveness. However, for those applying, think long and hard about the reality. You will be paying >50 k a year for a school that actually does not take a real interest in celebrating your kids or helping your kids get in to college. Rather, they want you to be grateful for the Quaker education that will prepare your children for life. You will be encouraged —strongly—to make sure your child’s college list includes schools like American U, Drexel, Sarah Lawrence, Indiana U, VCU, Loyola Marymount. This despite the fact that your child may have scored a 1550 on the SAT with a 3.7 GPA. In the current test-optional environment, schools that have grade deflation and unweighted GPAs, like Sidwell, do their students a disservice. The landscape has totally changed. The message is the same for all students. You might want to put that $ in the bank and have your child find a really successful niche at your public school. The teaching at Sidwell can be very good, but it’s not exceptional. The quality of the kids is outstanding. But the administration cares more deeply about the school’s reputation than the kids themselves. (this is not written about the lower school).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because it’s difficult to get into sidwell, and your child will be surrounded by other very talented kids and get a very rigorous education, you will think logically that your child will have a shot at a college perhaps similar to Sidwell in competitiveness. However, for those applying, think long and hard about the reality. You will be paying >50 k a year for a school that actually does not take a real interest in celebrating your kids or helping your kids get in to college. Rather, they want you to be grateful for the Quaker education that will prepare your children for life. You will be encouraged —strongly—to make sure your child’s college list includes schools like American U, Drexel, Sarah Lawrence, Indiana U, VCU, Loyola Marymount. This despite the fact that your child may have scored a 1550 on the SAT with a 3.7 GPA. In the current test-optional environment, schools that have grade deflation and unweighted GPAs, like Sidwell, do their students a disservice. The landscape has totally changed. The message is the same for all students. You might want to put that $ in the bank and have your child find a really successful niche at your public school. The teaching at Sidwell can be very good, but it’s not exceptional. The quality of the kids is outstanding. But the administration cares more deeply about the school’s reputation than the kids themselves. (this is not written about the lower school).

1) there is nothing wrong with those schools
2) there isn't anyone who has gone to any of those schools, in some cases, ever.
3) the colleges know the rigor of the school, but the reality is, in an era where there are 1000-2000 applicants for each available seat, it is hard for anyone to stand out.

I also disagree that sidwell has grade deflation... maybe compression? No one at Sidwell or any of the other big 3s gets Cs unless they shouldn't be there or arent doing their work. It ishard to get an A, but also impossible to get below a B-.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because it’s difficult to get into sidwell, and your child will be surrounded by other very talented kids and get a very rigorous education, you will think logically that your child will have a shot at a college perhaps similar to Sidwell in competitiveness. However, for those applying, think long and hard about the reality. You will be paying >50 k a year for a school that actually does not take a real interest in celebrating your kids or helping your kids get in to college. Rather, they want you to be grateful for the Quaker education that will prepare your children for life. You will be encouraged —strongly—to make sure your child’s college list includes schools like American U, Drexel, Sarah Lawrence, Indiana U, VCU, Loyola Marymount. This despite the fact that your child may have scored a 1550 on the SAT with a 3.7 GPA. In the current test-optional environment, schools that have grade deflation and unweighted GPAs, like Sidwell, do their students a disservice. The landscape has totally changed. The message is the same for all students. You might want to put that $ in the bank and have your child find a really successful niche at your public school. The teaching at Sidwell can be very good, but it’s not exceptional. The quality of the kids is outstanding. But the administration cares more deeply about the school’s reputation than the kids themselves. (this is not written about the lower school).

1) there is nothing wrong with those schools
2) there isn't anyone who has gone to any of those schools, in some cases, ever.
3) the colleges know the rigor of the school, but the reality is, in an era where there are 1000-2000 applicants for each available seat, it is hard for anyone to stand out.

I also disagree that sidwell has grade deflation... maybe compression? No one at Sidwell or any of the other big 3s gets Cs unless they shouldn't be there or arent doing their work. It ishard to get an A, but also impossible to get below a B-.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because it’s difficult to get into sidwell, and your child will be surrounded by other very talented kids and get a very rigorous education, you will think logically that your child will have a shot at a college perhaps similar to Sidwell in competitiveness. However, for those applying, think long and hard about the reality. You will be paying >50 k a year for a school that actually does not take a real interest in celebrating your kids or helping your kids get in to college. Rather, they want you to be grateful for the Quaker education that will prepare your children for life. You will be encouraged —strongly—to make sure your child’s college list includes schools like American U, Drexel, Sarah Lawrence, Indiana U, VCU, Loyola Marymount. This despite the fact that your child may have scored a 1550 on the SAT with a 3.7 GPA. In the current test-optional environment, schools that have grade deflation and unweighted GPAs, like Sidwell, do their students a disservice. The landscape has totally changed. The message is the same for all students. You might want to put that $ in the bank and have your child find a really successful niche at your public school. The teaching at Sidwell can be very good, but it’s not exceptional. The quality of the kids is outstanding. But the administration cares more deeply about the school’s reputation than the kids themselves. (this is not written about the lower school).

1) there is nothing wrong with those schools
2) there isn't anyone who has gone to any of those schools, in some cases, ever.
3) the colleges know the rigor of the school, but the reality is, in an era where there are 1000-2000 applicants for each available seat, it is hard for anyone to stand out.

Anonymous wrote:Because it’s difficult to get into sidwell, and your child will be surrounded by other very talented kids and get a very rigorous education, you will think logically that your child will have a shot at a college perhaps similar to Sidwell in competitiveness. However, for those applying, think long and hard about the reality. You will be paying >50 k a year for a school that actually does not take a real interest in celebrating your kids or helping your kids get in to college. Rather, they want you to be grateful for the Quaker education that will prepare your children for life. You will be encouraged —strongly—to make sure your child’s college list includes schools like American U, Drexel, Sarah Lawrence, Indiana U, VCU, Loyola Marymount. This despite the fact that your child may have scored a 1550 on the SAT with a 3.7 GPA. In the current test-optional environment, schools that have grade deflation and unweighted GPAs, like Sidwell, do their students a disservice. The landscape has totally changed. The message is the same for all students. You might want to put that $ in the bank and have your child find a really successful niche at your public school. The teaching at Sidwell can be very good, but it’s not exceptional. The quality of the kids is outstanding. But the administration cares more deeply about the school’s reputation than the kids themselves. (this is not written about the lower school).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SFS could increase transparency by using Naviance. Show the data: # of applications, # of admissions, # who attend.

they do

Anonymous wrote:SFS could increase transparency by using Naviance. Show the data: # of applications, # of admissions, # who attend.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
They do. Students and their parents can look at Naviance scattergrams in a meeting with the counselor upon request. IME, the counselors are reluctant to have families look at scattergrams when they think it is too early in the process of a student creating their list, and the counselor will push back against that request. And when they do eventually let you look at them, they will only let you look at a very small number of colleges' scattergrams when those colleges are on your list. So among other things, the counselors won't let students look at and use scattergrams as a tool to create their list in the first place.

This is false. The parent-student meeting can be filled with looking at as many scattergrams as they want. And, the student can go back and meet and look at any other scattergrams they want at any point during the process.

Just my opinion, but so much has changed with COVID, that the scattergrams and any other metrics other than the 2021 CDS is relatively useless.

It’s not false, because it was our experience this year with DC’s counselor. Perhaps the counselors are inconsistent, which is a point that seems to have come up as an issue over and over again in these discussions.

+1