Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I didn’t get into the colleges I wanted to go to and that everyone around me thought I would get in — many students have this experience.

Did I sue? No. I went to my safety school, studied hard, and later transferred to my top-choice school.

There are no guarantees. It is a subjective process and luck plays a big role.

You were not wronged in the process. That is the point of the case. Not knows what your academic profile looks like

How do you know it’s a perfect process? If you really want to accuse the school, you can always find out something improper. The majority of people are reasonable so they won’t do that. From any aspect the girl did not have a profile that guaranteed his admission. She didn’t have any impressive national level awards for academics (math, writing, debating, Intel, etc.) or ECs. I have heard enough stories about students winning national awards not getting into the Ivies they wanted to attend.

She appears to hold Sidwell’s school record for the 100 meter dash.
https://www.athletic.net/TrackAndField/SchoolRecords.aspx?SchoolID=14932

She also ran track at Penn. I would call that an impressive EC.

athletic preferences at ivy league schools are such a scam. i love that brown university has the same number of varsity athletes as the university of michigan. to get on a team at michigan -- say, swimming, well, you are probably going to the olympics. brown? not so much.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/bribery-scandal-points-to-the-athletic-factor-a-major-force-in-college-admissions/2019/06/12/b2fc39dc-7e3a-11e9-8bb7-0fc796cf2ec0_story.html?utm_term=.47fe1be14688

Not the point. She was DC state champ who continues to hold a sidwell school record five years after she left, not a kid who pretended to be on a crew team on instagram. She was qualified candidate with much to offer.

She may have had an impressive track record, but it doesn't mean she was at the level where they were interested in recruiting her. Just being very good at a sport doesn't do you any good if you don't reach recruitment level. It seems to me she was right at the cusp of that level.

Not sure that the schools she applied to care about track.

Sure they do, but not every good athlete will get recruited by every school. A lot will depend on whether the team needs more sprinters, say, or throwers, or hurdlers -- whatever that particular student's specialty is. Additionally, college coaches will check with HS coaches to find out whether the student is coachable and shows promise of improving, and, generally, speaking whether s/he is a pain in the butt. My understanding is that this student would not have been recommended by the SFS coach in this regard. In any case, it appears that some colleges expressed interest in recruiting the student (e.g., Brown), but she didn't apply to those schools. And even if she had applied to those schools, there's nothing to say that the expression of interest would have resulted in an offer by the coach to support her application.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If talking about the impact of this case, all parties involved have got hurt and there is no winner. Sidwell’s reputation has been damaged for sure. So does the girl and her family. People become more negative to private schools and their parents as a community. The affirmative action and URM get most hurt eventually. This case will be used as an example to demonstrate how rich people abuse affirmative action to benefit their children.

Oh please. You have created your own narrative. How does one abuse affirmative action?

Affirmative action is supposed to help people who could use a boost because of adversity and disadvantage. It is not supposed to be for the advantaged children of successful doctors, investment bankers and law partners.

There is broad recognition that even affluent POC are subject to racism and discrimination. These things don't cease once your education or bank account reaches a certain level.

POC?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Affirmative action is supposed to help people who could use a boost because of adversity and disadvantage. It is not supposed to be for the advantaged children of successful doctors, investment bankers and law partners.

You would have us believe that financially well-off URMs don't experience discrimination and other disparate treatment in this world?

It's to even the playing field in college admissions. A wealthy URM doesn't need an extra boost to get into Yale. The bright son or daughter of a cleaning woman may.

Anonymous wrote:While I recognize that racism is prevalent, I find it hard to believe that a school like Sidwell systematically discriminated against this one student on the basis of her race. No other students/families have jumped on the bandwagon and made similar claims.

Agree with the Bryan Garman comment. Get someone in there who isn't just worried about politics.

Didn't this happen on Tom F's watch?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If talking about the impact of this case, all parties involved have got hurt and there is no winner. Sidwell’s reputation has been damaged for sure. So does the girl and her family. People become more negative to private schools and their parents as a community. The affirmative action and URM get most hurt eventually. This case will be used as an example to demonstrate how rich people abuse affirmative action to benefit their children.

Oh please. You have created your own narrative. How does one abuse affirmative action?

Affirmative action is supposed to help people who could use a boost because of adversity and disadvantage. It is not supposed to be for the advantaged children of successful doctors, investment bankers and law partners.

There is broad recognition that even affluent POC are subject to racism and discrimination. These things don't cease once your education or bank account reaches a certain level.

Uh, so how do they change with a Harvard diploma?

Agreed. The school has to be honest with the colleges if someone is that much a nightmare.

The school is under no obligation to write falsely glowing letters on your behalf just to get you into the college you think you're entitled to attend.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, you may think all you want about how frivolous the suit is but Sidwell didn’t behave properly towards the girl.

This whole thing is dumb. If you sue your school over grades, you are probably a crazy person. If you think you can appeal such a ridiculous case to the Supreme Court, you are probably a really crazy person. And you should expect the school to retaliate or at least not support your admission anywhere. If I was Sidwell, I would tell every school not to take someone like this. You can't burn bridges with people and then ask them to help you.

However, it is the family's right to take legal action. Following the due process does not make you crazy. Retaliation preceded the lawsuit.

Suing over the grades someone got in high school -- especially in math (because we all know how subjective math grades can be, right?) -- seems utterly and completely ridiculous. And I'm sure this lawsuit did not come out of the blue. I'm sure the family and the school had been fighting over this for years before they went to court. They can fight Sidwell tooth and nail over some stupid math score but then they shouldnt expect the school to do them any favors. If I was at Sidwell, I would write a "recommendation" that made clear the college should not take the student.

Breaking...Supreme Court shock nobody by not hearing the case

While I recognize that racism is prevalent, I find it hard to believe that a school like Sidwell systematically discriminated against this one student on the basis of her race. No other students/families have jumped on the bandwagon and made similar claims.

Agree with the Bryan Garman comment. Get someone in there who isn't just worried about politics.

Anonymous wrote:Affirmative action is supposed to help people who could use a boost because of adversity and disadvantage. It is not supposed to be for the advantaged children of successful doctors, investment bankers and law partners.

You would have us believe that financially well-off URMs don't experience discrimination and other disparate treatment in this world?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If talking about the impact of this case, all parties involved have got hurt and there is no winner. Sidwell’s reputation has been damaged for sure. So does the girl and her family. People become more negative to private schools and their parents as a community. The affirmative action and URM get most hurt eventually. This case will be used as an example to demonstrate how rich people abuse affirmative action to benefit their children.

Oh please. You have created your own narrative. How does one abuse affirmative action?

Affirmative action is supposed to help people who could use a boost because of adversity and disadvantage. It is not supposed to be for the advantaged children of successful doctors, investment bankers and law partners.

There is broad recognition that even affluent POC are subject to racism and discrimination. These things don't cease once your education or bank account reaches a certain level.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If talking about the impact of this case, all parties involved have got hurt and there is no winner. Sidwell’s reputation has been damaged for sure. So does the girl and her family. People become more negative to private schools and their parents as a community. The affirmative action and URM get most hurt eventually. This case will be used as an example to demonstrate how rich people abuse affirmative action to benefit their children.

Oh please. You have created your own narrative. How does one abuse affirmative action?

Affirmative action is supposed to help people who could use a boost because of adversity and disadvantage. It is not supposed to be for the advantaged children of successful doctors, investment bankers and law partners.

How much longer is the board going to keep Bryan Garman around? Not only has he not done anything, several of his decisions are suspect. And I was one of his biggest supporters early on. But he's been a total disappointment.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is what I am thinking. The issue is they tried to hurt her and not help. One thing if you don’t get in when field is level and quite another if you find an institution is working against you.

They have to be honest to the colleges. If she and her family were a PIA, then how can they say she is a "top" candidate to the schools where they need to keep credibility?

This is all relative. What if you found out a school was misrepresenting your child's grades. You would be upset. The parents by the way should play zero role in your college recommendation. It should be all about the kid. I have heard zero about this child being a bad kid. I think the parents are doing a great service by letting people know that schools may inhibit your child getting into schools. Schools should be fair for all their kids.

I think the parents have done a major disservice for their daughter, who is now effectively unemployable. No way I hire this person if I do a google search and see this lawsuit. Especially after she has lost twice, to take it to the Supreme Court is brutal. What if I need to fire her, or RIF her for any reason? To fear an unjustified lawsuit from a job applicant? No way.

Depends on perspective, doesn’t it? There are employers who may applaud her courage. Some AA families feel they’ve been treated similarly and are happy someone is finally taking this on. She competed in track at Penn and was a leader in the society for black engineers. She’s marketable and has demonstrated leadership. She also may end up being an entrepreneur.

She will have to be an entrepreneur because no company or institution will be eager to hire her.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know this has probably passed but reading the legal paperwork, i have to say 93.11% is NEVER an A- its a flat A.

I don't think its cut and dry. I think that egregious mistakes were probably made on both sides, as reflected by the ruling.

Every school has its own grading policy and scale. NCS doesn’t give minuses, for example.

Uh, is a 93 a B at NCS?