Anonymous wrote:We got an interview and are waiting for tonight’s update. Meantime, does anyone have intel regarding last year’s essay? Is it timed? Prompt topics? Assessment rubric details? Any clue what the weight of essay vs interview is? Who grades the 400 essays? Does a kid get dinged for sloppy handwriting?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Not the case for other schools. Which is why GPA got supplemented with teacher recs, but obviously teacher recs brought in more subjectivity. Maybe batching by middle school makes more sense? Doesn't seem like there is a fair way of doing it, because just too many kids want a better option for high school.

+1 re GPA. Hardy does not hand out 4.0s like candy. A few WS can torpedo a kid's GPA, and you won't even find out about it until the last day of the quarter when 6 weeks of grades are uploaded all at once. I guess in one sense it's a relief that SWW de-emphasizes GPA in this context, except that the alternative is also beyond a kid's control.

And it turns out your kid did turn in the assignment, but the teacher didn't record it for some reason...

Hardy was a total sh*t-show last year and I borderline destroyed my relationship with my kid trying to get him to get as close to a 4.0 as we could manage. We would go through Aspen together and identify the WSs, he would tell me he had done them, I would tell him to e-mail the teacher, he would do that and get no response, I would tell him to meet with the teacher after school, he would say he tried but they had left, and the end of the term would come and he would end up with a B or whatever. I would blame him for not staying on top of his assignments and he would yell at me that he'd done the work and so on. He's not the most organized kid in the world but Hardy didn't exactly seem to be the best organized school in the world either.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Banneker been doing the same exact thing for years and not a peep. SWW explicitly states kids won't be penalized for incomplete or missing recs. So you have a case if you have proof that your kid was negatively impacted.

There are only 150 slots so every deserving kid was never going to be admitted. Don't over think it or try to rationalize it.

https://enrolldcps.dc.gov/sites/dcpsenrollment/files/page_content/attachments/SY24-25%20SWW_Admission%20Process%20Rubric_Final.pdf

My understanding is that Banneker largely uses teacher recs to screen IN kids whose grades might otherwise be marginal. Which seems like an appropriate use of a teacher recommendation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Not the case for other schools. Which is why GPA got supplemented with teacher recs, but obviously teacher recs brought in more subjectivity. Maybe batching by middle school makes more sense? Doesn't seem like there is a fair way of doing it, because just too many kids want a better option for high school.

+1 re GPA. Hardy does not hand out 4.0s like candy. A few WS can torpedo a kid's GPA, and you won't even find out about it until the last day of the quarter when 6 weeks of grades are uploaded all at once. I guess in one sense it's a relief that SWW de-emphasizes GPA in this context, except that the alternative is also beyond a kid's control.

And it turns out your kid did turn in the assignment, but the teacher didn't record it for some reason...

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:Banneker been doing the same exact thing for years and not a peep. SWW explicitly states kids won't be penalized for incomplete or missing recs. So you have a case if you have proof that your kid was negatively impacted.

There are only 150 slots so every deserving kid was never going to be admitted. Don't over think it or try to rationalize it.

https://enrolldcps.dc.gov/sites/dcpsenrollment/files/page_content/attachments/SY24-25%20SWW_Admission%20Process%20Rubric_Final.pdf

My understanding is that Banneker largely uses teacher recs to screen IN kids whose grades might otherwise be marginal. Which seems like an appropriate use of a teacher recommendation.

Anonymous wrote:Banneker been doing the same exact thing for years and not a peep. SWW explicitly states kids won't be penalized for incomplete or missing recs. So you have a case if you have proof that your kid was negatively impacted.

There are only 150 slots so every deserving kid was never going to be admitted. Don't over think it or try to rationalize it.

https://enrolldcps.dc.gov/sites/dcpsenrollment/files/page_content/attachments/SY24-25%20SWW_Admission%20Process%20Rubric_Final.pdf

Anonymous wrote:Banneker been doing the same exact thing for years and not a peep. SWW explicitly states kids won't be penalized for incomplete or missing recs. So you have a case if you have proof that your kid was negatively impacted.

There are only 150 slots so every deserving kid was never going to be admitted. Don't over think it or try to rationalize it.

https://enrolldcps.dc.gov/sites/dcpsenrollment/files/page_content/attachments/SY24-25%20SWW_Admission%20Process%20Rubric_Final.pdf

Anonymous wrote:Late recs might not even be the teacher's fault. These teachers had such an enormous quantity of unpaid labor dumped on them -- why do you assume adequate notice? -- in a way that insured it would not be equally distributed among teachers best equipped to recommend applicants, but focused on math and English teachers, which might not even have been the applicants' strongest subjects. SWW didn't care

Anonymous wrote:Now it's the teacher's fault because they did/didn't/idk give stellar recs? Got It. It's always something. The way some of these kids speak to teachers may be the reason recs were less than glowing(if that is the case). Teach your kids to be respectful. It goes a long way.