Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thanks for posting that link....a couple of things jump out:

1) a 3.8 GPA is regarded the same as a 4.0 for the purpose of their rubric...given how easy grading is (at least at my child's middle school), that's really interesting. A child who has two B+, two A-s and one A in the five core classes (and As in PE, Music, Art, and Health) would be given the same 5 points as a kid with all As.

2) The 31/36 points given to the interview is just bizarre. Where on earth did they come up with that ratio and do they provide the specific rubric for that anywhere? 86% weight for the subjective interview seems like a recipe for abuse.....

This is the issue I have with the GPA cutoff - a 4.0 from some schools is not the same as a 4.0 from others. Some kids will be well prepared for the Walls curriculum, some won't.

That’s the case in high school, college, and life. Some people will be better prepared academically than others because…they attended schools that provided “better” preparation. A student who earns a 4.0 (and attends) a Title 1 middle school should have a chance to attend Walls. That student may be a very hard worker that can make up for lost ground. It’s not that student’s fault they attended a poorly resourced school. Those students bloomed where they were planted, and likely overcame hardship and trauma you can’t imagine.

Remember, talent is equally distributed. Opportunity is not.

I agree, but I don’t think an interview solves this. Have quotas by assigned high school, teacher or school recommendations, or something to spread the opportunity. But we have no idea if the interview questions are supposed to target one demographic or another, or what problem the interview is trying to solve. Totally arbitrary, or, worse, biased.

Compounded by the fact that current students are part of the interview team...but I'm sure teenagers are super objective in their assessment of other teenagers and use only the most appropriate factors to determine "fit."

I recently heard that Walls students are allowed to be part of the interview team even if they have siblings in the applicant pool--that can't possibly be true, right? Do they do anything to establish basic ethics rules around these interviews?

That can't be true...they can't possibly think it's okay for current students to interview if their siblings are in the mix. Even if they don't interview their own siblings, they could very well interview friends' sibilings (or siblings' friends). How do we find out if this is accurate and (before it's too late) put pressure on them to stop this practice?

We are hoping for Walls and I also find this (if true) unethical and concerning. But if we reach out for clarification, will that be a black mark against my child? How are these schools held accountable for fair practices?

Don't overthink it, there is no blacklist if you ask questions.
Just call the school and clarify, no biggie

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thanks for posting that link....a couple of things jump out:

1) a 3.8 GPA is regarded the same as a 4.0 for the purpose of their rubric...given how easy grading is (at least at my child's middle school), that's really interesting. A child who has two B+, two A-s and one A in the five core classes (and As in PE, Music, Art, and Health) would be given the same 5 points as a kid with all As.

2) The 31/36 points given to the interview is just bizarre. Where on earth did they come up with that ratio and do they provide the specific rubric for that anywhere? 86% weight for the subjective interview seems like a recipe for abuse.....

This is the issue I have with the GPA cutoff - a 4.0 from some schools is not the same as a 4.0 from others. Some kids will be well prepared for the Walls curriculum, some won't.

That’s the case in high school, college, and life. Some people will be better prepared academically than others because…they attended schools that provided “better” preparation. A student who earns a 4.0 (and attends) a Title 1 middle school should have a chance to attend Walls. That student may be a very hard worker that can make up for lost ground. It’s not that student’s fault they attended a poorly resourced school. Those students bloomed where they were planted, and likely overcame hardship and trauma you can’t imagine.

Remember, talent is equally distributed. Opportunity is not.

I agree, but I don’t think an interview solves this. Have quotas by assigned high school, teacher or school recommendations, or something to spread the opportunity. But we have no idea if the interview questions are supposed to target one demographic or another, or what problem the interview is trying to solve. Totally arbitrary, or, worse, biased.

Compounded by the fact that current students are part of the interview team...but I'm sure teenagers are super objective in their assessment of other teenagers and use only the most appropriate factors to determine "fit."

I recently heard that Walls students are allowed to be part of the interview team even if they have siblings in the applicant pool--that can't possibly be true, right? Do they do anything to establish basic ethics rules around these interviews?

That can't be true...they can't possibly think it's okay for current students to interview if their siblings are in the mix. Even if they don't interview their own siblings, they could very well interview friends' sibilings (or siblings' friends). How do we find out if this is accurate and (before it's too late) put pressure on them to stop this practice?

We are hoping for Walls and I also find this (if true) unethical and concerning. But if we reach out for clarification, will that be a black mark against my child? How are these schools held accountable for fair practices?

Don't overthink it, there is no blacklist if you ask questions.
Just call the school and clarify, no biggie

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thanks for posting that link....a couple of things jump out:

1) a 3.8 GPA is regarded the same as a 4.0 for the purpose of their rubric...given how easy grading is (at least at my child's middle school), that's really interesting. A child who has two B+, two A-s and one A in the five core classes (and As in PE, Music, Art, and Health) would be given the same 5 points as a kid with all As.

2) The 31/36 points given to the interview is just bizarre. Where on earth did they come up with that ratio and do they provide the specific rubric for that anywhere? 86% weight for the subjective interview seems like a recipe for abuse.....

This is the issue I have with the GPA cutoff - a 4.0 from some schools is not the same as a 4.0 from others. Some kids will be well prepared for the Walls curriculum, some won't.

That’s the case in high school, college, and life. Some people will be better prepared academically than others because…they attended schools that provided “better” preparation. A student who earns a 4.0 (and attends) a Title 1 middle school should have a chance to attend Walls. That student may be a very hard worker that can make up for lost ground. It’s not that student’s fault they attended a poorly resourced school. Those students bloomed where they were planted, and likely overcame hardship and trauma you can’t imagine.

Remember, talent is equally distributed. Opportunity is not.

I agree, but I don’t think an interview solves this. Have quotas by assigned high school, teacher or school recommendations, or something to spread the opportunity. But we have no idea if the interview questions are supposed to target one demographic or another, or what problem the interview is trying to solve. Totally arbitrary, or, worse, biased.

Compounded by the fact that current students are part of the interview team...but I'm sure teenagers are super objective in their assessment of other teenagers and use only the most appropriate factors to determine "fit."

I recently heard that Walls students are allowed to be part of the interview team even if they have siblings in the applicant pool--that can't possibly be true, right? Do they do anything to establish basic ethics rules around these interviews?

That can't be true...they can't possibly think it's okay for current students to interview if their siblings are in the mix. Even if they don't interview their own siblings, they could very well interview friends' sibilings (or siblings' friends). How do we find out if this is accurate and (before it's too late) put pressure on them to stop this practice?

We are hoping for Walls and I also find this (if true) unethical and concerning. But if we reach out for clarification, will that be a black mark against my child? How are these schools held accountable for fair practices?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thanks for posting that link....a couple of things jump out:

1) a 3.8 GPA is regarded the same as a 4.0 for the purpose of their rubric...given how easy grading is (at least at my child's middle school), that's really interesting. A child who has two B+, two A-s and one A in the five core classes (and As in PE, Music, Art, and Health) would be given the same 5 points as a kid with all As.

2) The 31/36 points given to the interview is just bizarre. Where on earth did they come up with that ratio and do they provide the specific rubric for that anywhere? 86% weight for the subjective interview seems like a recipe for abuse.....

This is the issue I have with the GPA cutoff - a 4.0 from some schools is not the same as a 4.0 from others. Some kids will be well prepared for the Walls curriculum, some won't.

That’s the case in high school, college, and life. Some people will be better prepared academically than others because…they attended schools that provided “better” preparation. A student who earns a 4.0 (and attends) a Title 1 middle school should have a chance to attend Walls. That student may be a very hard worker that can make up for lost ground. It’s not that student’s fault they attended a poorly resourced school. Those students bloomed where they were planted, and likely overcame hardship and trauma you can’t imagine.

Remember, talent is equally distributed. Opportunity is not.

I agree, but I don’t think an interview solves this. Have quotas by assigned high school, teacher or school recommendations, or something to spread the opportunity. But we have no idea if the interview questions are supposed to target one demographic or another, or what problem the interview is trying to solve. Totally arbitrary, or, worse, biased.

Compounded by the fact that current students are part of the interview team...but I'm sure teenagers are super objective in their assessment of other teenagers and use only the most appropriate factors to determine "fit."

I recently heard that Walls students are allowed to be part of the interview team even if they have siblings in the applicant pool--that can't possibly be true, right? Do they do anything to establish basic ethics rules around these interviews?

That can't be true...they can't possibly think it's okay for current students to interview if their siblings are in the mix. Even if they don't interview their own siblings, they could very well interview friends' sibilings (or siblings' friends). How do we find out if this is accurate and (before it's too late) put pressure on them to stop this practice?

Anonymous wrote:I'm a PP who said I knew kids who had interviews this week; that was an error, the interviews were with Banneker, not Walls.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thanks for posting that link....a couple of things jump out:

1) a 3.8 GPA is regarded the same as a 4.0 for the purpose of their rubric...given how easy grading is (at least at my child's middle school), that's really interesting. A child who has two B+, two A-s and one A in the five core classes (and As in PE, Music, Art, and Health) would be given the same 5 points as a kid with all As.

2) The 31/36 points given to the interview is just bizarre. Where on earth did they come up with that ratio and do they provide the specific rubric for that anywhere? 86% weight for the subjective interview seems like a recipe for abuse.....

This is the issue I have with the GPA cutoff - a 4.0 from some schools is not the same as a 4.0 from others. Some kids will be well prepared for the Walls curriculum, some won't.

That’s the case in high school, college, and life. Some people will be better prepared academically than others because…they attended schools that provided “better” preparation. A student who earns a 4.0 (and attends) a Title 1 middle school should have a chance to attend Walls. That student may be a very hard worker that can make up for lost ground. It’s not that student’s fault they attended a poorly resourced school. Those students bloomed where they were planted, and likely overcame hardship and trauma you can’t imagine.

Remember, talent is equally distributed. Opportunity is not.

I agree, but I don’t think an interview solves this. Have quotas by assigned high school, teacher or school recommendations, or something to spread the opportunity. But we have no idea if the interview questions are supposed to target one demographic or another, or what problem the interview is trying to solve. Totally arbitrary, or, worse, biased.

Compounded by the fact that current students are part of the interview team...but I'm sure teenagers are super objective in their assessment of other teenagers and use only the most appropriate factors to determine "fit."

I recently heard that Walls students are allowed to be part of the interview team even if they have siblings in the applicant pool--that can't possibly be true, right? Do they do anything to establish basic ethics rules around these interviews?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thanks for posting that link....a couple of things jump out:

1) a 3.8 GPA is regarded the same as a 4.0 for the purpose of their rubric...given how easy grading is (at least at my child's middle school), that's really interesting. A child who has two B+, two A-s and one A in the five core classes (and As in PE, Music, Art, and Health) would be given the same 5 points as a kid with all As.

2) The 31/36 points given to the interview is just bizarre. Where on earth did they come up with that ratio and do they provide the specific rubric for that anywhere? 86% weight for the subjective interview seems like a recipe for abuse.....

Your scenario in #1 would be a 3.6 not 3.8.

average of 3.3 + 3.3 + 3.7 + 3.7 + 4.0 + 4.0 *2 (for the 4 electives, each with 0.5 credit) = 3.75, rounded to 3.8

You wrote 5 core classes and said 2 B+ 2 A- and one A.

Correct....and B+ = 3.3; A- = 3.7; A = 4.0 so....take the average of:

the five core classes of 2 B+, 2 A-, and 1 A = 3.3 + 3.3 + 3.7 + 3.7 + 4.0
the 4 half credit electives of all As = 4*1/2*4.0

= the average of 3.3 + 3.3 + 3.7 + 3.7 + 4.0 + 4.0 *2 = 3.75

My DD did not make the cut last year w 3.75

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thanks for posting that link....a couple of things jump out:

1) a 3.8 GPA is regarded the same as a 4.0 for the purpose of their rubric...given how easy grading is (at least at my child's middle school), that's really interesting. A child who has two B+, two A-s and one A in the five core classes (and As in PE, Music, Art, and Health) would be given the same 5 points as a kid with all As.

2) The 31/36 points given to the interview is just bizarre. Where on earth did they come up with that ratio and do they provide the specific rubric for that anywhere? 86% weight for the subjective interview seems like a recipe for abuse.....

This is the issue I have with the GPA cutoff - a 4.0 from some schools is not the same as a 4.0 from others. Some kids will be well prepared for the Walls curriculum, some won't.

That’s the case in high school, college, and life. Some people will be better prepared academically than others because…they attended schools that provided “better” preparation. A student who earns a 4.0 (and attends) a Title 1 middle school should have a chance to attend Walls. That student may be a very hard worker that can make up for lost ground. It’s not that student’s fault they attended a poorly resourced school. Those students bloomed where they were planted, and likely overcame hardship and trauma you can’t imagine.

Remember, talent is equally distributed. Opportunity is not.

I agree, but I don’t think an interview solves this. Have quotas by assigned high school, teacher or school recommendations, or something to spread the opportunity. But we have no idea if the interview questions are supposed to target one demographic or another, or what problem the interview is trying to solve. Totally arbitrary, or, worse, biased.

Compounded by the fact that current students are part of the interview team...but I'm sure teenagers are super objective in their assessment of other teenagers and use only the most appropriate factors to determine "fit."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thanks for posting that link....a couple of things jump out:

1) a 3.8 GPA is regarded the same as a 4.0 for the purpose of their rubric...given how easy grading is (at least at my child's middle school), that's really interesting. A child who has two B+, two A-s and one A in the five core classes (and As in PE, Music, Art, and Health) would be given the same 5 points as a kid with all As.

2) The 31/36 points given to the interview is just bizarre. Where on earth did they come up with that ratio and do they provide the specific rubric for that anywhere? 86% weight for the subjective interview seems like a recipe for abuse.....

This is the issue I have with the GPA cutoff - a 4.0 from some schools is not the same as a 4.0 from others. Some kids will be well prepared for the Walls curriculum, some won't.

That’s the case in high school, college, and life. Some people will be better prepared academically than others because…they attended schools that provided “better” preparation. A student who earns a 4.0 (and attends) a Title 1 middle school should have a chance to attend Walls. That student may be a very hard worker that can make up for lost ground. It’s not that student’s fault they attended a poorly resourced school. Those students bloomed where they were planted, and likely overcame hardship and trauma you can’t imagine.

Remember, talent is equally distributed. Opportunity is not.

I agree, but I don’t think an interview solves this. Have quotas by assigned high school, teacher or school recommendations, or something to spread the opportunity. But we have no idea if the interview questions are supposed to target one demographic or another, or what problem the interview is trying to solve. Totally arbitrary, or, worse, biased.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thanks for posting that link....a couple of things jump out:

1) a 3.8 GPA is regarded the same as a 4.0 for the purpose of their rubric...given how easy grading is (at least at my child's middle school), that's really interesting. A child who has two B+, two A-s and one A in the five core classes (and As in PE, Music, Art, and Health) would be given the same 5 points as a kid with all As.

2) The 31/36 points given to the interview is just bizarre. Where on earth did they come up with that ratio and do they provide the specific rubric for that anywhere? 86% weight for the subjective interview seems like a recipe for abuse.....

Your scenario in #1 would be a 3.6 not 3.8.

average of 3.3 + 3.3 + 3.7 + 3.7 + 4.0 + 4.0 *2 (for the 4 electives, each with 0.5 credit) = 3.75, rounded to 3.8

You wrote 5 core classes and said 2 B+ 2 A- and one A.

Correct....and B+ = 3.3; A- = 3.7; A = 4.0 so....take the average of:

the five core classes of 2 B+, 2 A-, and 1 A = 3.3 + 3.3 + 3.7 + 3.7 + 4.0
the 4 half credit electives of all As = 4*1/2*4.0

= the average of 3.3 + 3.3 + 3.7 + 3.7 + 4.0 + 4.0 *2 = 3.75

My DD did not make the cut last year w 3.75

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thanks for posting that link....a couple of things jump out:

1) a 3.8 GPA is regarded the same as a 4.0 for the purpose of their rubric...given how easy grading is (at least at my child's middle school), that's really interesting. A child who has two B+, two A-s and one A in the five core classes (and As in PE, Music, Art, and Health) would be given the same 5 points as a kid with all As.

2) The 31/36 points given to the interview is just bizarre. Where on earth did they come up with that ratio and do they provide the specific rubric for that anywhere? 86% weight for the subjective interview seems like a recipe for abuse.....

Your scenario in #1 would be a 3.6 not 3.8.

average of 3.3 + 3.3 + 3.7 + 3.7 + 4.0 + 4.0 *2 (for the 4 electives, each with 0.5 credit) = 3.75, rounded to 3.8

You wrote 5 core classes and said 2 B+ 2 A- and one A.

Correct....and B+ = 3.3; A- = 3.7; A = 4.0 so....take the average of:

the five core classes of 2 B+, 2 A-, and 1 A = 3.3 + 3.3 + 3.7 + 3.7 + 4.0
the 4 half credit electives of all As = 4*1/2*4.0

= the average of 3.3 + 3.3 + 3.7 + 3.7 + 4.0 + 4.0 *2 = 3.75

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thanks for posting that link....a couple of things jump out:

1) a 3.8 GPA is regarded the same as a 4.0 for the purpose of their rubric...given how easy grading is (at least at my child's middle school), that's really interesting. A child who has two B+, two A-s and one A in the five core classes (and As in PE, Music, Art, and Health) would be given the same 5 points as a kid with all As.

2) The 31/36 points given to the interview is just bizarre. Where on earth did they come up with that ratio and do they provide the specific rubric for that anywhere? 86% weight for the subjective interview seems like a recipe for abuse.....

Your scenario in #1 would be a 3.6 not 3.8.

average of 3.3 + 3.3 + 3.7 + 3.7 + 4.0 + 4.0 *2 (for the 4 electives, each with 0.5 credit) = 3.75, rounded to 3.8

You wrote 5 core classes and said 2 B+ 2 A- and one A.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thanks for posting that link....a couple of things jump out:

1) a 3.8 GPA is regarded the same as a 4.0 for the purpose of their rubric...given how easy grading is (at least at my child's middle school), that's really interesting. A child who has two B+, two A-s and one A in the five core classes (and As in PE, Music, Art, and Health) would be given the same 5 points as a kid with all As.

2) The 31/36 points given to the interview is just bizarre. Where on earth did they come up with that ratio and do they provide the specific rubric for that anywhere? 86% weight for the subjective interview seems like a recipe for abuse.....

Your scenario in #1 would be a 3.6 not 3.8.

average of 3.3 + 3.3 + 3.7 + 3.7 + 4.0 + 4.0 *2 (for the 4 electives, each with 0.5 credit) = 3.75, rounded to 3.8