Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whoever said this about the SWW interview process nailed it:

“The purpose of this is not to get a meaningful, predictive metric. Obviously. If it were, everyone would get the same questions, there would be training for graders, extremely clear rating rubrics, testing to make sure everyone is on the same page about what should get a good score.”

I still can’t believe that they are having current kids RATE prospective kids in the interview, and it matters for the outcome. And apparently no/little training of those kid interviewers?? If a 10th grade girl thinks most boys are icky, and rates them lower, oh well!!!! Them’s the breaks!!!!! (oh but all Walls students are geniuses so we should all implicitly trust their judgement)

It's far worse than that...more likely, the 10th grade girl (who is supposed to help determine "fit" of the interviewee) thinks the interviewee is a little nerdy and therefore a poor fit. Or the 10th grade girl is friends with the interviewee's older sister and- what do you know- the interviewee is a perfect fit for the school!

Anonymous wrote:I’m pretty new here. I don’t get why so many of these posts have nothing to do with the initial topic. Why not start a different topic to debate the merits of The System or the quality of SWW’s student body or DCPS policies? This thread was simply about SWW interview notices, expanding a bit to include related info like interview details. Posting here to complain about capitalism or the system or the school or denigrate the student body can accomplish exactly nothing and isn’t helpful in addressing the actual topic (SWW interviews). So why do that here if it accomplishes nothing and helps no one?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whoever said this about the SWW interview process nailed it:

“The purpose of this is not to get a meaningful, predictive metric. Obviously. If it were, everyone would get the same questions, there would be training for graders, extremely clear rating rubrics, testing to make sure everyone is on the same page about what should get a good score.”

I still can’t believe that they are having current kids RATE prospective kids in the interview, and it matters for the outcome. And apparently no/little training of those kid interviewers?? If a 10th grade girl thinks most boys are icky, and rates them lower, oh well!!!! Them’s the breaks!!!!! (oh but all Walls students are geniuses so we should all implicitly trust their judgement)

This is blatantly unfactual, but it would take a while to explain the history and current process. Maybe after the interviews are over I'll repost here to give an explanation. It's only fair for all students to go in cold and have the same experience. Good luck to all that got invitations for interviews, best of luck to those that didn't.

Why would having a detailed rubric with examples of how responses should get scored and assessing student interviewers' ability to reliably grade mean that students wouldn't have the same experience?

I'm not PP, but I think it's pretty clear that if PP posted that information, the kids who have yet to interview AND have family members reading this board would have an advantage over all the rest of the kids.

PP, I for one would like to read what you have to say after the interview process is over!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whoever said this about the SWW interview process nailed it:

“The purpose of this is not to get a meaningful, predictive metric. Obviously. If it were, everyone would get the same questions, there would be training for graders, extremely clear rating rubrics, testing to make sure everyone is on the same page about what should get a good score.”

I still can’t believe that they are having current kids RATE prospective kids in the interview, and it matters for the outcome. And apparently no/little training of those kid interviewers?? If a 10th grade girl thinks most boys are icky, and rates them lower, oh well!!!! Them’s the breaks!!!!! (oh but all Walls students are geniuses so we should all implicitly trust their judgement)

This is blatantly unfactual, but it would take a while to explain the history and current process. Maybe after the interviews are over I'll repost here to give an explanation. It's only fair for all students to go in cold and have the same experience. Good luck to all that got invitations for interviews, best of luck to those that didn't.

Why would having a detailed rubric with examples of how responses should get scored and assessing student interviewers' ability to reliably grade mean that students wouldn't have the same experience?

Anonymous wrote:Please, please, please send your bright, high-achieving kids to MacArthur. My DC will be there the following year and would love to have a strong cohort of fellow students. No convoluted process required!

Anonymous wrote:Please, please, please send your bright, high-achieving kids to MacArthur. My DC will be there the following year and would love to have a strong cohort of fellow students. No convoluted process required!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whoever said this about the SWW interview process nailed it:

“The purpose of this is not to get a meaningful, predictive metric. Obviously. If it were, everyone would get the same questions, there would be training for graders, extremely clear rating rubrics, testing to make sure everyone is on the same page about what should get a good score.”

I still can’t believe that they are having current kids RATE prospective kids in the interview, and it matters for the outcome. And apparently no/little training of those kid interviewers?? If a 10th grade girl thinks most boys are icky, and rates them lower, oh well!!!! Them’s the breaks!!!!! (oh but all Walls students are geniuses so we should all implicitly trust their judgement)

It's far worse than that...more likely, the 10th grade girl (who is supposed to help determine "fit" of the interviewee) thinks the interviewee is a little nerdy and therefore a poor fit. Or the 10th grade girl is friends with the interviewee's older sister and- what do you know- the interviewee is a perfect fit for the school!

Even worse supposedly a lot of very attractive girls have been admitted the last few years….may be a bad idea allowing horny teenage boys to decide who gets admitted.

I think the earlier posts about not denigrating the student body are a little silly. Identifying problems with the current process or saying that it doesn't reliably give the 300 best students interviews, or the best 150 students spots doesn't really "denigrate" anyone. It doesn't mean any one of the students who does get an offer *isn't* one of the best 150 students -- just that the process doesn't reliably yield a group of all of the best.

But this stuff that keeps going around about the attractiveness of the students does strike me as pretty toxic. And SO weird honestly. I wish people would lay off this subject.

Yeahhh. "Most of the kids from my child's Deal Algebra 2 class were turned down" seems like a) something someone could know, and b) a relevant fact. But no one is in the position to know that there are more 'very attractive' 14-year-olds being admitted now than there used to be unless they were engaging in a level of study on this topic that hopefully no one is. And the student interview stuff is weird enough without this kind of speculation: I think everyone implicitly understands the pitfalls of having teenagers playing a significant role in admissions.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whoever said this about the SWW interview process nailed it:

“The purpose of this is not to get a meaningful, predictive metric. Obviously. If it were, everyone would get the same questions, there would be training for graders, extremely clear rating rubrics, testing to make sure everyone is on the same page about what should get a good score.”

I still can’t believe that they are having current kids RATE prospective kids in the interview, and it matters for the outcome. And apparently no/little training of those kid interviewers?? If a 10th grade girl thinks most boys are icky, and rates them lower, oh well!!!! Them’s the breaks!!!!! (oh but all Walls students are geniuses so we should all implicitly trust their judgement)

It's far worse than that...more likely, the 10th grade girl (who is supposed to help determine "fit" of the interviewee) thinks the interviewee is a little nerdy and therefore a poor fit. Or the 10th grade girl is friends with the interviewee's older sister and- what do you know- the interviewee is a perfect fit for the school!

Even worse supposedly a lot of very attractive girls have been admitted the last few years….may be a bad idea allowing horny teenage boys to decide who gets admitted.

I think the earlier posts about not denigrating the student body are a little silly. Identifying problems with the current process or saying that it doesn't reliably give the 300 best students interviews, or the best 150 students spots doesn't really "denigrate" anyone. It doesn't mean any one of the students who does get an offer *isn't* one of the best 150 students -- just that the process doesn't reliably yield a group of all of the best.

But this stuff that keeps going around about the attractiveness of the students does strike me as pretty toxic. And SO weird honestly. I wish people would lay off this subject.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whoever said this about the SWW interview process nailed it:

“The purpose of this is not to get a meaningful, predictive metric. Obviously. If it were, everyone would get the same questions, there would be training for graders, extremely clear rating rubrics, testing to make sure everyone is on the same page about what should get a good score.”

I still can’t believe that they are having current kids RATE prospective kids in the interview, and it matters for the outcome. And apparently no/little training of those kid interviewers?? If a 10th grade girl thinks most boys are icky, and rates them lower, oh well!!!! Them’s the breaks!!!!! (oh but all Walls students are geniuses so we should all implicitly trust their judgement)

This is blatantly unfactual, but it would take a while to explain the history and current process. Maybe after the interviews are over I'll repost here to give an explanation. It's only fair for all students to go in cold and have the same experience. Good luck to all that got invitations for interviews, best of luck to those that didn't.

Anonymous wrote:Whoever said this about the SWW interview process nailed it:

“The purpose of this is not to get a meaningful, predictive metric. Obviously. If it were, everyone would get the same questions, there would be training for graders, extremely clear rating rubrics, testing to make sure everyone is on the same page about what should get a good score.”

I still can’t believe that they are having current kids RATE prospective kids in the interview, and it matters for the outcome. And apparently no/little training of those kid interviewers?? If a 10th grade girl thinks most boys are icky, and rates them lower, oh well!!!! Them’s the breaks!!!!! (oh but all Walls students are geniuses so we should all implicitly trust their judgement)

Anonymous wrote:Whoever said this about the SWW interview process nailed it:

“The purpose of this is not to get a meaningful, predictive metric. Obviously. If it were, everyone would get the same questions, there would be training for graders, extremely clear rating rubrics, testing to make sure everyone is on the same page about what should get a good score.”

I still can’t believe that they are having current kids RATE prospective kids in the interview, and it matters for the outcome. And apparently no/little training of those kid interviewers?? If a 10th grade girl thinks most boys are icky, and rates them lower, oh well!!!! Them’s the breaks!!!!! (oh but all Walls students are geniuses so we should all implicitly trust their judgement)

Anonymous wrote:I’m pretty new here. I don’t get why so many of these posts have nothing to do with the initial topic. Why not start a different topic to debate the merits of The System or the quality of SWW’s student body or DCPS policies? This thread was simply about SWW interview notices, expanding a bit to include related info like interview details. Posting here to complain about capitalism or the system or the school or denigrate the student body can accomplish exactly nothing and isn’t helpful in addressing the actual topic (SWW interviews). So why do that here if it accomplishes nothing and helps no one?