Latest research says that intelligence tests on 5 year olds are unreliable and inaccurate. Schools supposedly base their admissions on these outdated methods
No wonder kids from other schools are outperforming somel of the privileged, but the privileged should still be better off for having to have been at a better school
Makes you wonder why they do not do better
A good school should know how to teach

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:so what did these awful parents do exactly that caused this advisor to leave?

The director hired someone who turned out to be spectacularly unsuited for the job. It happens. But rather than admit a mistake, make a change and move on, he refused to acknowledge the problem, got very defensive, and dug in. Now both are leaving.

Why wasn’t the person hired a good fit?

Unfortunately he turned out to be a doofus. That pretty much sums it up.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Seems schools like Sidwell wants it both ways. They want to feed kids into competitive programs but limited by recruiting kids not necessarily geared or prepared for those programs. Recruiting kids are from certain privileged backgrounds definitely requires sacrificing kids who are better prepared academically...just my 2cents.

Why do you assume "recruited kids" are of lesser academic ability? Not my experience at all.

Because when you consider constraints of legacy, donors, influential parents, siblings, sports the admission seizes to be a meritorcracy, it will have to let less prepared kids slip in and possibly more than the admission committe would if it were a meritocracy.

I don't consider most on your list to be recruited. but YMMV.

Does admitted work better? I once heard people argue on semantics when they don’t have a point to make.

Admitted is not the same as recruited. Please refer to a dictionary before castigating others for your poor word choice.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And then one parent made an anonymous phone call to a college dean of admissions to undermine a classmate competing against his DC.

What disciplinary action, if any, was taken against the student of the parent who did this?

Why punish the student? Poor guy... He has enough having a parent like that, no? Plus, is it his fault? Common’!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:so what did these awful parents do exactly that caused this advisor to leave?

The director hired someone who turned out to be spectacularly unsuited for the job. It happens. But rather than admit a mistake, make a change and move on, he refused to acknowledge the problem, got very defensive, and dug in. Now both are leaving.

You didn’t answer the question.

Bingo. Does anyone know or is the person who made the assertion just blowing smoke?

Just ask the kids and parents who were assigned to the hire. It's probably not too much to ask that an independent school college advisor be knowledgeable, is reasonably proactive, knows the assigned advisees' records, interests and college aims after a few months, and is able to communicate well in writing.

? but the question was: what did the awful parents do that caused the advisor to leave?

There are two advisors who are leaving - the director and another one. In the latter case, one can assume it was performance-related.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It was covered already and you keep asking. They 'reported' a classmate of their child to a common school of interest. I don't know the infraction and don't care, but no parent should be communicating with any admissions office and especially about another kid.

That’s it? I understood it was parents plural. Are you saying one child’s parents acted so egregiously and in a manner condemned by all that someone would change jobs because of it?

It’s probably a pattern of abuse over the years by entitled parents demanding a reason why the guy didn’t get their kids into an ivy. Like the college counselor didn’t do his job.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It was covered already and you keep asking. They 'reported' a classmate of their child to a common school of interest. I don't know the infraction and don't care, but no parent should be communicating with any admissions office and especially about another kid.

That’s it? I understood it was parents plural. Are you saying one child’s parents acted so egregiously and in a manner condemned by all that someone would change jobs because of it?

(i) the incident referenced above PLUS (ii) general fatigue with the negative and pushy attitude of parents who feel entitled to brand name college admissions.

Anonymous wrote:It was covered already and you keep asking. They 'reported' a classmate of their child to a common school of interest. I don't know the infraction and don't care, but no parent should be communicating with any admissions office and especially about another kid.

That’s it? I understood it was parents plural. Are you saying one child’s parents acted so egregiously and in a manner condemned by all that someone would change jobs because of it?

It was covered already and you keep asking. They 'reported' a classmate of their child to a common school of interest. I don't know the infraction and don't care, but no parent should be communicating with any admissions office and especially about another kid.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:so what did these awful parents do exactly that caused this advisor to leave?

The director hired someone who turned out to be spectacularly unsuited for the job. It happens. But rather than admit a mistake, make a change and move on, he refused to acknowledge the problem, got very defensive, and dug in. Now both are leaving.

You didn’t answer the question.

Bingo. Does anyone know or is the person who made the assertion just blowing smoke?

Just ask the kids and parents who were assigned to the hire. It's probably not too much to ask that an independent school college advisor be knowledgeable, is reasonably proactive, knows the assigned advisees' records, interests and college aims after a few months, and is able to communicate well in writing.

? but the question was: what did the awful parents do that caused the advisor to leave?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:so what did these awful parents do exactly that caused this advisor to leave?

The director hired someone who turned out to be spectacularly unsuited for the job. It happens. But rather than admit a mistake, make a change and move on, he refused to acknowledge the problem, got very defensive, and dug in. Now both are leaving.

You didn’t answer the question.

Bingo. Does anyone know or is the person who made the assertion just blowing smoke?

Just ask the kids and parents who were assigned to the hire. It's probably not too much to ask that an independent school college advisor be knowledgeable, is reasonably proactive, knows the assigned advisees' records, interests and college aims after a few months, and is able to communicate well in writing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Seems schools like Sidwell wants it both ways. They want to feed kids into competitive programs but limited by recruiting kids not necessarily geared or prepared for those programs. Recruiting kids are from certain privileged backgrounds definitely requires sacrificing kids who are better prepared academically...just my 2cents.

Why do you assume "recruited kids" are of lesser academic ability? Not my experience at all.

Because when you consider constraints of legacy, donors, influential parents, siblings, sports the admission seizes to be a meritorcracy, it will have to let less prepared kids slip in and possibly more than the admission committe would if it were a meritocracy.

I don't consider most on your list to be recruited. but YMMV.

Does admitted work better? I once heard people argue on semantics when they don’t have a point to make.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Seems schools like Sidwell wants it both ways. They want to feed kids into competitive programs but limited by recruiting kids not necessarily geared or prepared for those programs. Recruiting kids are from certain privileged backgrounds definitely requires sacrificing kids who are better prepared academically...just my 2cents.

Why do you assume "recruited kids" are of lesser academic ability? Not my experience at all.

Because when you consider constraints of legacy, donors, influential parents, siblings, sports the admission seizes to be a meritorcracy, it will have to let less prepared kids slip in and possibly more than the admission committe would if it were a meritocracy.

I don't consider most on your list to be recruited. but YMMV.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Seems schools like Sidwell wants it both ways. They want to feed kids into competitive programs but limited by recruiting kids not necessarily geared or prepared for those programs. Recruiting kids are from certain privileged backgrounds definitely requires sacrificing kids who are better prepared academically...just my 2cents.

Why do you assume "recruited kids" are of lesser academic ability? Not my experience at all.

$$$$$$$ from parents

I think we have different definitions of recruited.

Having worked in private schools, I will tell you that parents who pick their child's school on the basis of prestige/reputation instead of best fit generally approach the college selection process the exact same way. And parents who pick a school based on fit tend to have the same outlook about college admissions.