Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bullis? What?

Yeah, the poster was pretty reasonable up until that point. Bullis does have an excellent sports program in some high profile sports (boys: football, basketball, lacrosse; girls: basketball and lacrosse) and they've got a good campus and faculty. It's not one of the more selective schools and some of the things they've done in pursuit of the sports are questionable -- for example, some of the kids (all of whom are athletes) do not go to a regular class schedule but just work in the revamped library (now a Learning Center) with specialists. That could actually be great for those kids in terms of helping them get to grade level, but it's not a sign of a strong academic school that there are kids who are not in actually classes.

If you're looking for kindler, gentler, lots of individual focus, easier to get into than the top DC privates, not with the questions from the sports practices, I would probably cite St. Andrews.

I'm 1:29. Re Bullis, my point of including it in the list of "well rounded" top tier was not to suggest that it's academics are comparable to Maret, Potomac, but that it represents a top choice for kids looking for a balance of academics, athletics, and confidence boosting educational environments (i.e., support as needed). I was illustrating that "top tier" changes depending on the criteria, and the weight assigned to your ranking of each criterion. For the record, I don't have any connection to Bullis. It's never been on our list for our DS.

Anonymous wrote:Bullis? What?

Yeah, the poster was pretty reasonable up until that point. Bullis does have an excellent sports program in some high profile sports (boys: football, basketball, lacrosse; girls: basketball and lacrosse) and they've got a good campus and faculty. It's not one of the more selective schools and some of the things they've done in pursuit of the sports are questionable -- for example, some of the kids (all of whom are athletes) do not go to a regular class schedule but just work in the revamped library (now a Learning Center) with specialists. That could actually be great for those kids in terms of helping them get to grade level, but it's not a sign of a strong academic school that there are kids who are not in actually classes.

If you're looking for kindler, gentler, lots of individual focus, easier to get into than the top DC privates, not with the questions from the sports practices, I would probably cite St. Andrews.

Sad, insecure parents looking for praise and validation.

Bullis? What?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:20 years ago: Sidwell, StA, NCS

2000s: Sidwell, StA, NCS, GDS, Maret

DC has changed dramatically in the last 30 years, so what may have been true when we were growing up no longer is the case.

This is just false. GDS and Maret, while lovely schools are still a tier below Sidwell, STA, and NCS.

Just try to get a child into Maret. Easier to get in Cathedral or Sidwell.

SFS. Case solved. Now on to Flight 370.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:First, this board is follish. Second, Sidwell, STA and NCS are in a league of their own based on college placement and NMSF. GDS and Maret, although great schools, are not in the same league.

So you're saying it would be follish to send a child to GDS or Maret?

Since English is not your native language, please let me know what language you speak and I will write my post in that language.

Martian here.

I also wonder, if Sidwell is so good, why it has no acronym?

Hi 1:29. We first went through the application process about 5-6 years ago, and being completely ignorant about the private school community in DC and skeptical of comments on DCUM, I applied the same rigorous analysis you describe. My results were identical to yours for the "big 3" and very similar for the broader group. So while I don't think the term "big 3" is some immutable law, nor do I think the strongest three academically are necessarily the best three for any particular child, I do think the shorthand is useful as a simple moniker. When we were applying, we used the term at home to describe refer to those same three schools during talks about where we hoped for admission; and when people post on DCUM, they often use the term generically to describe the quality of school or academics, without naming the particular school. It's useful shorthand, and I suspect it will remain useful for certain purposes. As schools evolve, perhaps it will morph from "big 3" to "big 4" or perhaps "big 2", but it seems to have been relatively stable for a while now.

stuends = students

I'm new(ish) to this board, and have found this Big 3 discussion a very peculiar obsession. Statistically, how can there only, and always, by just 3 schools in the top tier? It just doesn't make sense from every angle. Even USN&W college rankings re-order every once in while. No institution's stature is immutable. And from a savvy consumer's/parent's perspective, why should parents with kids at the top schools allow their schools to rest on an unshakable top tier taxonomy without the competitive urgency to remain innovative and demonstrate relative (and absolute) effectiveness for our kids every year?

I just went through my first admission round for my DS. I initially tried to define the "top" schools. That requires some reported metrics relevant to my decision and DS (who is very bright, and within the competitive zone for all of DC privates). I'm a thorough researcher about the smallest decision, so I carefully researched and evaluated the DC area privates before applying. Based on that, it seems fairly clear that, using academic challenge and intellectual horsepower of the student body generally as the key criteria, the top tier academic schools at the moment are Sidwell, Cathedral Schools, and GDS. All around (balance of academic, sports and confidence building for stuends), top tier would consist of Maret, Potmac, Bullis, and Holton. With respect to admissions, by far, Sidwell and Maret are the most difficult to gain entry.

To me, Big 3 has to be a logical fallacy. But it exists for a reason. Was it created by PR/marketing firms of one or two schools? Is it a tool given life by intellectually lazy parents looking to delegate their choice of schools for their DC to someone else's subjective judgment of the 3 must-apply-to-schools? Perhaps, it's just a way to use certain (capable and lucky or with connected parents) DCs admissions' contest wins to buttress the egos of insecure / socially climbing parents at the expense of others. Just very strange all the way around.

Anonymous wrote:Having grown up in DC I can say no one ever used the term "Big 3." With that said, if anyone were to ask what the best schools in the DC area were, you would rightly answer Sidwell and the Cathedral schools. Whether this is 3 schools, 2 schools, or 4 including Beauvoir, who knows and who cares.

I think you have commented at least three times in thread - while you claim you don't care, you always make sure to get in your list.

Having grown up in DC I can say no one ever used the term "Big 3." With that said, if anyone were to ask what the best schools in the DC area were, you would rightly answer Sidwell and the Cathedral schools. Whether this is 3 schools, 2 schools, or 4 including Beauvoir, who knows and who cares.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:so i guess, psychologically, you like to think about being at a high status school to justify the tuition. got it. i would encourage you to think about what this sort of thing does to your child--who is just a pawn -- in your self esteem boosting game.. what are you going to do when your child gets into only an "ok" colllege? or gets an "ok" job?

Only an o.k. college? Impossible, I have clearly sent them on the path to the Ivy Leagues. If they screw it up, I will disown them of course. This is tongue in cheek. You are ignoring my earlier point which was to say that the quality of the education is the most important factor. I also admitted that I enjoy the status but never said that the status was the reason for choosing the school. I also said the kid is oblivious to all of it. And if my child were just a pawn in my self esteem building game, I can think of worse indignities than being sent to a really good school. The horror, the horror, the horror.

Is it wrong that I actually find this funny and true. Id e surprised if anyone can honestly say they don't. Like PP said, I don't believe people send their children to school for this reason but you better believe that there is an element to this once their child is attending.

youre funny!

youre funny.