Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most of the GDS students that I know are anything but competitive.

Too kumbaya to develop competitive spirit, even in sports or test taking. That will have to be developed elsewhere or by parents.
The meeting children where they’re at includes not pushing students who don’t push themselves.

Wanted to emphasize this post, b/c this is a big GDS Fact (and why we ultimately did not send one of our DC’s to GDS). GDS is *great* for a self-starter. In fact, that’s kind of the learning model. One of our DC’s was self-starting for some things, but for a lot of things, we felt like it would be failure to launch if we left it up to DC. We’re all for growing the plant you have, but some plants will shoot up out of the ground on everything no matter what, and others need more fertilizer. GDS is a dream for a kid who is brimming with self-motivation, because the sky’s the limit. Less so for a kid who needs a little nudging and structure to meet their potential.

I am the PP who said GDS meets kids where they are at, and I don't disagree with either comment above. I will say however, that another way to look at this is that some top schools push every kid as if they are going to Harvard, when most are not. I would not necessarily say that less motivated kids are not pushed. They are pushed by the work product they are expected to produce and by the cohort they are part of, which includes many, many hyper-motivated, and yes, competitive kids. Also the teachers have the bandwidth to get to know the kids and suss out their strengths so that maybe a kid is not an A student, but he or she has other great qualities that should be acknowledged. What GDS does not do is make the less motivated (or less capable) kids feel bad about themselves or like they are failures. Russell likes to say that they are trying to raise healthy thirty-five year olds, and its one of my favorite Russellisms. It's an acknowledgment that while some 17 and 18 year olds are ready for lift off, others are still percolating, but that does not mean they don't have potential to do great things. I have a DC at a different top school whiich they love, but the whole ethos is to push, push, push constantly with a refrain of "this was good, but why wasn't it better?" That works for some kids and my kid loves it, but there must be kids at that school who feel crushed by the expectations. I think GDS balances that well.

Which DMV area top private school pushes students like you described? I am not aware of any of them like that. Please name it, or you are a troll.

Um… Sidwell. Duh

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most of the GDS students that I know are anything but competitive.

Too kumbaya to develop competitive spirit, even in sports or test taking. That will have to be developed elsewhere or by parents.
The meeting children where they’re at includes not pushing students who don’t push themselves.

Wanted to emphasize this post, b/c this is a big GDS Fact (and why we ultimately did not send one of our DC’s to GDS). GDS is *great* for a self-starter. In fact, that’s kind of the learning model. One of our DC’s was self-starting for some things, but for a lot of things, we felt like it would be failure to launch if we left it up to DC. We’re all for growing the plant you have, but some plants will shoot up out of the ground on everything no matter what, and others need more fertilizer. GDS is a dream for a kid who is brimming with self-motivation, because the sky’s the limit. Less so for a kid who needs a little nudging and structure to meet their potential.

I am the PP who said GDS meets kids where they are at, and I don't disagree with either comment above. I will say however, that another way to look at this is that some top schools push every kid as if they are going to Harvard, when most are not. I would not necessarily say that less motivated kids are not pushed. They are pushed by the work product they are expected to produce and by the cohort they are part of, which includes many, many hyper-motivated, and yes, competitive kids. Also the teachers have the bandwidth to get to know the kids and suss out their strengths so that maybe a kid is not an A student, but he or she has other great qualities that should be acknowledged. What GDS does not do is make the less motivated (or less capable) kids feel bad about themselves or like they are failures. Russell likes to say that they are trying to raise healthy thirty-five year olds, and its one of my favorite Russellisms. It's an acknowledgment that while some 17 and 18 year olds are ready for lift off, others are still percolating, but that does not mean they don't have potential to do great things. I have a DC at a different top school whiich they love, but the whole ethos is to push, push, push constantly with a refrain of "this was good, but why wasn't it better?" That works for some kids and my kid loves it, but there must be kids at that school who feel crushed by the expectations. I think GDS balances that well.

Which DMV area top private school pushes students like you described? I am not aware of any of them like that. Please name it, or you are a troll.

Um… Sidwell. Duh

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most of the GDS students that I know are anything but competitive.

Too kumbaya to develop competitive spirit, even in sports or test taking. That will have to be developed elsewhere or by parents.
The meeting children where they’re at includes not pushing students who don’t push themselves.

Wanted to emphasize this post, b/c this is a big GDS Fact (and why we ultimately did not send one of our DC’s to GDS). GDS is *great* for a self-starter. In fact, that’s kind of the learning model. One of our DC’s was self-starting for some things, but for a lot of things, we felt like it would be failure to launch if we left it up to DC. We’re all for growing the plant you have, but some plants will shoot up out of the ground on everything no matter what, and others need more fertilizer. GDS is a dream for a kid who is brimming with self-motivation, because the sky’s the limit. Less so for a kid who needs a little nudging and structure to meet their potential.

I am the PP who said GDS meets kids where they are at, and I don't disagree with either comment above. I will say however, that another way to look at this is that some top schools push every kid as if they are going to Harvard, when most are not. I would not necessarily say that less motivated kids are not pushed. They are pushed by the work product they are expected to produce and by the cohort they are part of, which includes many, many hyper-motivated, and yes, competitive kids. Also the teachers have the bandwidth to get to know the kids and suss out their strengths so that maybe a kid is not an A student, but he or she has other great qualities that should be acknowledged. What GDS does not do is make the less motivated (or less capable) kids feel bad about themselves or like they are failures. Russell likes to say that they are trying to raise healthy thirty-five year olds, and its one of my favorite Russellisms. It's an acknowledgment that while some 17 and 18 year olds are ready for lift off, others are still percolating, but that does not mean they don't have potential to do great things. I have a DC at a different top school whiich they love, but the whole ethos is to push, push, push constantly with a refrain of "this was good, but why wasn't it better?" That works for some kids and my kid loves it, but there must be kids at that school who feel crushed by the expectations. I think GDS balances that well.

Which DMV area top private school pushes students like you described? I am not aware of any of them like that. Please name it, or you are a troll.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most of the GDS students that I know are anything but competitive.

Too kumbaya to develop competitive spirit, even in sports or test taking. That will have to be developed elsewhere or by parents.
The meeting children where they’re at includes not pushing students who don’t push themselves.

Wanted to emphasize this post, b/c this is a big GDS Fact (and why we ultimately did not send one of our DC’s to GDS). GDS is *great* for a self-starter. In fact, that’s kind of the learning model. One of our DC’s was self-starting for some things, but for a lot of things, we felt like it would be failure to launch if we left it up to DC. We’re all for growing the plant you have, but some plants will shoot up out of the ground on everything no matter what, and others need more fertilizer. GDS is a dream for a kid who is brimming with self-motivation, because the sky’s the limit. Less so for a kid who needs a little nudging and structure to meet their potential.

I am the PP who said GDS meets kids where they are at, and I don't disagree with either comment above. I will say however, that another way to look at this is that some top schools push every kid as if they are going to Harvard, when most are not. I would not necessarily say that less motivated kids are not pushed. They are pushed by the work product they are expected to produce and by the cohort they are part of, which includes many, many hyper-motivated, and yes, competitive kids. Also the teachers have the bandwidth to get to know the kids and suss out their strengths so that maybe a kid is not an A student, but he or she has other great qualities that should be acknowledged. What GDS does not do is make the less motivated (or less capable) kids feel bad about themselves or like they are failures. Russell likes to say that they are trying to raise healthy thirty-five year olds, and its one of my favorite Russellisms. It's an acknowledgment that while some 17 and 18 year olds are ready for lift off, others are still percolating, but that does not mean they don't have potential to do great things. I have a DC at a different top school whiich they love, but the whole ethos is to push, push, push constantly with a refrain of "this was good, but why wasn't it better?" That works for some kids and my kid loves it, but there must be kids at that school who feel crushed by the expectations. I think GDS balances that well.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Liberals aren’t allowed to be materialistic” is one of the most illogical takes I see posted repeatedly on DCUM.

Liberals generally are concerned about inequality. How do you presume that inequality manifests? It’s obviously the quality and quantity of goods and services. It’s kind of hard to be taken seriously as someone concerned about unequal if you’re living like Louis XVI. Not to say that affluent people are required to live impoverished, but there is a morality to living humbly and frugally.

Okay I’m rich, have a lot of money for myself but also donate a ton to charity. I see women’s rights, reproductive rights (including the right to an abortion), LGBTQIA+ rights, and rights for immigrants as human rights. I’m Jewish and don’t want Christianity to be the law of the land. I want to be taxed more than poor people. I should still be a Republican though?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Since when are Mercedes SUVs ostentatious? It’s just a car. Nobody cares about what people drive. It’s not the 1980s.

Mercedes suvs, BMW x series, range rovers, denalis, suburbans. That is the big 3 fleet.

Not really. Lots of double income Wash DC urban families with smaller city cars.
The big SUV ppl are up in MoCo schools. Better parking lots for shopping, school and living…

I spend way too much time in the carpool lines at two of the big 3 schools talked about here. Sure, add Teslas in there. But this is the carpool line.

Yeah so. Go to the GDs one and report back. It’s what was said above. Plus bussing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Liberals aren’t allowed to be materialistic” is one of the most illogical takes I see posted repeatedly on DCUM.

Liberals generally are concerned about inequality. How do you presume that inequality manifests? It’s obviously the quality and quantity of goods and services. It’s kind of hard to be taken seriously as someone concerned about unequal if you’re living like Louis XVI. Not to say that affluent people are required to live impoverished, but there is a morality to living humbly and frugally.

Okay I’m rich, have a lot of money for myself but also donate a ton to charity. I see women’s rights, reproductive rights (including the right to an abortion), LGBTQIA+ rights, and rights for immigrants as human rights. I’m Jewish and don’t want Christianity to be the law of the land. I want to be taxed more than poor people. I should still be a Republican though?

If you had as much sense as you claim to have dollars, then yes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Liberals aren’t allowed to be materialistic” is one of the most illogical takes I see posted repeatedly on DCUM.

Liberals generally are concerned about inequality. How do you presume that inequality manifests? It’s obviously the quality and quantity of goods and services. It’s kind of hard to be taken seriously as someone concerned about unequal if you’re living like Louis XVI. Not to say that affluent people are required to live impoverished, but there is a morality to living humbly and frugally.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most of the GDS students that I know are anything but competitive.

Too kumbaya to develop competitive spirit, even in sports or test taking. That will have to be developed elsewhere or by parents.
The meeting children where they’re at includes not pushing students who don’t push themselves.

Wanted to emphasize this post, b/c this is a big GDS Fact (and why we ultimately did not send one of our DC’s to GDS). GDS is *great* for a self-starter. In fact, that’s kind of the learning model. One of our DC’s was self-starting for some things, but for a lot of things, we felt like it would be failure to launch if we left it up to DC. We’re all for growing the plant you have, but some plants will shoot up out of the ground on everything no matter what, and others need more fertilizer. GDS is a dream for a kid who is brimming with self-motivation, because the sky’s the limit. Less so for a kid who needs a little nudging and structure to meet their potential.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Liberals aren’t allowed to be materialistic” is one of the most illogical takes I see posted repeatedly on DCUM.

Liberals generally are concerned about inequality. How do you presume that inequality manifests? It’s obviously the quality and quantity of goods and services. It’s kind of hard to be taken seriously as someone concerned about unequal if you’re living like Louis XVI. Not to say that affluent people are required to live impoverished, but there is a morality to living humbly and frugally.

Okay I’m rich, have a lot of money for myself but also donate a ton to charity. I see women’s rights, reproductive rights (including the right to an abortion), LGBTQIA+ rights, and rights for immigrants as human rights. I’m Jewish and don’t want Christianity to be the law of the land. I want to be taxed more than poor people. I should still be a Republican though?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Since when are Mercedes SUVs ostentatious? It’s just a car. Nobody cares about what people drive. It’s not the 1980s.

Mercedes suvs, BMW x series, range rovers, denalis, suburbans. That is the big 3 fleet.

Not really. Lots of double income Wash DC urban families with smaller city cars.
The big SUV ppl are up in MoCo schools. Better parking lots for shopping, school and living…

I spend way too much time in the carpool lines at two of the big 3 schools talked about here. Sure, add Teslas in there. But this is the carpool line.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Liberals aren’t allowed to be materialistic” is one of the most illogical takes I see posted repeatedly on DCUM.

Liberals generally are concerned about inequality. How do you presume that inequality manifests? It’s obviously the quality and quantity of goods and services. It’s kind of hard to be taken seriously as someone concerned about unequal if you’re living like Louis XVI. Not to say that affluent people are required to live impoverished, but there is a morality to living humbly and frugally.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most of the GDS students that I know are anything but competitive.

Too kumbaya to develop competitive spirit, even in sports or test taking. That will have to be developed elsewhere or by parents.
The meeting children where they’re at includes not pushing students who don’t push themselves.

Wanted to emphasize this post, b/c this is a big GDS Fact (and why we ultimately did not send one of our DC’s to GDS). GDS is *great* for a self-starter. In fact, that’s kind of the learning model. One of our DC’s was self-starting for some things, but for a lot of things, we felt like it would be failure to launch if we left it up to DC. We’re all for growing the plant you have, but some plants will shoot up out of the ground on everything no matter what, and others need more fertilizer. GDS is a dream for a kid who is brimming with self-motivation, because the sky’s the limit. Less so for a kid who needs a little nudging and structure to meet their potential.

I am the PP who said GDS meets kids where they are at, and I don't disagree with either comment above. I will say however, that another way to look at this is that some top schools push every kid as if they are going to Harvard, when most are not. I would not necessarily say that less motivated kids are not pushed. They are pushed by the work product they are expected to produce and by the cohort they are part of, which includes many, many hyper-motivated, and yes, competitive kids. Also the teachers have the bandwidth to get to know the kids and suss out their strengths so that maybe a kid is not an A student, but he or she has other great qualities that should be acknowledged. What GDS does not do is make the less motivated (or less capable) kids feel bad about themselves or like they are failures. Russell likes to say that they are trying to raise healthy thirty-five year olds, and its one of my favorite Russellisms. It's an acknowledgment that while some 17 and 18 year olds are ready for lift off, others are still percolating, but that does not mean they don't have potential to do great things. I have a DC at a different top school whiich they love, but the whole ethos is to push, push, push constantly with a refrain of "this was good, but why wasn't it better?" That works for some kids and my kid loves it, but there must be kids at that school who feel crushed by the expectations. I think GDS balances that well.