I have no dog in this fight, but wow. The way parents split hairs over a .1 difference, and the incredulity at a 3.9 or 3.89 kid getting an interview. As if! Everyone, these kids are human beings, not numbers. Some kids, even those with 3.9s may have something in the recs that make them stand out more than a 4.0 kid. Yes, it’s possible! Yes, they take recs into account. No one was lied to. No one here is owed anything. No one is a victim. If you think the school made a genuine mistake, call the school. Go for it. And it’s ok to be bummed, but so much of this is way over the top. Sorry to the kids who are disappointed, and congrats to those who got an interview.

How many kids got interviews? Seems like everyone did! Def below the 4.0 threshold based on anecdotes…

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The rubric says grades count for 10 points, so the 4.0 kids got 10 of 10. I think 3.8 was worth 8. The recs are worth 15 points each, total of 30. So if a 4.0 kid lost 1 point from each teacher they now have the same score as a 3.8 with full marks from recs

The teacher above said that they did not assign points.

So a SWW staff member read each rec and assigned a point value to the phrases?



"This kid is great". Hmm. Let's give that one a 9/10. What about "this kid has potential". Hmm. Definite 8/10. Or maybe 9/10. "this kid has REAL potential." Now that is a 10/10.

Sure, we can nitpick this, but GPAs are also largely based on subjective grading. Math tests or multiple choice tests are more straight forward, but there is subjectivity in pretty much every grade a kid gets. Rubrics don’t make for clear cut grading. And throw in any kind of bias, and you’ve got even more problematic subjectivity. So, sure, maybe they are making subjective decisions, but that’s no different from school, every day.

Ok, this is a massive stretch---beyond massive. GPAs are based on hundreds of assignments accumulated over years. This is based on someone turning a few lines of text (written by a third party) into a numeric value.

The point is that it’s all subjective. So it’s not a stretch. The recs are given by teachers chosen by parents and students to evaluate the kid. The application school takes the rec into account. It’s not a gotcha system.

There was no "choosing." It was the math and ELA teacher. Period.
Sure, you could use the 7th grade teachers but my child's are longer with DCPS.

Makes it even less subjective. So your point is still not a good one.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The rubric says grades count for 10 points, so the 4.0 kids got 10 of 10. I think 3.8 was worth 8. The recs are worth 15 points each, total of 30. So if a 4.0 kid lost 1 point from each teacher they now have the same score as a 3.8 with full marks from recs

The teacher above said that they did not assign points.

So a SWW staff member read each rec and assigned a point value to the phrases?



"This kid is great". Hmm. Let's give that one a 9/10. What about "this kid has potential". Hmm. Definite 8/10. Or maybe 9/10. "this kid has REAL potential." Now that is a 10/10.

Sure, we can nitpick this, but GPAs are also largely based on subjective grading. Math tests or multiple choice tests are more straight forward, but there is subjectivity in pretty much every grade a kid gets. Rubrics don’t make for clear cut grading. And throw in any kind of bias, and you’ve got even more problematic subjectivity. So, sure, maybe they are making subjective decisions, but that’s no different from school, every day.

Ok, this is a massive stretch---beyond massive. GPAs are based on hundreds of assignments accumulated over years. This is based on someone turning a few lines of text (written by a third party) into a numeric value.

The point is that it’s all subjective. So it’s not a stretch. The recs are given by teachers chosen by parents and students to evaluate the kid. The application school takes the rec into account. It’s not a gotcha system.

Parents and students DO NOT choose who fills out the rec. It's the current math and English teacher.

Ah right.

Anonymous wrote:i have one kid who is thriving at Walls and my 8th grader didn’t get an interview. My younger is a wonderful, smart, kind and athletic kid. I guess i can take solace in the fact that they will likely thrive anywhere.

So no sort of sibling preference? If. Kid had a high gpa and a sibling at walls, I think that younger sibling should get some sort of bump. SWW is a citywide school and making it easy on families by allowing their kids to attend the same school should be factored into the calculations. No dog in this fight. Just my opinion. And I'm not suggesting younger siblings that don't have a high gpa should get special treatment. But sibling preference should be worth a point or something in the calculation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just have to laugh. This is quite a robust magnet school that DCPS is running. Academic record has completely ceased to be a factor in admissions. 🤔🤪

I just have to laugh at this post. Because a few parents on DCUM post their 4.0 kids didn’t get an interview the school has completely let go of academic records as a factor? Hyperbolic much? My 4.0 kid got an interview. As I’m sure many of 4.0 kids did.

Knowing stats would be helpful. How many applicants were there? How many had a 4.0? How many spots are there total? How many interview invites did they extend? Did all the kids being invited to interview rank school without walls as number one? I really think the recommendation letter process was not fair. This was a lot of extra unpaid work for the teachers, some of whom probably were not too happy, and it might've shown in their letters.

Correct. There were teachers asked to write one letter and teachers asked to write 50.
There were kids whose parents applied in the 11th hour (for a million reasons) and I can imagine that if they asked the teacher writing 50 recs, that might have not have been viewed favorably.

there were teachers who had to be reminded by parents (a process probably also not viewed favorably by the teacher who is already over burdened).

There were kids who were the first kid to ask a teacher (and probably were also not high scorers as recommenders always tend to leave room at the top for those who come later).

All sorts of room for error and bias, which is why recs don't typically count for everything in an admissions process like this. But in this case they did since 4.0s were turned down.

King of crazy. This was ultimately decided entirely by the recs!!

So much conjecture. First of all, you don’t know what the recs say about your kid. A kid might not have gotten an interview because their rec wasn’t as good as other kids, which is valid. The recs ask about all sorts of things, including social skills. Maybe a 4.0 kid isn’t mature, or kind, or whatever….they have to differentiate between the apps, and so the recs add to the big picture. Even if there were no recs, many 4.0 kids would not get interviews because they just can’t interview everyone. I think the system is crazy that everyone is vying for spots for what is really not even a particularly awesome school (we did apply, though), but even I can recognize that recs aren’t inherently an unfair part of the process.

Thank you. Did the recommendation form ask questions to assess your opinion about how a student would fair at a smaller school versus larger school?

Nope.

What a ridiculous question.

Do you intend to wipe your kid’s bum through college too?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The rubric says grades count for 10 points, so the 4.0 kids got 10 of 10. I think 3.8 was worth 8. The recs are worth 15 points each, total of 30. So if a 4.0 kid lost 1 point from each teacher they now have the same score as a 3.8 with full marks from recs

The teacher above said that they did not assign points.

So a SWW staff member read each rec and assigned a point value to the phrases?



"This kid is great". Hmm. Let's give that one a 9/10. What about "this kid has potential". Hmm. Definite 8/10. Or maybe 9/10. "this kid has REAL potential." Now that is a 10/10.

Sure, we can nitpick this, but GPAs are also largely based on subjective grading. Math tests or multiple choice tests are more straight forward, but there is subjectivity in pretty much every grade a kid gets. Rubrics don’t make for clear cut grading. And throw in any kind of bias, and you’ve got even more problematic subjectivity. So, sure, maybe they are making subjective decisions, but that’s no different from school, every day.

Ok, this is a massive stretch---beyond massive. GPAs are based on hundreds of assignments accumulated over years. This is based on someone turning a few lines of text (written by a third party) into a numeric value.

The point is that it’s all subjective. So it’s not a stretch. The recs are given by teachers chosen by parents and students to evaluate the kid. The application school takes the rec into account. It’s not a gotcha system.

Parents and students DO NOT choose who fills out the rec. It's the current math and English teacher.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The rubric says grades count for 10 points, so the 4.0 kids got 10 of 10. I think 3.8 was worth 8. The recs are worth 15 points each, total of 30. So if a 4.0 kid lost 1 point from each teacher they now have the same score as a 3.8 with full marks from recs

The teacher above said that they did not assign points.

So a SWW staff member read each rec and assigned a point value to the phrases?



"This kid is great". Hmm. Let's give that one a 9/10. What about "this kid has potential". Hmm. Definite 8/10. Or maybe 9/10. "this kid has REAL potential." Now that is a 10/10.

Sure, we can nitpick this, but GPAs are also largely based on subjective grading. Math tests or multiple choice tests are more straight forward, but there is subjectivity in pretty much every grade a kid gets. Rubrics don’t make for clear cut grading. And throw in any kind of bias, and you’ve got even more problematic subjectivity. So, sure, maybe they are making subjective decisions, but that’s no different from school, every day.

Ok, this is a massive stretch---beyond massive. GPAs are based on hundreds of assignments accumulated over years. This is based on someone turning a few lines of text (written by a third party) into a numeric value.

The point is that it’s all subjective. So it’s not a stretch. The recs are given by teachers chosen by parents and students to evaluate the kid. The application school takes the rec into account. It’s not a gotcha system.

There was no "choosing." It was the math and ELA teacher. Period.
Sure, you could use the 7th grade teachers but my child's are longer with DCPS.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The rubric says grades count for 10 points, so the 4.0 kids got 10 of 10. I think 3.8 was worth 8. The recs are worth 15 points each, total of 30. So if a 4.0 kid lost 1 point from each teacher they now have the same score as a 3.8 with full marks from recs

The teacher above said that they did not assign points.

So a SWW staff member read each rec and assigned a point value to the phrases?



"This kid is great". Hmm. Let's give that one a 9/10. What about "this kid has potential". Hmm. Definite 8/10. Or maybe 9/10. "this kid has REAL potential." Now that is a 10/10.

Sure, we can nitpick this, but GPAs are also largely based on subjective grading. Math tests or multiple choice tests are more straight forward, but there is subjectivity in pretty much every grade a kid gets. Rubrics don’t make for clear cut grading. And throw in any kind of bias, and you’ve got even more problematic subjectivity. So, sure, maybe they are making subjective decisions, but that’s no different from school, every day.

Ok, this is a massive stretch---beyond massive. GPAs are based on hundreds of assignments accumulated over years. This is based on someone turning a few lines of text (written by a third party) into a numeric value.

The point is that it’s all subjective. So it’s not a stretch. The recs are given by teachers chosen by parents and students to evaluate the kid. The application school takes the rec into account. It’s not a gotcha system.

Anonymous wrote:Last year was bad but this seems worse in some ways.

Walls' subjective weighting of letters of rec is worth way more than GPA.

Here is an example:

Student 1: 3.0 GPA (2 pts); great letters of rec (15+15 points); total 32
Student 2: 4.0 GPA (10 pts); middling letters of rec (10+10 points); total 30

Student 1 is ranked over Student 2 for an interview.

yep, and there was no standardizing of the letters of rec. You could have a teacher who is naturally effusive. Or one that is naturally terse.
Then end result of a staff member reading these and assigning a numeric value to them could have no bearing on the kid but everything to do with the communication style of the teacher.

Let me tell you--I am not a bubbly person. You'll never hear me calling my most valued employee "the best thing ever or completely invaluable to the team." I'll give you a very measured accounting of important and/or impressive things that person has accomplished.
Someone spending 2 minutes reading my rec would likely not give my employee a 10/10. Thankfully never has an employee of mine applied for a position based solely on a numeric value given to my comments.

That's why for college applications recs hold very little weight and many colleges don't even ask for them or consider them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just have to laugh. This is quite a robust magnet school that DCPS is running. Academic record has completely ceased to be a factor in admissions. 🤔🤪

I just have to laugh at this post. Because a few parents on DCUM post their 4.0 kids didn’t get an interview the school has completely let go of academic records as a factor? Hyperbolic much? My 4.0 kid got an interview. As I’m sure many of 4.0 kids did.

Knowing stats would be helpful. How many applicants were there? How many had a 4.0? How many spots are there total? How many interview invites did they extend? Did all the kids being invited to interview rank school without walls as number one? I really think the recommendation letter process was not fair. This was a lot of extra unpaid work for the teachers, some of whom probably were not too happy, and it might've shown in their letters.

They probably got around 1800 applications. And what is unfair? Teachers aren’t giving bad recs because they resent the work load. I’m a teacher, and while recs are a lot of work, I am always happy to write recs for hardworking kids. Even if I have to write a lot of them. And if the recs affects all kids, which they do, where is the unfairness? Also, the rankings do not matter. SWW does not know the rankings.

Where did you come up with 1800?

Could you describe the Walls teacher rec form? Did you assign numerical rankings to students in certain categories?

The rec form is the same for all the schools, so if you applied to walls and Banneker the teacher filled out ONE recommendation. Our school provided a rubric of what the rec looks for. It’s a form that’s filled out. This isn’t 1987. Thankfully teachers are making selections.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The rubric says grades count for 10 points, so the 4.0 kids got 10 of 10. I think 3.8 was worth 8. The recs are worth 15 points each, total of 30. So if a 4.0 kid lost 1 point from each teacher they now have the same score as a 3.8 with full marks from recs

The teacher above said that they did not assign points.

So a SWW staff member read each rec and assigned a point value to the phrases?



"This kid is great". Hmm. Let's give that one a 9/10. What about "this kid has potential". Hmm. Definite 8/10. Or maybe 9/10. "this kid has REAL potential." Now that is a 10/10.

Sure, we can nitpick this, but GPAs are also largely based on subjective grading. Math tests or multiple choice tests are more straight forward, but there is subjectivity in pretty much every grade a kid gets. Rubrics don’t make for clear cut grading. And throw in any kind of bias, and you’ve got even more problematic subjectivity. So, sure, maybe they are making subjective decisions, but that’s no different from school, every day.

Ok, this is a massive stretch---beyond massive. GPAs are based on hundreds of assignments accumulated over years. This is based on someone turning a few lines of text (written by a third party) into a numeric value.

i have one kid who is thriving at Walls and my 8th grader didn’t get an interview. My younger is a wonderful, smart, kind and athletic kid. I guess i can take solace in the fact that they will likely thrive anywhere.

Last year was bad but this seems worse in some ways.

Walls' subjective weighting of letters of rec is worth way more than GPA.

Here is an example:

Student 1: 3.0 GPA (2 pts); great letters of rec (15+15 points); total 32
Student 2: 4.0 GPA (10 pts); middling letters of rec (10+10 points); total 30

Student 1 is ranked over Student 2 for an interview.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The rubric says grades count for 10 points, so the 4.0 kids got 10 of 10. I think 3.8 was worth 8. The recs are worth 15 points each, total of 30. So if a 4.0 kid lost 1 point from each teacher they now have the same score as a 3.8 with full marks from recs

The teacher above said that they did not assign points.

So a SWW staff member read each rec and assigned a point value to the phrases?



"This kid is great". Hmm. Let's give that one a 9/10. What about "this kid has potential". Hmm. Definite 8/10. Or maybe 9/10. "this kid has REAL potential." Now that is a 10/10.

Sure, we can nitpick this, but GPAs are also largely based on subjective grading. Math tests or multiple choice tests are more straight forward, but there is subjectivity in pretty much every grade a kid gets. Rubrics don’t make for clear cut grading. And throw in any kind of bias, and you’ve got even more problematic subjectivity. So, sure, maybe they are making subjective decisions, but that’s no different from school, every day.