Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lol at Banneker and McKinley being some kind of prize.

Among public and charter high schools, Banneker is ranked in the top 100 in the nation by USNWR. The only other DC area high schools in the top 100 are Thomas Jefferson and SWW.

Some may not agree with the USNWR rankings, but the metrics are objective and transparent.

OP obviously is clueless about Banneker and too arrogant to learn. It's probably too rigid for my kid but they have been churning out great kids for decades. They actually fought for a new building. They are the poster kids(with SWW) for DCPS' awful philosophy of "smart kids will be ok they don't need anything"....

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At the same time, I don't think that parents of kids who actually try and are motivated in school need to worry that much about their kid getting into one of the selective schools. I think they'll likely self sort, and that parents of kids who don't have at least a 3.0 or the ability to interview well will probably find their kids a good fit at a private school.

I agree with the OP that kids of high SES parents will likely find a spot that fits them and that works for their family in a perfectly acceptable high school.

LMAO

You think SSFS would have turned them down? There's a spot for all kids at one private or another.

Anonymous wrote:At the same time, I don't think that parents of kids who actually try and are motivated in school need to worry that much about their kid getting into one of the selective schools. I think they'll likely self sort, and that parents of kids who don't have at least a 3.0 or the ability to interview well will probably find their kids a good fit at a private school.

I agree with the OP that kids of high SES parents will likely find a spot that fits them and that works for their family in a perfectly acceptable high school.

LMAO

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, for (hopefully) the last time: McKinley Tech does not now and has never, in recent memory, maintained a waitlist. That's not how it works.

They waitlisted one kid last year. Three kids a few years earlier.

Last year they had 247 matches, this year only 163. I wonder why.

Because they decreased the number of students they wanted to accept. Every year they turn away far more students than they accept.

Well, that's hard to know. We don't know how many students they would have been happy to accept but who matched elsewhere.

Also, the school itself has told students that they turn away far more students than they accept. Unless they are lying, that's one data point.

That's nice, but what I really want to know is how many *of those who completed the application process* would have been accepted had they not matched elsewhere.

The point is that none of us know that data, but you can certainly request in in whichever manner you see fit. But just declaring that it's not a selective school absent any actual evidence does not make it so.

I'm not the one who said that, and I never would-- it definitely is a selective school. I don't find it to be very transparent in its admissions process, that's all.

I agree completely. I think all parties would be better served if the selective school application process was more transparent. Additionally, given that these schools are public, greater transparency is something we are entitled to.

At the same time, I don't think that parents of kids who actually try and are motivated in school need to worry that much about their kid getting into one of the selective schools. I think they'll likely self sort, and that parents of kids who don't have at least a 3.0 or the ability to interview well will probably find their kids a good fit at a private school.

I agree with the OP that kids of high SES parents will likely find a spot that fits them and that works for their family in a perfectly acceptable high school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, for (hopefully) the last time: McKinley Tech does not now and has never, in recent memory, maintained a waitlist. That's not how it works.

They waitlisted one kid last year. Three kids a few years earlier.

Last year they had 247 matches, this year only 163. I wonder why.

Because they decreased the number of students they wanted to accept. Every year they turn away far more students than they accept.

Well, that's hard to know. We don't know how many students they would have been happy to accept but who matched elsewhere.

Also, the school itself has told students that they turn away far more students than they accept. Unless they are lying, that's one data point.

That's nice, but what I really want to know is how many *of those who completed the application process* would have been accepted had they not matched elsewhere.

The point is that none of us know that data, but you can certainly request in in whichever manner you see fit. But just declaring that it's not a selective school absent any actual evidence does not make it so.

I'm not the one who said that, and I never would-- it definitely is a selective school. I don't find it to be very transparent in its admissions process, that's all.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, for (hopefully) the last time: McKinley Tech does not now and has never, in recent memory, maintained a waitlist. That's not how it works.

They waitlisted one kid last year. Three kids a few years earlier.

Last year they had 247 matches, this year only 163. I wonder why.

Because they decreased the number of students they wanted to accept. Every year they turn away far more students than they accept.

Well, that's hard to know. We don't know how many students they would have been happy to accept but who matched elsewhere.

Also, the school itself has told students that they turn away far more students than they accept. Unless they are lying, that's one data point.

That's nice, but what I really want to know is how many *of those who completed the application process* would have been accepted had they not matched elsewhere.

The point is that none of us know that data, but you can certainly request in in whichever manner you see fit. But just declaring that it's not a selective school absent any actual evidence does not make it so.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, for (hopefully) the last time: McKinley Tech does not now and has never, in recent memory, maintained a waitlist. That's not how it works.

They waitlisted one kid last year. Three kids a few years earlier.

Last year they had 247 matches, this year only 163. I wonder why.

Because they decreased the number of students they wanted to accept. Every year they turn away far more students than they accept.

Well, that's hard to know. We don't know how many students they would have been happy to accept but who matched elsewhere.

Also, the school itself has told students that they turn away far more students than they accept. Unless they are lying, that's one data point.

Great, but we don't actually know what they mean. Do they count as "turned away" all the kids who don't complete the process? What does "accept" mean-- does it mean the number who match, or some larger number that they feel they have to try to match so as to produce their desired class size?