Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sounds like some counselors are more accomodating than others. Try to get one of the helpful ones

They are assigned alphabetically. No changing allowed. We also were limited in the number of schools we could review in any one meeting. It wasn’t productive or feasible to set up 5 different meetings so you could see 15-20 schools over the course of those meetings. It would be more time efficient to just give us the access to the data like they do in some private and public schools.

I *get* why they do that, but ugh on the last name assignment. Do they rotate every year or is it always the same counselor who handles A-F?

Saying ugh because one of our DC's was assigned to someone whom we knew would be a disaster, especially not having a good track record working with students in the learning center. School has a no changing policy, but DH lobbied very hard and DC was moved to someone who was much more skilled. We were told that we could not tell ANYONE about the move. And now that it is in the rearview mirror, here I am.

this year is really the first with this new staff, but they indicated it would be rotated

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

PP here. Our DC’s counselor would not let us or DC do that. We were told we could look at 3 max in a 30 minute meeting. And we could only look at them once DC’s list was pretty much final. When DC was trying to narrow down an initial list from around 20 schools and wanted to look at scattergrams then, the answer was no.

Pp parent you're responding to. Wow. So it seems clear that the office should have uniform practices among counselors to attempt equality.

To clarify, our DC did have a concrete and late-stage plan (list of schools) before we ever booked that first scatterplot meeting. No fishing expeditions allowed

OK, but I understood that you said you looked at around 6 per meeting and had 3 meetings? If so it sounds like you were able to use scattergrams to narrow or refine your list. Unless your DC applied to 15 or more schools.

Also (and I am not specifically responding to something you said here), a thing to keep in mind is that the specific way in which the CCO decided to define reach and mid-level schools makes the limited access (as we experienced it) especially frustrating as kids are trying to finalize their list. When we were finally able to look at a few scattergrams, we saw that for one of the schools categorized as “reach,” almost all Sidwell students in recent years with similar plots to our DC were accepted. Same thing with a mid-level school that was virtually 100% admit. Of course there are no sure things or guarantees and anyone who interpreted scattergrams in that way would be pretty dumb. But given the really unhelpful way that the CCO defines reaches, the scattergrams could be an especially helpful tool to look at earlier in the process than we were able to do with DC as we worked to refine the list.

Acceptance numbers from before 2020 are irrelevant to today's situation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a child who graduated from Stuyvesant HS in NYC, which is a large, public, test-in school. Parents and kids were given full access to Naviance and we found it really helpful in generating a college list. It was packed with data for the school and really good information. I'm really surprised that Sidwell doesn't give parents full access to Naviance.

People need to calm down. Sidwell senior parent here. We do not have remote access to Naviance but my DC made appointments with CCO to see graphs and I did as well. I wlll say there were some that were such a crap shoot it did not help with the list but I was allowed to see as many scattergrams as I wanted and DC was to. If you want to see the scattergrams - reach out to the CCO and look at them! Geez

Another Sidwell senior parent here. That was not the way it worked for us and our DC, at all.

How long was your meeting at which you were allowed to see as many scattergrams as you wanted? How many did you look at?

DP, we had two meetings (the initial one and then one other than was maybe 20-30 minutes) with our counselor and our kid went to the office several other times to look at specific schools.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a child who graduated from Stuyvesant HS in NYC, which is a large, public, test-in school. Parents and kids were given full access to Naviance and we found it really helpful in generating a college list. It was packed with data for the school and really good information. I'm really surprised that Sidwell doesn't give parents full access to Naviance.

People need to calm down. Sidwell senior parent here. We do not have remote access to Naviance but my DC made appointments with CCO to see graphs and I did as well. I wlll say there were some that were such a crap shoot it did not help with the list but I was allowed to see as many scattergrams as I wanted and DC was to. If you want to see the scattergrams - reach out to the CCO and look at them! Geez

+1

And if your individual counselor won't do it, then reach out to the department head. She is easy to work with.

Anonymous wrote:Part of the utility on Naviance is the ability to noodle around and see ranges. Yes, you will check your kid’s dream school, but you may also want to check a school your kid is unlikely to apply to but is a solid safety. It also gives you a sense of which colleges are popular among applicants from your school, and which colleges seem to view your school’s graduates favorably (e.g., some schools do very well with Chicago, but terrible with Brown, others are the opposite). Many people (myself included) don’t have a defined list of schools they definitely want to see, and the notion of making an appointment to be shown data was never appealing to me because I knew that after the fact I would realize I had forgotten to ask about a relevant school and then would be reluctant to make a second appointment. That said, my DC always felt comfortable going in and asking to see the data. Also, I had a pretty demanding job and it was just burdensome. I don’t agree with the policy of not giving parents this information. FWIW, NCS offers this data and its graduating classes are half the size of some of the area privates that do not grant independent access to this data.

+100

Nothing constructive to add but much of the utility of Naviance is noodling around junior year to better understand some of the colleges that view Sidwell favorably as well as those that don't take many kids from there. The preliminary noodling helps your child develop a list and not get too attached to a school. Once they've narrowed their choices to come up with a semi-finalized list only to realize that the Naviance data is NOT favorable for Sidwell, they've already wasted a lot of time. Counselor schedules get booked up so its not so easy to make appointments to check Naviance again. A kid (and parents) may have to wait a couple of weeks to get their next viewing of Naviance.

One example for us was Pepperdine. DD had it as a safety because the Common Data Set showed a relatively low SAT/ACT score for accepted students. However, once we saw Naviance it was clear that from Sidwell kids needed at least a 3.4 - 3.5 and I think it was a 32 GPA (well above what the CDS had) tog et in. Had we known this junior year, we would not have put this down as a safety. Pepperdine may be a safety for some other schools but from Sidwell they were definitely cherry picking for acceptances (not sure if anyone actually has attended the last 5 years).

A 3rd Sidwell senior parent here. Our family booked multiple meetings throughout last fall for the express purpose to look at scattergrams together with counselor. I attended 2 with student via Zoom. Student went to at least one in person in counselor's office.

In the 2 zoom meetings I attended with student, my recollection was that we saw maybe 6? at a time. Each meeting was no less than 15 minutes and no more than 30 minutes. It was 5 months ago so I don't recall the exact number of minutes.

Our family scheduled these meetings in intervals separated by several weeks, on purpose, rather than back to back to back. We put a lot of thought into which schools to pull up on Naviance after we discussed and refined our plan. I, personally, don't understand people who find this approach punishing. Idiosyncratic, maybe, but not nearly as limiting and crippling as you make it out to be.

Why would you find it useful to look at 50 schools at one sitting (aka, "full access"), and why don't you have a better idea of what you actually want? It would be fun, sure, to look at all 50 state flagships or something with unfettered access but if you're being honest, that doesn't actually help your kid.

My kid is also at a Big3 that does not provide unfettered access to Naviance. I have older kids who did have that access. There is no question that I prefer easy access in this regard. Neither I nor my kid wants to be chaperoned while reviewing the data, and it definitely limits conversation between us to have to do it with the counselor. I also want to be able to take my time reviewing the scattergrams, and want the ability to switch back and forth between screens as often as I want while I process. Doing this at home on the weekend while my kid is more focused and less tired is also a plus. My older kids applied to fewer than 10 schools each, but we probably looked at 25 different scattergrams to compose their lists. There is no question in my mind that the usefulness of Naviance is marginalized by the "make an appointment" approach, whether those appointments are easy to schedule or not. The gatekeeping is annoying and unnecessary.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sounds like some counselors are more accomodating than others. Try to get one of the helpful ones

They are assigned alphabetically. No changing allowed. We also were limited in the number of schools we could review in any one meeting. It wasn’t productive or feasible to set up 5 different meetings so you could see 15-20 schools over the course of those meetings. It would be more time efficient to just give us the access to the data like they do in some private and public schools.

I *get* why they do that, but ugh on the last name assignment. Do they rotate every year or is it always the same counselor who handles A-F?

Saying ugh because one of our DC's was assigned to someone whom we knew would be a disaster, especially not having a good track record working with students in the learning center. School has a no changing policy, but DH lobbied very hard and DC was moved to someone who was much more skilled. We were told that we could not tell ANYONE about the move. And now that it is in the rearview mirror, here I am.

Anonymous wrote:Sounds like some counselors are more accomodating than others. Try to get one of the helpful ones

They are assigned alphabetically. No changing allowed. We also were limited in the number of schools we could review in any one meeting. It wasn’t productive or feasible to set up 5 different meetings so you could see 15-20 schools over the course of those meetings. It would be more time efficient to just give us the access to the data like they do in some private and public schools.

a thing to keep in mind is that the specific way in which the CCO decided to define reach and mid-level schools makes the limited access (as we experienced it) especially frustrating as kids are trying to finalize their list. When we were finally able to look at a few scattergrams, we saw that for one of the schools categorized as “reach,” almost all Sidwell students in recent years with similar plots to our DC were accepted. Same thing with a mid-level school that was virtually 100% admit. Of course there are no sure things or guarantees and anyone who interpreted scattergrams in that way would be pretty dumb. But given the really unhelpful way that the CCO defines reaches, the scattergrams could be an especially helpful tool to look at earlier in the process than we were able to do with DC as we worked to refine the list.

PP parent you're talking to. I completely agree with the bolded and we saw similar data with a couple of schools that interested DC. Our family (ok, one parent of two) took those past years with a hefty grain of salt though, because we (I) knew that many green dots were 1) pre-pandemic and 2) pre-test optional and 3) pre- the national higher ed shift in admission priorities.

Conversely, the "nobody from here gets in for some reason" scatterplots were actually more useful -- particularly early in the process, as you point out.

Anonymous wrote:https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/on-parenting/when-parents-are-so-desperate-to-get-their-kids-into-college-that-they-sabotage-other-students/2019/04/02/decc6b9e-5159-11e9-88a1-ed346f0ec94f_story.html

sounds like a great community - probably WAY different now!

Anonymous wrote:Sounds like some counselors are more accomodating than others.[b] Try to get one of the helpful ones

NP and there is no doubt about this. Unfortunately, the counselors are assigned by last name and individuals do not get to pick. Consistency in policies across the board needs to be better established and enforced.

Part of the utility on Naviance is the ability to noodle around and see ranges. Yes, you will check your kid’s dream school, but you may also want to check a school your kid is unlikely to apply to but is a solid safety. It also gives you a sense of which colleges are popular among applicants from your school, and which colleges seem to view your school’s graduates favorably (e.g., some schools do very well with Chicago, but terrible with Brown, others are the opposite). Many people (myself included) don’t have a defined list of schools they definitely want to see, and the notion of making an appointment to be shown data was never appealing to me because I knew that after the fact I would realize I had forgotten to ask about a relevant school and then would be reluctant to make a second appointment. That said, my DC always felt comfortable going in and asking to see the data. Also, I had a pretty demanding job and it was just burdensome. I don’t agree with the policy of not giving parents this information. FWIW, NCS offers this data and its graduating classes are half the size of some of the area privates that do not grant independent access to this data.

Anonymous wrote:

PP here. Our DC’s counselor would not let us or DC do that. We were told we could look at 3 max in a 30 minute meeting. And we could only look at them once DC’s list was pretty much final. When DC was trying to narrow down an initial list from around 20 schools and wanted to look at scattergrams then, the answer was no.

Pp parent you're responding to. Wow. So it seems clear that the office should have uniform practices among counselors to attempt equality.

To clarify, our DC did have a concrete and late-stage plan (list of schools) before we ever booked that first scatterplot meeting. No fishing expeditions allowed

OK, but I understood that you said you looked at around 6 per meeting and had 3 meetings? If so it sounds like you were able to use scattergrams to narrow or refine your list. Unless your DC applied to 15 or more schools.

Also (and I am not specifically responding to something you said here), a thing to keep in mind is that the specific way in which the CCO decided to define reach and mid-level schools makes the limited access (as we experienced it) especially frustrating as kids are trying to finalize their list. When we were finally able to look at a few scattergrams, we saw that for one of the schools categorized as “reach,” almost all Sidwell students in recent years with similar plots to our DC were accepted. Same thing with a mid-level school that was virtually 100% admit. Of course there are no sure things or guarantees and anyone who interpreted scattergrams in that way would be pretty dumb. But given the really unhelpful way that the CCO defines reaches, the scattergrams could be an especially helpful tool to look at earlier in the process than we were able to do with DC as we worked to refine the list.

Sounds like some counselors are more accomodating than others. Try to get one of the helpful ones

PP here. Our DC’s counselor would not let us or DC do that. We were told we could look at 3 max in a 30 minute meeting. And we could only look at them once DC’s list was pretty much final. When DC was trying to narrow down an initial list from around 20 schools and wanted to look at scattergrams then, the answer was no.

Pp parent you're responding to. Wow. So it seems clear that the office should have uniform practices among counselors to attempt equality.

To clarify, our DC did have a concrete and late-stage plan (list of schools) before we ever booked that first scatterplot meeting. No fishing expeditions allowed