Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Test scores, first choice letters, legacy, URM, sports, being potentially very large donors in addition to full pay.

You seem very confident that you know what went into the other kids' applications, and sometimes there are things that their parents haven't mentioned to you.

I agree with this. We have been through admissions multiple times with our kids. The times we have been successful, it felt like an all-out siege, but none of the strategizing and effort would have been visible to other parents.

What did you do that wouldn’t have been obvious to others?

We have been accepted to 2nd tier schools only and WL at first tier. I still don’t understand why. ISEE scores 7,8,9,9; national placement in science; city recognition for art portfolio (submitted to school); plays 4 sports; UMC family that is active at K-8; parent recognized for school donations; well written parent statements and student essay. Applied to top tier in K, 6, and 9 - all WL. I know legacy kids with lower stats who get in. The non-legacy kids (very view) who do get in have similar stats. What did you do differently?

Did you ask the HoS at your K-8 why your child was not admitted to top tier for 9th? HoS at St Pats, Lowell, Sheridan, Norwood would know.

Yes, I asked, but I feel like I got a 'non-answer' - "competition was steep and there were just so many great kids and not enough spots". It just seems like other "great kids" similar to mine get the spots and never my kid. Oh well, my focus is on my younger ones now and I'm not sure top tier is for them - I'm tempted to send them there the older ones went for simplicity.

Your emphasis on "first tier" and "2nd tier" could be your answer.

Are you saying there isn't a pecking order in high schools or just that it is supposed to remain unsaid?

You’re saying too much of the quiet part out loud. Also focused too much on rankings instead of showing fit. You’re supposed to say things like “Jr wants to go to the library every day to learn after school and is looking for a school where there are more kids like her,” not “we’re looking for Jr to be in a top tier school.”

This is also internally in your K-8 discussions with teachers and administrators. If you don’t show you know why your daughter would be a better fit at NCS than Holton beyond that NCS is ranked first, especially if administrators think Holton would also be a fit or might be a better fit, they may not bat for you with NCS.

So gross and eye-rolly. How do you do that crap and not vomit all over yourselves? You know in 20 years NONE of this will matter!

I don’t. But I know people who do, and do so successfully.

I also think this practice is completely unfair. For all these schools’ talk about systemic bias no one seems to realize that parents of most kids coming from underprivileged backgrounds don’t know don’t have time to learn the difference between Sidwell and GDS. They just want their kids to go to the best schools and “get ahead,” sometimes without much of an idea of what that means. It’s unfair to ask them to have a reason to want to a school beyond “I want the best for my child.”

Why exactly is it unfair? Because you assume they don't have the fortitude to make a distinction? Equating privilege, or lack there of, with an (in)ability to appropriately analyze options is at best, short-sighted, at worst, insulting. Underprivileged is not synonymous with incapable or stupid.

What distinction is there between SFS and GDS? Is one more ethical and less racist? I was able to follow the thread until these posts.

Curious about this also.

There are some pretty significant differences between SFS and GDS and if parents looked closely, it would be obvious. First, SFS is a Quaker School and while some people chose to ignore that - Quakerism is very much a part of the school. Someone mentioned that SFS takes diversity seriously by the numbers - I would agree with this, but it also keeps classes gender balanced and makes it so that none of the classes are over dominated with one race (despite what some people might believe...all kids at the school benefit from this). GDS and Sidwell have very different founding stories and to me, this was interesting. I actually loved GDS' founding story (though we ultimately decided on Sidwell) and thought the school was lovely. But the schools, to me, had a very different vibe. I would say that Sidwell is "liberal" but I think GDS might have Sidwell beat a bit in that area.

Anonymous wrote:This is compelling. Years ago I did an interview project with nursing staff. Some of the best ppl in their moral practice and capacity gave simple verybal answers. Complexity of blabbing did not correlate with what I saw in practice. "Because it's Princeton" is an honest answer.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Test scores, first choice letters, legacy, URM, sports, being potentially very large donors in addition to full pay.

You seem very confident that you know what went into the other kids' applications, and sometimes there are things that their parents haven't mentioned to you.

I agree with this. We have been through admissions multiple times with our kids. The times we have been successful, it felt like an all-out siege, but none of the strategizing and effort would have been visible to other parents.

What did you do that wouldn’t have been obvious to others?

We have been accepted to 2nd tier schools only and WL at first tier. I still don’t understand why. ISEE scores 7,8,9,9; national placement in science; city recognition for art portfolio (submitted to school); plays 4 sports; UMC family that is active at K-8; parent recognized for school donations; well written parent statements and student essay. Applied to top tier in K, 6, and 9 - all WL. I know legacy kids with lower stats who get in. The non-legacy kids (very view) who do get in have similar stats. What did you do differently?

Did you ask the HoS at your K-8 why your child was not admitted to top tier for 9th? HoS at St Pats, Lowell, Sheridan, Norwood would know.

Yes, I asked, but I feel like I got a 'non-answer' - "competition was steep and there were just so many great kids and not enough spots". It just seems like other "great kids" similar to mine get the spots and never my kid. Oh well, my focus is on my younger ones now and I'm not sure top tier is for them - I'm tempted to send them there the older ones went for simplicity.

Your emphasis on "first tier" and "2nd tier" could be your answer.

Are you saying there isn't a pecking order in high schools or just that it is supposed to remain unsaid?

You’re saying too much of the quiet part out loud. Also focused too much on rankings instead of showing fit. You’re supposed to say things like “Jr wants to go to the library every day to learn after school and is looking for a school where there are more kids like her,” not “we’re looking for Jr to be in a top tier school.”

This is also internally in your K-8 discussions with teachers and administrators. If you don’t show you know why your daughter would be a better fit at NCS than Holton beyond that NCS is ranked first, especially if administrators think Holton would also be a fit or might be a better fit, they may not bat for you with NCS.

So gross and eye-rolly. How do you do that crap and not vomit all over yourselves? You know in 20 years NONE of this will matter!

I don’t. But I know people who do, and do so successfully.

I also think this practice is completely unfair. For all these schools’ talk about systemic bias no one seems to realize that parents of most kids coming from underprivileged backgrounds don’t know don’t have time to learn the difference between Sidwell and GDS. They just want their kids to go to the best schools and “get ahead,” sometimes without much of an idea of what that means. It’s unfair to ask them to have a reason to want to a school beyond “I want the best for my child.”

Unfair and hypocritical. Yes, you are getting it now.

No, I got it before too. Got it 20 years ago when I had to learn the first time.

FWIW, these rules only continue as your child progresses through school. Everyone is curious about the VIPs, but you’re not supposed to say so out loud. You have to treat VIPs like normal people even if they’re not. You have to talk about racial justice and equity but then understand everyone will go to their racist country clubs after the DEI meeting including the then HoS. The list goes on and on.

You have to decide if you want it enough to play by their rules. If you do, there they are. If you don’t, then you should be happy not to have to.

When you understand this, maybe you’ll finally understand why some people prefer for their kids to be in public or so-called not “top tier” schools.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"would other parents feel comfortable dropping their kids off at their house?"

So they have to have a house right? Not an apartment? And in a certain kind of neighborhood too right?

Has nothing to do with the physical structure the parents live in and everything to do with the parents.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don’t forget behavior.

Our child was at a private that sent many students to top schools. Children were not prepared for exmissions, but they were generally expected to be considerate and well-behaved. They were also expected to have friendly conversations with adults. The ones who did not meet this expectation did not get into top schools, even when the parents were VIPs and grades were great. The kids who got into top schools were not uniformly smart, but they were uniformly kind.

One very intelligent, career-driven mom’s overachieving child was rejected or waitlisted everywhere because of her own oblivious and obnoxious behavior. When she found out via the HoS inquiring that she was the reason her child not accepted, she then started explaining how the schools were short-sighted and missing out by not accepting her child. This might all be true, but it also exemplifies the very behavior that might have prevented her from being a wanted member of the community.

The exact opposite happened at our K-6. The most obnoxious mom complained about other kids, even as her kid was kicking other kids. My kid got kicked in the shins and the HOS laughed about the other mom and kid. But, that kid got into a top 3... as a sibling.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Test scores, first choice letters, legacy, URM, sports, being potentially very large donors in addition to full pay.

You seem very confident that you know what went into the other kids' applications, and sometimes there are things that their parents haven't mentioned to you.

I agree with this. We have been through admissions multiple times with our kids. The times we have been successful, it felt like an all-out siege, but none of the strategizing and effort would have been visible to other parents.

What did you do that wouldn’t have been obvious to others?

We have been accepted to 2nd tier schools only and WL at first tier. I still don’t understand why. ISEE scores 7,8,9,9; national placement in science; city recognition for art portfolio (submitted to school); plays 4 sports; UMC family that is active at K-8; parent recognized for school donations; well written parent statements and student essay. Applied to top tier in K, 6, and 9 - all WL. I know legacy kids with lower stats who get in. The non-legacy kids (very view) who do get in have similar stats. What did you do differently?

Did you ask the HoS at your K-8 why your child was not admitted to top tier for 9th? HoS at St Pats, Lowell, Sheridan, Norwood would know.

Yes, I asked, but I feel like I got a 'non-answer' - "competition was steep and there were just so many great kids and not enough spots". It just seems like other "great kids" similar to mine get the spots and never my kid. Oh well, my focus is on my younger ones now and I'm not sure top tier is for them - I'm tempted to send them there the older ones went for simplicity.

Your emphasis on "first tier" and "2nd tier" could be your answer.

Are you saying there isn't a pecking order in high schools or just that it is supposed to remain unsaid?

You’re saying too much of the quiet part out loud. Also focused too much on rankings instead of showing fit. You’re supposed to say things like “Jr wants to go to the library every day to learn after school and is looking for a school where there are more kids like her,” not “we’re looking for Jr to be in a top tier school.”

This is also internally in your K-8 discussions with teachers and administrators. If you don’t show you know why your daughter would be a better fit at NCS than Holton beyond that NCS is ranked first, especially if administrators think Holton would also be a fit or might be a better fit, they may not bat for you with NCS.

So gross and eye-rolly. How do you do that crap and not vomit all over yourselves? You know in 20 years NONE of this will matter!

I don’t. But I know people who do, and do so successfully.

I also think this practice is completely unfair. For all these schools’ talk about systemic bias no one seems to realize that parents of most kids coming from underprivileged backgrounds don’t know don’t have time to learn the difference between Sidwell and GDS. They just want their kids to go to the best schools and “get ahead,” sometimes without much of an idea of what that means. It’s unfair to ask them to have a reason to want to a school beyond “I want the best for my child.”

Why exactly is it unfair? Because you assume they don't have the fortitude to make a distinction? Equating privilege, or lack there of, with an (in)ability to appropriately analyze options is at best, short-sighted, at worst, insulting. Underprivileged is not synonymous with incapable or stupid.

What distinction is there between SFS and GDS? Is one more ethical and less racist? I was able to follow the thread until these posts.

Curious about this also.

There are some pretty significant differences between SFS and GDS and if parents looked closely, it would be obvious. First, SFS is a Quaker School and while some people chose to ignore that - Quakerism is very much a part of the school. Someone mentioned that SFS takes diversity seriously by the numbers - I would agree with this, but it also keeps classes gender balanced and makes it so that none of the classes are over dominated with one race (despite what some people might believe...all kids at the school benefit from this). GDS and Sidwell have very different founding stories and to me, this was interesting. I actually loved GDS' founding story (though we ultimately decided on Sidwell) and thought the school was lovely. But the schools, to me, had a very different vibe. I would say that Sidwell is "liberal" but I think GDS might have Sidwell beat a bit in that area.

Anonymous wrote:"would other parents feel comfortable dropping their kids off at their house?"

So they have to have a house right? Not an apartment? And in a certain kind of neighborhood too right?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Test scores, first choice letters, legacy, URM, sports, being potentially very large donors in addition to full pay.

You seem very confident that you know what went into the other kids' applications, and sometimes there are things that their parents haven't mentioned to you.

I agree with this. We have been through admissions multiple times with our kids. The times we have been successful, it felt like an all-out siege, but none of the strategizing and effort would have been visible to other parents.

What did you do that wouldn’t have been obvious to others?

We have been accepted to 2nd tier schools only and WL at first tier. I still don’t understand why. ISEE scores 7,8,9,9; national placement in science; city recognition for art portfolio (submitted to school); plays 4 sports; UMC family that is active at K-8; parent recognized for school donations; well written parent statements and student essay. Applied to top tier in K, 6, and 9 - all WL. I know legacy kids with lower stats who get in. The non-legacy kids (very view) who do get in have similar stats. What did you do differently?

Did you ask the HoS at your K-8 why your child was not admitted to top tier for 9th? HoS at St Pats, Lowell, Sheridan, Norwood would know.

Yes, I asked, but I feel like I got a 'non-answer' - "competition was steep and there were just so many great kids and not enough spots". It just seems like other "great kids" similar to mine get the spots and never my kid. Oh well, my focus is on my younger ones now and I'm not sure top tier is for them - I'm tempted to send them there the older ones went for simplicity.

Your emphasis on "first tier" and "2nd tier" could be your answer.

Are you saying there isn't a pecking order in high schools or just that it is supposed to remain unsaid?

You’re saying too much of the quiet part out loud. Also focused too much on rankings instead of showing fit. You’re supposed to say things like “Jr wants to go to the library every day to learn after school and is looking for a school where there are more kids like her,” not “we’re looking for Jr to be in a top tier school.”

This is also internally in your K-8 discussions with teachers and administrators. If you don’t show you know why your daughter would be a better fit at NCS than Holton beyond that NCS is ranked first, especially if administrators think Holton would also be a fit or might be a better fit, they may not bat for you with NCS.

So gross and eye-rolly. How do you do that crap and not vomit all over yourselves? You know in 20 years NONE of this will matter!

I don’t. But I know people who do, and do so successfully.

I also think this practice is completely unfair. For all these schools’ talk about systemic bias no one seems to realize that parents of most kids coming from underprivileged backgrounds don’t know don’t have time to learn the difference between Sidwell and GDS. They just want their kids to go to the best schools and “get ahead,” sometimes without much of an idea of what that means. It’s unfair to ask them to have a reason to want to a school beyond “I want the best for my child.”

Why exactly is it unfair? Because you assume they don't have the fortitude to make a distinction? Equating privilege, or lack there of, with an (in)ability to appropriately analyze options is at best, short-sighted, at worst, insulting. Underprivileged is not synonymous with incapable or stupid.

What distinction is there between SFS and GDS? Is one more ethical and less racist? I was able to follow the thread until these posts.

Curious about this also.

Anonymous wrote:"would other parents feel comfortable dropping their kids off at their house?"

So they have to have a house right? Not an apartment? And in a certain kind of neighborhood too right?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don’t forget behavior.

Our child was at a private that sent many students to top schools. Children were not prepared for exmissions, but they were generally expected to be considerate and well-behaved. They were also expected to have friendly conversations with adults. The ones who did not meet this expectation did not get into top schools, even when the parents were VIPs and grades were great. The kids who got into top schools were not uniformly smart, but they were uniformly kind.

One very intelligent, career-driven mom’s overachieving child was rejected or waitlisted everywhere because of her own oblivious and obnoxious behavior. When she found out via the HoS inquiring that she was the reason her child not accepted, she then started explaining how the schools were short-sighted and missing out by not accepting her child. This might all be true, but it also exemplifies the very behavior that might have prevented her from being a wanted member of the community.

The exact opposite happened at our K-6. The most obnoxious mom complained about other kids, even as her kid was kicking other kids. My kid got kicked in the shins and the HOS laughed about the other mom and kid. But, that kid got into a top 3... as a sibling.