Anonymous wrote:Actually, the student interviewer DOES have an enormous say in the ranking. At least last year it was one student + one teacher and each of their rankings are averaged together. So for the interview portion (which was roughly 98% of the weight of the entire application last year), a hormonal teen who volunteers their time because they need community service credit ends up determining 50% of each potential student's ranking for the interview. The unimpressive teen who interviewed my kid last year was not one I would trust with such a task... but it's what we got.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s been a few years since my kid interviewed and perhaps the wording is different, but I remember there being something along the lines of dress for success being suggested, as to encourage the interview being taken seriously, not a “dress code”. It’s really not a big deal.

I mean, here is the language. It seems quite explicit/prescriptive:
We also want to remind families of dress expectations of School Without Walls admission interviews. All students are expected to wear casual professional attire. We expect students to wear slacks, shirt, shoes, appropriate pants, dress, sweater, blouse/shirt, or jacket (tie, jacket, and/or suit are optional). We ask students to refrain from wearing tennis shoes, tee shirts, jeans, leggings, or any attire that does not meet the standard for a formal interview.

A kid’s ability to put together “casual professional attire” is so much more about the parents than the kid. This is strange gatekeeping.

I’m pretty flummoxed by the idea that teenagers wouldn’t have at least one professional looking outfit. What do they wear to church? Thanksgiving?

Maybe most can, maybe some can’t. I think the question is whether there is any defensible reason why admission to a public school should have anything at all to do with what a kid wears.

Most of the public schools in my area of DC have uniforms.

And the uniforms allow for tennis shoes. Seems to be that if a kid shows up to a SWW dressed in the uniform of their current school, that ought to be acceptable.

It is kind of obnoxious/condescending the view of several posters on this thread that lower income students (I assume that is who they are feigning concern for?) don't have a single nice/presentable outfit to wear.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s been a few years since my kid interviewed and perhaps the wording is different, but I remember there being something along the lines of dress for success being suggested, as to encourage the interview being taken seriously, not a “dress code”. It’s really not a big deal.

I mean, here is the language. It seems quite explicit/prescriptive:
We also want to remind families of dress expectations of School Without Walls admission interviews. All students are expected to wear casual professional attire. We expect students to wear slacks, shirt, shoes, appropriate pants, dress, sweater, blouse/shirt, or jacket (tie, jacket, and/or suit are optional). We ask students to refrain from wearing tennis shoes, tee shirts, jeans, leggings, or any attire that does not meet the standard for a formal interview.

A kid’s ability to put together “casual professional attire” is so much more about the parents than the kid. This is strange gatekeeping.

I’m pretty flummoxed by the idea that teenagers wouldn’t have at least one professional looking outfit. What do they wear to church? Thanksgiving?

Maybe most can, maybe some can’t. I think the question is whether there is any defensible reason why admission to a public school should have anything at all to do with what a kid wears.

Most of the public schools in my area of DC have uniforms.

And the uniforms allow for tennis shoes. Seems to be that if a kid shows up to a SWW dressed in the uniform of their current school, that ought to be acceptable.

It is kind of obnoxious/condescending the view of several posters on this thread that lower income students (I assume that is who they are feigning concern for?) don't have a single nice/presentable outfit to wear.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s been a few years since my kid interviewed and perhaps the wording is different, but I remember there being something along the lines of dress for success being suggested, as to encourage the interview being taken seriously, not a “dress code”. It’s really not a big deal.

I mean, here is the language. It seems quite explicit/prescriptive:
We also want to remind families of dress expectations of School Without Walls admission interviews. All students are expected to wear casual professional attire. We expect students to wear slacks, shirt, shoes, appropriate pants, dress, sweater, blouse/shirt, or jacket (tie, jacket, and/or suit are optional). We ask students to refrain from wearing tennis shoes, tee shirts, jeans, leggings, or any attire that does not meet the standard for a formal interview.

A kid’s ability to put together “casual professional attire” is so much more about the parents than the kid. This is strange gatekeeping.

I’m pretty flummoxed by the idea that teenagers wouldn’t have at least one professional looking outfit. What do they wear to church? Thanksgiving?

Maybe most can, maybe some can’t. I think the question is whether there is any defensible reason why admission to a public school should have anything at all to do with what a kid wears.

Most of the public schools in my area of DC have uniforms.

And the uniforms allow for tennis shoes. Seems to be that if a kid shows up to a SWW dressed in the uniform of their current school, that ought to be acceptable.

Anonymous wrote:Some of you are really incapable of thinking from any perspective except your own. Try considering for a moment why the school might want to ensure some consistency in the dress worn by interviewees. Before you assume they have sticks up their collective rear ends and just want to judge students on how well they dress, maybe ask yourself if there's any other possible reason. Think about what students might wear if there were no guidelines, and think about whether the *students* conducting the interviews might form an impression-positive or negative-based on the dress rather than the content of the interview. There's no perfect way to avoid that, but a minimal amount of conformity might help. I'm not saying that is the true reason it that it guarantees fair interviews, but it's at least possible the motivation is to make the process more fair, not less.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the idea of an opaque admissions process or finding an outfit on short notice is too stressful for your kid (or you), I seriously would reconsider if Walls is the best fit. My older child is there now and they are very happy. But there is a lot about the school that is disorganized and kids need to learn how to roll with it. It is one of the reasons why grads get credit for having "grit" in the college application process

“The organization is mismanaged and the admissions process is poorly run and unfair but this is good for the students who are selected because they will learn to cope with dysfunction and arbitrariness.”

Got it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s been a few years since my kid interviewed and perhaps the wording is different, but I remember there being something along the lines of dress for success being suggested, as to encourage the interview being taken seriously, not a “dress code”. It’s really not a big deal.

I mean, here is the language. It seems quite explicit/prescriptive:
We also want to remind families of dress expectations of School Without Walls admission interviews. All students are expected to wear casual professional attire. We expect students to wear slacks, shirt, shoes, appropriate pants, dress, sweater, blouse/shirt, or jacket (tie, jacket, and/or suit are optional). We ask students to refrain from wearing tennis shoes, tee shirts, jeans, leggings, or any attire that does not meet the standard for a formal interview.

A kid’s ability to put together “casual professional attire” is so much more about the parents than the kid. This is strange gatekeeping.

I’m pretty flummoxed by the idea that teenagers wouldn’t have at least one professional looking outfit. What do they wear to church? Thanksgiving?

Maybe most can, maybe some can’t. I think the question is whether there is any defensible reason why admission to a public school should have anything at all to do with what a kid wears.

Most of the public schools in my area of DC have uniforms.

Anonymous wrote:If the idea of an opaque admissions process or finding an outfit on short notice is too stressful for your kid (or you), I seriously would reconsider if Walls is the best fit. My older child is there now and they are very happy. But there is a lot about the school that is disorganized and kids need to learn how to roll with it. It is one of the reasons why grads get credit for having "grit" in the college application process

Anonymous wrote:If the idea of an opaque admissions process or finding an outfit on short notice is too stressful for your kid (or you), I seriously would reconsider if Walls is the best fit. My older child is there now and they are very happy. But there is a lot about the school that is disorganized and kids need to learn how to roll with it. It is one of the reasons why grads get credit for having "grit" in the college application process

Anonymous wrote:The interview dates have been posted for months.

Anonymous wrote:The interview dates have been posted for months.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Again, McKinley manages to have the same Dress for Success message without shaming or stressing kids if they need to wear tennis shoes or jeans. It might be hard to imagine but some kids really truly don’t have the resources.

I would hope it’s not something that’s gonna count against a kid in reality if they’ve made an attempt to look presentable, but it speaks volumes about the culture at the school and the fact that this text has gone out year after year. They’re not ignorant about their messaging.

If this has really gone out year after year, then shouldn’t applicants be ready for it? PPs were making it sound like this was a total surprise on short notice. I get the consternation more if that had been the case (although still — it’s an interview!).