Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The McLean HS neighborhoods are more centrally located and convenient to DC and Metro, so if that matters to you I’d go with McLean. Both schools have very strong academic reputations.

THat's not necessarily true, either. Yes, some of Langley is out in Great Falls. Some of it right on the DC border, or by the beltway exit or on top of Tysons. It depends.


Pick a house in a location that works for you.

Lol. I live near the Tysons area zoned to Langley and only 6 min to a silver line metro, but this poster is going overboard to point out the exceptions like our neigborhood. Let's be objective. Overall, McLean is more centrally located and convenient to DC and metro than the zone feeding in to Langley.

Sure - yet many people don’t even work in DC to begin with. Most of my neighbors either work in the Reston corridor, Tysons, or from home.

First PP is right to point out that plenty of people don't care about being convenient to DC, and that if you do you are more likely to find a house in the McLean zone.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The McLean HS neighborhoods are more centrally located and convenient to DC and Metro, so if that matters to you I’d go with McLean. Both schools have very strong academic reputations.

THat's not necessarily true, either. Yes, some of Langley is out in Great Falls. Some of it right on the DC border, or by the beltway exit or on top of Tysons. It depends.


Pick a house in a location that works for you.

Lol. I live near the Tysons area zoned to Langley and only 6 min to a silver line metro, but this poster is going overboard to point out the exceptions like our neigborhood. Let's be objective. Overall, McLean is more centrally located and convenient to DC and metro than the zone feeding in to Langley.

Sure - yet many people don’t even work in DC to begin with. Most of my neighbors either work in the Reston corridor, Tysons, or from home.

First PP is right to point out that plenty of people don't care about being convenient to DC, and that if you do you are more likely to find a house in the McLean zone.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The McLean HS neighborhoods are more centrally located and convenient to DC and Metro, so if that matters to you I’d go with McLean. Both schools have very strong academic reputations.

THat's not necessarily true, either. Yes, some of Langley is out in Great Falls. Some of it right on the DC border, or by the beltway exit or on top of Tysons. It depends.


Pick a house in a location that works for you.

Lol. I live near the Tysons area zoned to Langley and only 6 min to a silver line metro, but this poster is going overboard to point out the exceptions like our neigborhood. Let's be objective. Overall, McLean is more centrally located and convenient to DC and metro than the zone feeding in to Langley.

Sure - yet many people don’t even work in DC to begin with. Most of my neighbors either work in the Reston corridor, Tysons, or from home.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kid goes to Langley and it is under-enrolled and has fewer electives. And it will continue to be under-enrolled at least for the next many years even with the boundary change. It just won’t be as under-enrolled as it was.

That being said, Langley is a good school and my kid likes it a lot. However, I think McLean is good as well. It’s really about where OP wants to live and what house they can find.

I’m a Langley parent and not aware of any electives that have been cut - could you list them?

And it won’t be under-enrolled starting this fall with the boundary change and the large new development on Rt.7/Towlston.

Anonymous wrote:I don't think preferring a school with more racial and economic diversity than Langley has to offer is irrational. It contributes to a more robust academic and social environment for students.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The McLean HS neighborhoods are more centrally located and convenient to DC and Metro, so if that matters to you I’d go with McLean. Both schools have very strong academic reputations.

THat's not necessarily true, either. Yes, some of Langley is out in Great Falls. Some of it right on the DC border, or by the beltway exit or on top of Tysons. It depends.


Pick a house in a location that works for you.

Lol. I live near the Tysons area zoned to Langley and only 6 min to a silver line metro, but this poster is going overboard to point out the exceptions like our neigborhood. Let's be objective. Overall, McLean is more centrally located and convenient to DC and metro than the zone feeding in to Langley.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Under-enrollment (or “low subscription”) just means fewer teachers and fewer electives, not smaller class sizes. If I were picking between these two schools I’d go with McLean - more diversity and less “affluenza.”

Except that Langley won’t be under-enrolled or “low subscription” at all, starting this fall, and has never been in any danger of having fewer teachers or electives. I’m not sure why some of you keep pushing this nonsense. Actually, it’s very obvious why.

+1. Envy.

It’s just a fact that schools with lower enrollments get allocated less money for teachers and electives in FCPS, especially if their student bodies are wealthy.

DP. This may or may not be true, but the above still stands.

Langley parents go on about how "normal" the school is and then, if someone expresses a preference for another school, chalks it up to "envy." Get over yourself.

Oh, sorry. When the usual trolls complain about “affluenza,” we tend to speak up in defense of our school. Especially when the person making that idiotic complaint doesn’t even have kids at Langley in the first place and is just spewing the usual garbage.

And when the Langley trolls try to go on about how "normal" they are, we tend to laugh and thank them for proving our point by trying to have it both ways. Especially when they're refusing to acknowledge published school stats and publicly available information. Rich people being defensive over their advantages is hilarious, and the inability to see beyond their own worldview is kind of sad. Guess money can't buy everything.

I think you need to look in the mirror

I live in the Langley district and idc what anyone else thinks about it. Yes the school has very few FARMs, more wealthy and upper middle class people. I'm pretty sure my family is on the low end relative to the rest of the area and idc about that either. I enjoy my huge yard, the wildlife (deer excepted lol), the hometown events and the people are nice contrary to some outside opinion. My kid goes to a school with low-to non-existent incidences of violence, an active PTA and many good teachers. I'm not concerned about luxury cars in the parking lot. There will always be someone richer or poorer than you are, and getting your panties in a twist about it will do nothing but cause you to need neosporin for the butthurt.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Under-enrollment (or “low subscription”) just means fewer teachers and fewer electives, not smaller class sizes. If I were picking between these two schools I’d go with McLean - more diversity and less “affluenza.”

Except that Langley won’t be under-enrolled or “low subscription” at all, starting this fall, and has never been in any danger of having fewer teachers or electives. I’m not sure why some of you keep pushing this nonsense. Actually, it’s very obvious why.

+1. Envy.

It’s just a fact that schools with lower enrollments get allocated less money for teachers and electives in FCPS, especially if their student bodies are wealthy.

DP. This may or may not be true, but the above still stands.

Langley parents go on about how "normal" the school is and then, if someone expresses a preference for another school, chalks it up to "envy." Get over yourself.

Oh, sorry. When the usual trolls complain about “affluenza,” we tend to speak up in defense of our school. Especially when the person making that idiotic complaint doesn’t even have kids at Langley in the first place and is just spewing the usual garbage.

And when the Langley trolls try to go on about how "normal" they are, we tend to laugh and thank them for proving our point by trying to have it both ways. Especially when they're refusing to acknowledge published school stats and publicly available information. Rich people being defensive over their advantages is hilarious, and the inability to see beyond their own worldview is kind of sad. Guess money can't buy everything.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pick Langley. New renovated facility. Low subscription right now so more teachers per pupil. It offers AP courses in STEM classes that you've never even heard of and that no private can match. If your child can rack up a bunch of As in those AP courses you're golden. But there's something there for everyone.

Yet the truly affluent in that district continue to send their kids to private. Odd.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Under-enrollment (or “low subscription”) just means fewer teachers and fewer electives, not smaller class sizes. If I were picking between these two schools I’d go with McLean - more diversity and less “affluenza.”

Except that Langley won’t be under-enrolled or “low subscription” at all, starting this fall, and has never been in any danger of having fewer teachers or electives. I’m not sure why some of you keep pushing this nonsense. Actually, it’s very obvious why.

+1. Envy.

It’s just a fact that schools with lower enrollments get allocated less money for teachers and electives in FCPS, especially if their student bodies are wealthy.

DP. This may or may not be true, but the above still stands.

Langley parents go on about how "normal" the school is and then, if someone expresses a preference for another school, chalks it up to "envy." Get over yourself.

Oh, sorry. When the usual trolls complain about “affluenza,” we tend to speak up in defense of our school. Especially when the person making that idiotic complaint doesn’t even have kids at Langley in the first place and is just spewing the usual garbage.

Wow, that one word really triggers you, doesn't it? However, McLean has more diversity than Langley and is less of a bubble of extreme affluence. Like it or not, for some of us that is an advantage and influenced our own decision. We have as much as a right to express our opinion as the earlier Langley poster who said "Pick Langley."

Anonymous wrote:My kid goes to Langley and it is under-enrolled and has fewer electives. And it will continue to be under-enrolled at least for the next many years even with the boundary change. It just won’t be as under-enrolled as it was.

That being said, Langley is a good school and my kid likes it a lot. However, I think McLean is good as well. It’s really about where OP wants to live and what house they can find.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The McLean HS neighborhoods are more centrally located and convenient to DC and Metro, so if that matters to you I’d go with McLean. Both schools have very strong academic reputations.

THat's not necessarily true, either. Yes, some of Langley is out in Great Falls. Some of it right on the DC border, or by the beltway exit or on top of Tysons. It depends.


Pick a house in a location that works for you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Under-enrollment (or “low subscription”) just means fewer teachers and fewer electives, not smaller class sizes. If I were picking between these two schools I’d go with McLean - more diversity and less “affluenza.”

Except that Langley won’t be under-enrolled or “low subscription” at all, starting this fall, and has never been in any danger of having fewer teachers or electives. I’m not sure why some of you keep pushing this nonsense. Actually, it’s very obvious why.

+1. Envy.

It’s just a fact that schools with lower enrollments get allocated less money for teachers and electives in FCPS, especially if their student bodies are wealthy.

DP. This may or may not be true, but the above still stands.

Langley parents go on about how "normal" the school is and then, if someone expresses a preference for another school, chalks it up to "envy." Get over yourself.

Oh, sorry. When the usual trolls complain about “affluenza,” we tend to speak up in defense of our school. Especially when the person making that idiotic complaint doesn’t even have kids at Langley in the first place and is just spewing the usual garbage.

And when the Langley trolls try to go on about how "normal" they are, we tend to laugh and thank them for proving our point by trying to have it both ways. Especially when they're refusing to acknowledge published school stats and publicly available information. Rich people being defensive over their advantages is hilarious, and the inability to see beyond their own worldview is kind of sad. Guess money can't buy everything.

I think you need to look in the mirror

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pick Langley. New renovated facility. Low subscription right now so more teachers per pupil. It offers AP courses in STEM classes that you've never even heard of and that no private can match. If your child can rack up a bunch of As in those AP courses you're golden. But there's something there for everyone.

Yet the truly affluent in that district continue to send their kids to private. Odd.