We just got an offer from BASIS and started with a waitlist number in the 30s.

Any WL movement for BASIS?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. I object to Walls eliminating testing because it's an objective measurement of achievement. More objective than GPA from such a wide variety of schools (nobody can seriously argue that a GPA of 3.7 out of Jefferson is the same as a GPA of 3.7 out of BASIS) and certainly more objective than the ridiculous Walls interview process.

Ok, so you won't be applying and staying at your present school. Of course a lot of privates are going test optional, also. So I guess you'll strike them off too.

There are a lot of great students that aren't great test takers and vice-versa. Not to mention kids with IEPs. Some schools may be harder than others just like some teachers may grade harder. None of it is perfect.

Students with IEPs got accommodations on testing. Then again, Walls has no IEP coordinator and reports hardly any students with IEPs so draw your own conclusions there. The private schools definitely don't settle for a 10 minute zoom interview - they have a comprehensive admissions process. Nothing remotely comparable to the BS process at Walls.

The Walls test wasn't a great indicator but it was at least the same for all test takers and a reasonable barometer absent a more comprehensive admissions process. DCPS does a terrible job of promoting Walls as an option to students EOTR, even ones who could have passed the test and could handle the work load (ie charter/private/parochial students from Wards 7/8). DCPS is ambivalent about test-in schools in general and would never provide the necessary support for an admissions process akin to privates. They're deluded enough to think families shut out will just enroll at Coolidge, Dunbar or Eastern.

I doubt you have applied to a private school. It's not as comprehensive as you think-10 minutes with kid/10 minutes with parents plus an essay in some cases. Some care about standardized testing and some don't. Privates are mostly concerned with "fit". Most of the time they already know who they want.

EOTR is just an awful commute to Walls and that's a bigger factor. It's even bad from some parts of Northwest. A real city magnet program is the only answer. DC has the highest percentage of students in privates in the country-27% or somewhere close. There will be a tipping point but not sure what it will be.

Dont know what school you're talking about, but ISEE and SSAT are pretty commonplace requirements. And a personal statement/ essay IS alone far more than Walls demands. Walls is no less accessible than other schools WOTR. Its right in mahor Metro and bus li es. It's a hell of a lot easier to access than DESA or Wilson. Way easier than the old Banneker location.

Not sold on tipping point for DCPS. Seems to continue to be serviceable for elementary with a few outliers beyond.

Anonymous wrote:Any wait-list movement for Latin I ?

None here. As point of reference, top 30 WL #.

Any wait-list movement for Latin I ?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. I object to Walls eliminating testing because it's an objective measurement of achievement. More objective than GPA from such a wide variety of schools (nobody can seriously argue that a GPA of 3.7 out of Jefferson is the same as a GPA of 3.7 out of BASIS) and certainly more objective than the ridiculous Walls interview process.

Ok, so you won't be applying and staying at your present school. Of course a lot of privates are going test optional, also. So I guess you'll strike them off too.

There are a lot of great students that aren't great test takers and vice-versa. Not to mention kids with IEPs. Some schools may be harder than others just like some teachers may grade harder. None of it is perfect.

Students with IEPs got accommodations on testing. Then again, Walls has no IEP coordinator and reports hardly any students with IEPs so draw your own conclusions there. The private schools definitely don't settle for a 10 minute zoom interview - they have a comprehensive admissions process. Nothing remotely comparable to the BS process at Walls.

The Walls test wasn't a great indicator but it was at least the same for all test takers and a reasonable barometer absent a more comprehensive admissions process. DCPS does a terrible job of promoting Walls as an option to students EOTR, even ones who could have passed the test and could handle the work load (ie charter/private/parochial students from Wards 7/8). DCPS is ambivalent about test-in schools in general and would never provide the necessary support for an admissions process akin to privates. They're deluded enough to think families shut out will just enroll at Coolidge, Dunbar or Eastern.

I doubt you have applied to a private school. It's not as comprehensive as you think-10 minutes with kid/10 minutes with parents plus an essay in some cases. Some care about standardized testing and some don't. Privates are mostly concerned with "fit". Most of the time they already know who they want.

EOTR is just an awful commute to Walls and that's a bigger factor. It's even bad from some parts of Northwest. A real city magnet program is the only answer. DC has the highest percentage of students in privates in the country-27% or somewhere close. There will be a tipping point but not sure what it will be.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. I object to Walls eliminating testing because it's an objective measurement of achievement. More objective than GPA from such a wide variety of schools (nobody can seriously argue that a GPA of 3.7 out of Jefferson is the same as a GPA of 3.7 out of BASIS) and certainly more objective than the ridiculous Walls interview process.

Ok, so you won't be applying and staying at your present school. Of course a lot of privates are going test optional, also. So I guess you'll strike them off too.

There are a lot of great students that aren't great test takers and vice-versa. Not to mention kids with IEPs. Some schools may be harder than others just like some teachers may grade harder. None of it is perfect.

Students with IEPs got accommodations on testing. Then again, Walls has no IEP coordinator and reports hardly any students with IEPs so draw your own conclusions there. The private schools definitely don't settle for a 10 minute zoom interview - they have a comprehensive admissions process. Nothing remotely comparable to the BS process at Walls.

The Walls test wasn't a great indicator but it was at least the same for all test takers and a reasonable barometer absent a more comprehensive admissions process. DCPS does a terrible job of promoting Walls as an option to students EOTR, even ones who could have passed the test and could handle the work load (ie charter/private/parochial students from Wards 7/8). DCPS is ambivalent about test-in schools in general and would never provide the necessary support for an admissions process akin to privates. They're deluded enough to think families shut out will just enroll at Coolidge, Dunbar or Eastern.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. I object to Walls eliminating testing because it's an objective measurement of achievement. More objective than GPA from such a wide variety of schools (nobody can seriously argue that a GPA of 3.7 out of Jefferson is the same as a GPA of 3.7 out of BASIS) and certainly more objective than the ridiculous Walls interview process.

Ok, so you won't be applying and staying at your present school. Of course a lot of privates are going test optional, also. So I guess you'll strike them off too.

There are a lot of great students that aren't great test takers and vice-versa. Not to mention kids with IEPs. Some schools may be harder than others just like some teachers may grade harder. None of it is perfect.

Meh. My guess is we'll swing back to testing in a few years.

Anonymous wrote:NP. I object to Walls eliminating testing because it's an objective measurement of achievement. More objective than GPA from such a wide variety of schools (nobody can seriously argue that a GPA of 3.7 out of Jefferson is the same as a GPA of 3.7 out of BASIS) and certainly more objective than the ridiculous Walls interview process.

Ok, so you won't be applying and staying at your present school. Of course a lot of privates are going test optional, also. So I guess you'll strike them off too.

There are a lot of great students that aren't great test takers and vice-versa. Not to mention kids with IEPs. Some schools may be harder than others just like some teachers may grade harder. None of it is perfect.

Anonymous wrote:NP. I object to Walls eliminating testing because it's an objective measurement of achievement. More objective than GPA from such a wide variety of schools (nobody can seriously argue that a GPA of 3.7 out of Jefferson is the same as a GPA of 3.7 out of BASIS) and certainly more objective than the ridiculous Walls interview process.

The irony of eliminating testing in favor of an "eyeball test" (which is basically what they appear to have done) is that those types of "I know it when I see it" standard less-standards have been used for generations to exclude minorities and marginalized groups.

NP. I object to Walls eliminating testing because it's an objective measurement of achievement. More objective than GPA from such a wide variety of schools (nobody can seriously argue that a GPA of 3.7 out of Jefferson is the same as a GPA of 3.7 out of BASIS) and certainly more objective than the ridiculous Walls interview process.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Latin II just dropped by 5 more spots.

4 more.

Wow, people are dropping out by the bushel.

You should track the Walls HS list - we were mid 40s and already got in

Yeah, almost no one from Basis is going. Sound like lots of others are saying no too.

Shame they dropped the admissions test.

Could be. Could also be nothing more than DCUM doing what DCUM does and seeing everything through the prism of their own preconception. Looking at the historical WL data Walls they have made at least 50 WL offers by June in every reported year.

Sure but that doesn't refute the point that fewer Basis or Latin kids are going. There are a lot of schools in DC other than Basis and Latin, so WL movement this year could well be in line with previous years. Plus, typically Basis and Latin kids tended to do well on the admissions test, which is now gone. As a result, it is easier to get in from worse schools with grade inflation. So, in fact, Walls could become harder to get in at the same time that the academic level of the admitted kids decreases.

Let's set aside for a moment that fewer kids accepting slots from Basis and Latin would necessarily mean WL would move faster (cause, you know, math). Let's also set aside for a moment that fewer kids even applying would necessarily mean shorter waitlists (math). Let's also ignore your silly statement that "are a lot of schools in DC other than Basis and Latin" - those schools have also always existed! That's either unintentional ignorance or gaslighting.

Someone pointed our their WL had moved 40 slots. Thus began the posters using that as a data point in support of their belief that the testing (or lack thereof) has caused students not to accept slots at Walls. I pointed out that based on what is now known (in terms of WL movement) this year is no different than year's past. People chiming in to use the WL movement as a data point to support their thesis are ignoring the data to which they cling. Then you inexplicably chimed in to double down on this silliness that current data supports your "testing elimination is killing Walls" thesis.

You clearly believe that elimination of testing will degrade the quality of the student body and hurt your kid (and her friends). You also clearly believe that the school will become less in demand as a consequence of those changes. Those are not unreasonable beliefs. But stop trying to fit a square peg of data into the round hole of your beliefs to support your thesis. It makes you look silly.

P.S. You don't understand how "math" and waitlists work if you think fewer kids will apply, fewer will accept and yet it will be harder to get in.

No PP but I don’t really follow this “logic.” You must be very defensive because you have kids going to or at Walls.

1) Parents from Basis and Latin say that fewer 8th graders from those schools plan to attend Walls. That means that the kids didn’t apply, turned down a slot, turned down the waitlist, or are on the waitlist but don’t plan to enroll. You have no reason to dispute that.

2) Some random person on DCUM said that the waitlist has gone down 40 something. Last year, by June, the waitlist went down by 54 by June, the previous year 61, and the year before that 59. So what? This year, maybe fewer Basis and Latin kids were in the original pool of 500 applicants (because they didn’t bother to apply), so that would have no impact on the WL. Maybe they were in the original 500 and turned down a slot. Maybe they are just sitting on the WL to see what happens. Whatever. How does your argument demonstrate that the number of Basis and Latin students who applied to Walls this year AND plan to enroll is about the same as last year or previous years? In fact, the pool of 500 is still 500 and the WL is still about the same; what is different is that the pool and the WL just doesn’t include as many Basis and Latin kids that plan to go to Walls. Since Basis and Latin kids are some of the strongest applicants, that means the academic quality of the pool has decreased. The fact that the WL has gone down 40 something is meaningless in this context.

Maybe you should work on your reasoning skills as well as your “math.”

Responding to bolded, in order.

1. Yes, I do. Because of the DATA. What part of the actual data are you simply not understanding. We know how many seats were offered and how many are on the WL. We know how that data compares to prior years. That data does NOT support your belief that fewer kids applied. And it does not support your theory that fewer kids accepted seats. Why is this so hard for you?

2. It doesn't. People are trying to argue that the available data supports the argument that fewer kids applied and/or are accepting because of the testing situation and/or kids staying at Latin or Basis. I replied to point out the data does not support that claim. You've gone and gotten confused and replied with some nonsense asking me to use the data to disprove your thesis. That's nonsensical and backwards. Can you see that?

2. You cannot know that, and the fact that you acknowledge that the numbers are steady as against prior years begs the question to which you have no answer: Where did the kids come from? Especially in a period of enrollments shrinking throughout the DMV. You can type the words as many times as you want but it doesn't make them any more logical.

2. That is beyond circular logic. You start with a premise that you have no data to support (that fewer kids applied and/or are accepting). A premise that data suggests is likely wrong. And then you conclude with a statement of fact that because fewer Latin and Basis kids applied and/or accepted the pool is weaker. Except..YOU HAVE NO DATA TO SUPPORT YOUR FIRST STATEMENT.

I don't have a kid at Walls. In fact I have one at one of the other two schools that you are trying to boost! My objection is to your lack of logic, reason or rationality, not to the fact that you object to Walls eliminating testing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Latin II just dropped by 5 more spots.

4 more.

Wow, people are dropping out by the bushel.

You should track the Walls HS list - we were mid 40s and already got in

Yeah, almost no one from Basis is going. Sound like lots of others are saying no too.

Shame they dropped the admissions test.

Could be. Could also be nothing more than DCUM doing what DCUM does and seeing everything through the prism of their own preconception. Looking at the historical WL data Walls they have made at least 50 WL offers by June in every reported year.

Sure but that doesn't refute the point that fewer Basis or Latin kids are going. There are a lot of schools in DC other than Basis and Latin, so WL movement this year could well be in line with previous years. Plus, typically Basis and Latin kids tended to do well on the admissions test, which is now gone. As a result, it is easier to get in from worse schools with grade inflation. So, in fact, Walls could become harder to get in at the same time that the academic level of the admitted kids decreases.

Let's set aside for a moment that fewer kids accepting slots from Basis and Latin would necessarily mean WL would move faster (cause, you know, math). Let's also set aside for a moment that fewer kids even applying would necessarily mean shorter waitlists (math). Let's also ignore your silly statement that "are a lot of schools in DC other than Basis and Latin" - those schools have also always existed! That's either unintentional ignorance or gaslighting.

Someone pointed our their WL had moved 40 slots. Thus began the posters using that as a data point in support of their belief that the testing (or lack thereof) has caused students not to accept slots at Walls. I pointed out that based on what is now known (in terms of WL movement) this year is no different than year's past. People chiming in to use the WL movement as a data point to support their thesis are ignoring the data to which they cling. Then you inexplicably chimed in to double down on this silliness that current data supports your "testing elimination is killing Walls" thesis.

You clearly believe that elimination of testing will degrade the quality of the student body and hurt your kid (and her friends). You also clearly believe that the school will become less in demand as a consequence of those changes. Those are not unreasonable beliefs. But stop trying to fit a square peg of data into the round hole of your beliefs to support your thesis. It makes you look silly.

P.S. You don't understand how "math" and waitlists work if you think fewer kids will apply, fewer will accept and yet it will be harder to get in.

No PP but I don’t really follow this “logic.” You must be very defensive because you have kids going to or at Walls.

1) Parents from Basis and Latin say that fewer 8th graders from those schools plan to attend Walls. That means that the kids didn’t apply, turned down a slot, turned down the waitlist, or are on the waitlist but don’t plan to enroll. You have no reason to dispute that.

2) Some random person on DCUM said that the waitlist has gone down 40 something. Last year, by June, the waitlist went down by 54 by June, the previous year 61, and the year before that 59. So what? This year, maybe fewer Basis and Latin kids were in the original pool of 500 applicants (because they didn’t bother to apply), so that would have no impact on the WL. Maybe they were in the original 500 and turned down a slot. Maybe they are just sitting on the WL to see what happens. Whatever. How does your argument demonstrate that the number of Basis and Latin students who applied to Walls this year AND plan to enroll is about the same as last year or previous years? In fact, the pool of 500 is still 500 and the WL is still about the same; what is different is that the pool and the WL just doesn’t include as many Basis and Latin kids that plan to go to Walls. Since Basis and Latin kids are some of the strongest applicants, that means the academic quality of the pool has decreased. The fact that the WL has gone down 40 something is meaningless in this context.

Maybe you should work on your reasoning skills as well as your “math.”

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Latin II just dropped by 5 more spots.

4 more.

Wow, people are dropping out by the bushel.

You should track the Walls HS list - we were mid 40s and already got in

Yeah, almost no one from Basis is going. Sound like lots of others are saying no too.

Shame they dropped the admissions test.

Could be. Could also be nothing more than DCUM doing what DCUM does and seeing everything through the prism of their own preconception. Looking at the historical WL data Walls they have made at least 50 WL offers by June in every reported year.

Sure but that doesn't refute the point that fewer Basis or Latin kids are going. There are a lot of schools in DC other than Basis and Latin, so WL movement this year could well be in line with previous years. Plus, typically Basis and Latin kids tended to do well on the admissions test, which is now gone. As a result, it is easier to get in from worse schools with grade inflation. So, in fact, Walls could become harder to get in at the same time that the academic level of the admitted kids decreases.

Let's set aside for a moment that fewer kids accepting slots from Basis and Latin would necessarily mean WL would move faster (cause, you know, math). Let's also set aside for a moment that fewer kids even applying would necessarily mean shorter waitlists (math). Let's also ignore your silly statement that "are a lot of schools in DC other than Basis and Latin" - those schools have also always existed! That's either unintentional ignorance or gaslighting.

Someone pointed our their WL had moved 40 slots. Thus began the posters using that as a data point in support of their belief that the testing (or lack thereof) has caused students not to accept slots at Walls. I pointed out that based on what is now known (in terms of WL movement) this year is no different than year's past. People chiming in to use the WL movement as a data point to support their thesis are ignoring the data to which they cling. Then you inexplicably chimed in to double down on this silliness that current data supports your "testing elimination is killing Walls" thesis.

You clearly believe that elimination of testing will degrade the quality of the student body and hurt your kid (and her friends). You also clearly believe that the school will become less in demand as a consequence of those changes. Those are not unreasonable beliefs. But stop trying to fit a square peg of data into the round hole of your beliefs to support your thesis. It makes you look silly.

P.S. You don't understand how "math" and waitlists work if you think fewer kids will apply, fewer will accept and yet it will be harder to get in.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Latin II just dropped by 5 more spots.

4 more.

Wow, people are dropping out by the bushel.

You should track the Walls HS list - we were mid 40s and already got in

Yeah, almost no one from Basis is going. Sound like lots of others are saying no too.

Shame they dropped the admissions test.

Could be. Could also be nothing more than DCUM doing what DCUM does and seeing everything through the prism of their own preconception. Looking at the historical WL data Walls they have made at least 50 WL offers by June in every reported year.

Sure but that doesn't refute the point that fewer Basis or Latin kids are going. There are a lot of schools in DC other than Basis and Latin, so WL movement this year could well be in line with previous years. Plus, typically Basis and Latin kids tended to do well on the admissions test, which is now gone. As a result, it is easier to get in from worse schools with grade inflation. So, in fact, Walls could become harder to get in at the same time that the academic level of the admitted kids decreases.