Anonymous wrote:

I am familiar with St Anselms. I know someone who works there and several families with sons there. The boys who attend are all, except one, exceptionally smart but also quirky, and all but two display some attributes of neu-differences. All are very high functioning and capable of operating in the normal world. They just would not get in to, say Sidwell or STA, because their behavioral quirks are too outside the "norm" from those completely mainstream and rigorous schools.

My DS goes there. Most of the kids do not have neu-differences. Some do, including my DS, but most do not. Many kids go there not because they couldn't get into Sidwell but because they come from families that are Catholic and value the religious aspect of the school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:12:30 pretty much echoes what our neuropsych said about St. Anselm's and Field. I have a kid who is NOT NT but with a high IQ and we are considering middle schools for when he's older.

Field while a good school does not have the intense academic pressure of STA, Sidwell or St Anselm's and that's reflected in where the kids go to college. It's great for kids who need a smaller, more nurturing environment. That does not make it a "lesser" school just different.

Field kids go to a range of colleges. In the last year or two they've sent grads to Stanford, Wesleyan, Oberlin as well as whatever you are referring to. I agree that its great for kids who need (though I would add want) a more nurturing environment. It is that. It does not have the intense academic pressure of the other schools, correct. I reacted to the implication in the previous thread that these are kids who couldn't cut it in other schools. There are plenty of students at Field who affirmatively chose a school that doesn't have a competitive vibe, including students who leave the more competitive schools.

Yes, the students chose a school with a less competitive nurturing vibe but Field academically is not in the same league as Sidwell, GDS, STA, St Anelm's etc. It just isn't but that's what you are giving up when you have a school that chooses not to focus on the academics as much to have a less competitive environment. No APs or IB. The kid going to Stanford, etc is more the exception than the rule for Field. You need to stop being so defensive. Field is a good school for what it is and as long as your kid is thriving there, why do you care. It isn't Sidwell, Marat, GDS and for the kids at Field, that's a good thing.

I don't think we disagree. (Although I would say pretty much all Field students are the exception rather than the rule, thats kind of the Field thing). But you are saying something different from "students go to Field because they have to" or some variant of that thats turned up on this thread. I would never say its like Sidwell, Maret or GDS -- thats exactly the point.

Anonymous wrote:But Field has the potential to surpass GDS and Maret with its campus and the growing demand for a progressive HS alternative.

But Field has the potential to surpass GDS and Maret with its campus and the growing demand for a progressive HS alternative.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:12:30 pretty much echoes what our neuropsych said about St. Anselm's and Field. I have a kid who is NOT NT but with a high IQ and we are considering middle schools for when he's older.

Field while a good school does not have the intense academic pressure of STA, Sidwell or St Anselm's and that's reflected in where the kids go to college. It's great for kids who need a smaller, more nurturing environment. That does not make it a "lesser" school just different.

Field kids go to a range of colleges. In the last year or two they've sent grads to Stanford, Wesleyan, Oberlin as well as whatever you are referring to. I agree that its great for kids who need (though I would add want) a more nurturing environment. It is that. It does not have the intense academic pressure of the other schools, correct. I reacted to the implication in the previous thread that these are kids who couldn't cut it in other schools. There are plenty of students at Field who affirmatively chose a school that doesn't have a competitive vibe, including students who leave the more competitive schools.

Yes, the students chose a school with a less competitive nurturing vibe but Field academically is not in the same league as Sidwell, GDS, STA, St Anelm's etc. It just isn't but that's what you are giving up when you have a school that chooses not to focus on the academics as much to have a less competitive environment. No APs or IB. The kid going to Stanford, etc is more the exception than the rule for Field. You need to stop being so defensive. Field is a good school for what it is and as long as your kid is thriving there, why do you care. It isn't Sidwell, Marat, GDS and for the kids at Field, that's a good thing.

Oops, I just noticed you're a new poster. Sorry about saying you keep coming back.

Anonymous wrote:New poster here. I feel like, lately, there are some pretty persnickety parents who keep insisting on turning these threads into referendums on the wonderfulness that is Field School. I do not know the school well and so will not comment on its attributes except for one: it is really small. We would never look at a school that small for our children unless they had a particular need for it. That does not mean I am obsessed with Sidwell or NCS/STA, just that it is a major issue for may of us that already worry abut our kids being over-nurtured/over-coddled in private school.

OK, I agree that I'm the other half of the reason this thread has focused on Field (you keep coming back as well). If you think Field is too small, then thats a good reason not to send your kid there. But thats very different from saying other parents would reach the same conclusion (only if my DC needed it) or that, as you wrote before, only kids who can't cut it at other schools go to Field. Field isn't for you, fine. Totally cool. But that doesn't mean there aren't plenty of other parents who want to send their kids there for reasons other than nothing else works. You have some kind of issue about, as you put it, kids being over-coddled at private schools, that is leading you to draw all sorts of conclusions about Field that are really just a reflection of your own issues.

My DC came to Field from a smaller school. I can think of several smaller privates off the top of my head. Field is small but its not that small. Most privates in this area are small. I always thought that was a big reason people sent their kids to private school.

New poster here. I feel like, lately, there are some pretty persnickety parents who keep insisting on turning these threads into referendums on the wonderfulness that is Field School. I do not know the school well and so will not comment on its attributes except for one: it is really small. We would never look at a school that small for our children unless they had a particular need for it. That does not mean I am obsessed with Sidwell or NCS/STA, just that it is a major issue for may of us that already worry abut our kids being over-nurtured/over-coddled in private school.

Anonymous wrote:12:30 pretty much echoes what our neuropsych said about St. Anselm's and Field. I have a kid who is NOT NT but with a high IQ and we are considering middle schools for when he's older.

Field while a good school does not have the intense academic pressure of STA, Sidwell or St Anselm's and that's reflected in where the kids go to college. It's great for kids who need a smaller, more nurturing environment. That does not make it a "lesser" school just different.

Field kids go to a range of colleges. In the last year or two they've sent grads to Stanford, Wesleyan, Oberlin as well as whatever you are referring to. I agree that its great for kids who need (though I would add want) a more nurturing environment. It is that. It does not have the intense academic pressure of the other schools, correct. I reacted to the implication in the previous thread that these are kids who couldn't cut it in other schools. There are plenty of students at Field who affirmatively chose a school that doesn't have a competitive vibe, including students who leave the more competitive schools.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I haven't read this whole thread but this is very hard to quantify. I haven't seen anyone post admissions numbers to prove what some are saying. And just to throw in another factor, I also know from friends who applied that NCS and Sidwell are pulling from their wait lists for next years' admissions which means people are turning them down as well so they are getting the cream of the crop they wanted. There is just so much at play here to measure this.

Well, that's a pretty silly conclusion. None of the top schools have 100% yield (the % of students who accept an offer). They have always drawn from the waitlist. Good Lord, even Harvard draws from its waitlist and it only admitted 5.8 % of applicants this year.

The information on percentage applicants admitted and percent offered who accepted is available. I don't have time to look it up this morning. If you want to know, Google it maybe.

All schools accept more students than they have room for, gambling on how many will accept their offer. They do not however all go to their wait lists! I work in the industry and won't identify myself but can tell you that not all private schools are pulling off of their wait lists!

Not true. Not all schools accept more students than they have room for, because if they get it wrong, they are overenrolled. Acceptance based on historical grades occurs for higher grades (MS and US). And, as most schools have to be fairly conservative on calculating based on yield, most leave sufficient cushion so they're not facing an over-enrollment situation. That said, Sidwell got it wrong recently for an 8th grade class, and overenrolled. Not pleasant for the teachers or the kids.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I haven't read this whole thread but this is very hard to quantify. I haven't seen anyone post admissions numbers to prove what some are saying. And just to throw in another factor, I also know from friends who applied that NCS and Sidwell are pulling from their wait lists for next years' admissions which means people are turning them down as well so they are getting the cream of the crop they wanted. There is just so much at play here to measure this.

Well, that's a pretty silly conclusion. None of the top schools have 100% yield (the % of students who accept an offer). They have always drawn from the waitlist. Good Lord, even Harvard draws from its waitlist and it only admitted 5.8 % of applicants this year.

The information on percentage applicants admitted and percent offered who accepted is available. I don't have time to look it up this morning. If you want to know, Google it maybe.

All schools accept more students than they have room for, gambling on how many will accept their offer. They do not however all go to their wait lists! I work in the industry and won't identify myself but can tell you that not all private schools are pulling off of their wait lists!

12:30 pretty much echoes what our neuropsych said about St. Anselm's and Field. I have a kid who is NOT NT but with a high IQ and we are considering middle schools for when he's older.

Field while a good school does not have the intense academic pressure of STA, Sidwell or St Anselm's and that's reflected in where the kids go to college. It's great for kids who need a smaller, more nurturing environment. That does not make it a "lesser" school just different.

Sorry for the typos.

12:30 you really truly do not know what you are talking about. Field is no less structured than any if the other schools mentioned. It has pretty rigid course requirements and limited electives. There is a difference between being supportive and nurturing on the one hand and less structured on the other. You are still making Field seem like a school for lesser-than kids. If that we're true they wouldn't be so overwhelmed with applications. Field doesn't want to be a Big3 school and that's the difference.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People are confusing hard to get into because the school is a top school and only takes the very best students (Maret, Sidwell, STA/NCS) with schools that cater to a niche that is underserved and so has limited spots (St Anselms and Field). The later group of school are fantastic but really serve a very specific populAction, not the traditional neuro-typical academic superstar.

It's now clear that you are not familiar with St Anselms and who attends St Anselms.

I am familiar with St Anselms. I know someone who works there and several families with sons there. The boys who attend are all, except one, exceptionally smart but also quirky, and all but two display some attributes of neu-differences. All are very high functioning and capable of operating in the normal world. They just would not get in to, say Sidwell or STA, because their behavioral quirks are too outside the "norm" from those completely mainstream and rigorous schools.

I was absolutely not suggesting that Field is a special needs school. Far from it, really. Field is a school for kids who don't really like the mainstream and aren't able or willing to function in the high stress, highly competitive, very traditional academic environment at the top schools. Field is a great school but its for kids who need/want to do things in a less structured, more flexible environment with more artistic options and choices. These are kids who might really like Maret or Sidwell or GDS but aren't likely to get in due to their less intense attitude toward (or maybe aptitude for) serious academics.