Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a hard message to deliver and I apologize in advance. A 3.7 just isn’t all that compelling and neither is a 34 ACT relatively speaking for top 15 universities even coming from a great school like Sidwell. If your kid isn’t a NMF and/or Presidential Scholar candidate and done some substantive internships or academic research outside of school, and hit > 3.9 overall GPA having taken the Math I — Math IV sequence plus all the accelerated 1A sciences plus four years of language, plus a >1560 SAT or 35/36 ACT, you really don’t get on the radar screen of the top 15 schools. Exception is the hooked kids — namely athletes, legacies and URM, but a couple of those hooked kids have the former qualifications, too, making them spectacularly attractive applicants. These schools really know Sidwell and for example understand that a solid A from Math III is a pretty powerful academic signal. I just cannot sit by and continue to watch the Sidwell CCO get trashed the way it is by some folks on this forum. In the aggregate, they are doing a good job in a very challenging and competitive environment. The reality is, putting aside the “branding” element, the top 30 - 50 schools offer a great education. Sidwell parent of senior.

To the extent the above is at least partially true, it illustrates what has gone wrong with Sidwell over the years:

Offer a few very difficult (advanced) which are pretty harshly graded. Students who don't take these can't claim to have taken the most difficult classes. Those that do face harsh grading distributions and lower GPAs. Bad outcomes either way.

By contrast many other schools offer advanced courses that are perhaps slightly less tough than Sidwell's toughest classes, but are also graded much better (look at the course grading profiles from Westlake etc posted upthread). This allows the students at these schools to take the more advanced classes (and claim to have done so) and do well on them. Hard courses plus grade deflation favors the very very top (perhaps 5 students each grade) and hurts the top 10-25 percent of the class. If the objective is to provide the opportunity for a super high level education, that works. For better admissions outcomes it is a total fail.

--Senior Parent

Not everyone gets bad grades in the most rigorous math and science classes.

Thanks, STEM mom, good to see you again. Nothing that pp said suggests otherwise.

Huh? Answering a complaint about grading in the most rigorous math class does not make a person a stem mom. There is a reason for different levels of coursework. Not everyone is at the same place or ability in math or science or history or whatever. It is fine for there to be very challenging coursework in different diciplines and also less challenging options

Not everyone is at the same place in reading comprehension either, apparently.

Just because I think challenging courses and challenging grading is advantageous instead of disadvantageous does not mean I can't read. I just have a different opinion.

No one wrote or suggested that everyone gets bad grades in the most rigorous math and science classes.

There is a poster that would like less rigorous grading in the most challenging courses so more students can receive higher grades. I don't agree with this strategy.

Then calculate weighted GPA that is fair for every student

There is a GPA bump for taking advanced sciences and Maths.

No. All Sidwell GPA is unweighted.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a hard message to deliver and I apologize in advance. A 3.7 just isn’t all that compelling and neither is a 34 ACT relatively speaking for top 15 universities even coming from a great school like Sidwell. If your kid isn’t a NMF and/or Presidential Scholar candidate and done some substantive internships or academic research outside of school, and hit > 3.9 overall GPA having taken the Math I — Math IV sequence plus all the accelerated 1A sciences plus four years of language, plus a >1560 SAT or 35/36 ACT, you really don’t get on the radar screen of the top 15 schools. Exception is the hooked kids — namely athletes, legacies and URM, but a couple of those hooked kids have the former qualifications, too, making them spectacularly attractive applicants. These schools really know Sidwell and for example understand that a solid A from Math III is a pretty powerful academic signal. I just cannot sit by and continue to watch the Sidwell CCO get trashed the way it is by some folks on this forum. In the aggregate, they are doing a good job in a very challenging and competitive environment. The reality is, putting aside the “branding” element, the top 30 - 50 schools offer a great education. Sidwell parent of senior.

To the extent the above is at least partially true, it illustrates what has gone wrong with Sidwell over the years:

Offer a few very difficult (advanced) which are pretty harshly graded. Students who don't take these can't claim to have taken the most difficult classes. Those that do face harsh grading distributions and lower GPAs. Bad outcomes either way.

By contrast many other schools offer advanced courses that are perhaps slightly less tough than Sidwell's toughest classes, but are also graded much better (look at the course grading profiles from Westlake etc posted upthread). This allows the students at these schools to take the more advanced classes (and claim to have done so) and do well on them. Hard courses plus grade deflation favors the very very top (perhaps 5 students each grade) and hurts the top 10-25 percent of the class. If the objective is to provide the opportunity for a super high level education, that works. For better admissions outcomes it is a total fail.

--Senior Parent

Not everyone gets bad grades in the most rigorous math and science classes.

Thanks, STEM mom, good to see you again. Nothing that pp said suggests otherwise.

Huh? Answering a complaint about grading in the most rigorous math class does not make a person a stem mom. There is a reason for different levels of coursework. Not everyone is at the same place or ability in math or science or history or whatever. It is fine for there to be very challenging coursework in different diciplines and also less challenging options

Not everyone is at the same place in reading comprehension either, apparently.

Just because I think challenging courses and challenging grading is advantageous instead of disadvantageous does not mean I can't read. I just have a different opinion.

No one wrote or suggested that everyone gets bad grades in the most rigorous math and science classes.

There is a poster that would like less rigorous grading in the most challenging courses so more students can receive higher grades. I don't agree with this strategy.

Then calculate weighted GPA that is fair for every student

There is a GPA bump for taking advanced sciences and Maths.

How?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a hard message to deliver and I apologize in advance. A 3.7 just isn’t all that compelling and neither is a 34 ACT relatively speaking for top 15 universities even coming from a great school like Sidwell. If your kid isn’t a NMF and/or Presidential Scholar candidate and done some substantive internships or academic research outside of school, and hit > 3.9 overall GPA having taken the Math I — Math IV sequence plus all the accelerated 1A sciences plus four years of language, plus a >1560 SAT or 35/36 ACT, you really don’t get on the radar screen of the top 15 schools. Exception is the hooked kids — namely athletes, legacies and URM, but a couple of those hooked kids have the former qualifications, too, making them spectacularly attractive applicants. These schools really know Sidwell and for example understand that a solid A from Math III is a pretty powerful academic signal. I just cannot sit by and continue to watch the Sidwell CCO get trashed the way it is by some folks on this forum. In the aggregate, they are doing a good job in a very challenging and competitive environment. The reality is, putting aside the “branding” element, the top 30 - 50 schools offer a great education. Sidwell parent of senior.

To the extent the above is at least partially true, it illustrates what has gone wrong with Sidwell over the years:

Offer a few very difficult (advanced) which are pretty harshly graded. Students who don't take these can't claim to have taken the most difficult classes. Those that do face harsh grading distributions and lower GPAs. Bad outcomes either way.

By contrast many other schools offer advanced courses that are perhaps slightly less tough than Sidwell's toughest classes, but are also graded much better (look at the course grading profiles from Westlake etc posted upthread). This allows the students at these schools to take the more advanced classes (and claim to have done so) and do well on them. Hard courses plus grade deflation favors the very very top (perhaps 5 students each grade) and hurts the top 10-25 percent of the class. If the objective is to provide the opportunity for a super high level education, that works. For better admissions outcomes it is a total fail.

--Senior Parent

Not everyone gets bad grades in the most rigorous math and science classes.

Thanks, STEM mom, good to see you again. Nothing that pp said suggests otherwise.

Huh? Answering a complaint about grading in the most rigorous math class does not make a person a stem mom. There is a reason for different levels of coursework. Not everyone is at the same place or ability in math or science or history or whatever. It is fine for there to be very challenging coursework in different diciplines and also less challenging options

Not everyone is at the same place in reading comprehension either, apparently.

Just because I think challenging courses and challenging grading is advantageous instead of disadvantageous does not mean I can't read. I just have a different opinion.

No one wrote or suggested that everyone gets bad grades in the most rigorous math and science classes.

There is a poster that would like less rigorous grading in the most challenging courses so more students can receive higher grades. I don't agree with this strategy.

Sidwell needs to find some path so that the top 5-25 percent oof students don't look worse than they ought to -- in comparison with students at peer institutions. This is what the current structure of grades/classes is doing.

At the same time, they should not dilute achievement of the top students at Sidwell by given everyone good grades in the top classes.

How to achieve this balance is what Sidwell should focus on if they want to well by their strong/very strong students. I doubt that the school even thinks in thees terms. What I have seen so far is status quo bias with good Quaker PR to deal with parents - most of whom are too afraid/unaware to say anything.

How do the top 5-25% of the class look worse than they ought to? Serious question.

Because the top math classes at Sidwell are considerably harder than the toughest classes in many other schools…so when kids are compared across schools it is not a like for like comparison. It disadvantages Sidwell students.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a hard message to deliver and I apologize in advance. A 3.7 just isn’t all that compelling and neither is a 34 ACT relatively speaking for top 15 universities even coming from a great school like Sidwell. If your kid isn’t a NMF and/or Presidential Scholar candidate and done some substantive internships or academic research outside of school, and hit > 3.9 overall GPA having taken the Math I — Math IV sequence plus all the accelerated 1A sciences plus four years of language, plus a >1560 SAT or 35/36 ACT, you really don’t get on the radar screen of the top 15 schools. Exception is the hooked kids — namely athletes, legacies and URM, but a couple of those hooked kids have the former qualifications, too, making them spectacularly attractive applicants. These schools really know Sidwell and for example understand that a solid A from Math III is a pretty powerful academic signal. I just cannot sit by and continue to watch the Sidwell CCO get trashed the way it is by some folks on this forum. In the aggregate, they are doing a good job in a very challenging and competitive environment. The reality is, putting aside the “branding” element, the top 30 - 50 schools offer a great education. Sidwell parent of senior.

To the extent the above is at least partially true, it illustrates what has gone wrong with Sidwell over the years:

Offer a few very difficult (advanced) which are pretty harshly graded. Students who don't take these can't claim to have taken the most difficult classes. Those that do face harsh grading distributions and lower GPAs. Bad outcomes either way.

By contrast many other schools offer advanced courses that are perhaps slightly less tough than Sidwell's toughest classes, but are also graded much better (look at the course grading profiles from Westlake etc posted upthread). This allows the students at these schools to take the more advanced classes (and claim to have done so) and do well on them. Hard courses plus grade deflation favors the very very top (perhaps 5 students each grade) and hurts the top 10-25 percent of the class. If the objective is to provide the opportunity for a super high level education, that works. For better admissions outcomes it is a total fail.

--Senior Parent

Not everyone gets bad grades in the most rigorous math and science classes.

Thanks, STEM mom, good to see you again. Nothing that pp said suggests otherwise.

Huh? Answering a complaint about grading in the most rigorous math class does not make a person a stem mom. There is a reason for different levels of coursework. Not everyone is at the same place or ability in math or science or history or whatever. It is fine for there to be very challenging coursework in different diciplines and also less challenging options

Not everyone is at the same place in reading comprehension either, apparently.

Just because I think challenging courses and challenging grading is advantageous instead of disadvantageous does not mean I can't read. I just have a different opinion.

No one wrote or suggested that everyone gets bad grades in the most rigorous math and science classes.

There is a poster that would like less rigorous grading in the most challenging courses so more students can receive higher grades. I don't agree with this strategy.

Sidwell needs to find some path so that the top 5-25 percent oof students don't look worse than they ought to -- in comparison with students at peer institutions. This is what the current structure of grades/classes is doing.

At the same time, they should not dilute achievement of the top students at Sidwell by given everyone good grades in the top classes.

How to achieve this balance is what Sidwell should focus on if they want to well by their strong/very strong students. I doubt that the school even thinks in thees terms. What I have seen so far is status quo bias with good Quaker PR to deal with parents - most of whom are too afraid/unaware to say anything.

How do the top 5-25% of the class look worse than they ought to? Serious question.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not a Sidwell parent. My kids go to a different private school. We were less than impressed by our college counseling as well. In hindsight I realize what someone else already mentioned. The school college counselors don’t really care about your individual kid. They are trying to get the best results for the school. What they want sometimes works in your favor and sometimes against it. Advice for future parents - Do your own research. Hire a private counselor who is your kid’s advocate. Listen to your school counselor but keep in mind that sometimes you need to ignore their advice. No one cares about your kids applications as much as you and your kid.

Private counselors are not calling colleges on your kids behalf. As such, what do you mean by the bolded?

I agree that private counselors are not calling colleges on your behalf. I mean they will help you make a list that is 100% focused on what is best for your child. They won’t discourage your kid from applying to a particular school because it is the first choice of a VIP’s kid.

Is this what happens at Sidwell? CCOs discourage very qualified students from applying to particular schools to avoid interfering with VIP's kids? This is shameful...

This doesn't happen at Sidwell. Nobody is stopped from applying to any school.

Ah, but since parents or students do not see the profile CCO sends to colleges, do we know who (as in VIP or big donor kids) they actually steer toward top colleges? Sunlight, Sidwell, sunlight!

Please explain to me how it is any of your business what school(s) the CCO steers other people's kids to?

How difficult would it be for Sidwell to share a college profile like this profile of a recent Exeter class with parents and students?

https://exeter.edu/sites/default/files/documents/PEA-CCO-Profile-2020-21.pdf

Or this from Andover

https://www.andover.edu/files/CCOProfileBrochure2018-2019.pdf

I’m sure Sidwell CCO produces these for college AOs, but why not share this with the student and parent community?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a hard message to deliver and I apologize in advance. A 3.7 just isn’t all that compelling and neither is a 34 ACT relatively speaking for top 15 universities even coming from a great school like Sidwell. If your kid isn’t a NMF and/or Presidential Scholar candidate and done some substantive internships or academic research outside of school, and hit > 3.9 overall GPA having taken the Math I — Math IV sequence plus all the accelerated 1A sciences plus four years of language, plus a >1560 SAT or 35/36 ACT, you really don’t get on the radar screen of the top 15 schools. Exception is the hooked kids — namely athletes, legacies and URM, but a couple of those hooked kids have the former qualifications, too, making them spectacularly attractive applicants. These schools really know Sidwell and for example understand that a solid A from Math III is a pretty powerful academic signal. I just cannot sit by and continue to watch the Sidwell CCO get trashed the way it is by some folks on this forum. In the aggregate, they are doing a good job in a very challenging and competitive environment. The reality is, putting aside the “branding” element, the top 30 - 50 schools offer a great education. Sidwell parent of senior.

To the extent the above is at least partially true, it illustrates what has gone wrong with Sidwell over the years:

Offer a few very difficult (advanced) which are pretty harshly graded. Students who don't take these can't claim to have taken the most difficult classes. Those that do face harsh grading distributions and lower GPAs. Bad outcomes either way.

By contrast many other schools offer advanced courses that are perhaps slightly less tough than Sidwell's toughest classes, but are also graded much better (look at the course grading profiles from Westlake etc posted upthread). This allows the students at these schools to take the more advanced classes (and claim to have done so) and do well on them. Hard courses plus grade deflation favors the very very top (perhaps 5 students each grade) and hurts the top 10-25 percent of the class. If the objective is to provide the opportunity for a super high level education, that works. For better admissions outcomes it is a total fail.

--Senior Parent

Not everyone gets bad grades in the most rigorous math and science classes.

Thanks, STEM mom, good to see you again. Nothing that pp said suggests otherwise.

Huh? Answering a complaint about grading in the most rigorous math class does not make a person a stem mom. There is a reason for different levels of coursework. Not everyone is at the same place or ability in math or science or history or whatever. It is fine for there to be very challenging coursework in different diciplines and also less challenging options

Not everyone is at the same place in reading comprehension either, apparently.

Just because I think challenging courses and challenging grading is advantageous instead of disadvantageous does not mean I can't read. I just have a different opinion.

No one wrote or suggested that everyone gets bad grades in the most rigorous math and science classes.

There is a poster that would like less rigorous grading in the most challenging courses so more students can receive higher grades. I don't agree with this strategy.

Then calculate weighted GPA that is fair for every student

There is a GPA bump for taking advanced sciences and Maths.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From what I am hearing now, it’s a very strong year for Sidwell. Many kids are in the process of deciding between great choices. Note to future classes: ED, SCEA, EA results are not indicative of anything other than schools locking in (with a lot of game theory) their institutional priorities. Stay chill and it will all work out.

That is not what I am hearing from my senior. I do not want to give more detail than this, as it would require talking about specific college destinations and therefore specific students. And this is not me as a parent being snooty about colleges. The students I am hearing about are unhappy.

Is it possible for you to say something broadly about the set of students this might cover? For example, is this still the group in the hardest classes that earlier threads were fretting about after ED/SCEA? Or is it more broad set kids with good GPA? Or something other group?

My sense is it is a perception issue. Kids I know have a great choice but it was not their first choice nor did they have as many choices as previous years' kids. They also got some head scratching denials (good kids who were way above stats). So some may view as good news bc they are into great schools but others may view it as disappointing bc wasn't what they were hoping for. Both are probably partially correct.

Sorry i can't share more info.

I'm guessing these are "yield preservation" denials. The USNWR rankings punish schools for admitted students who choose to go elsewhere. When a kid is too far above the stats, the school has to ask itself if there's any way they're really going to be able to sway the kid from what the public perceives as more prestigious options. Competing maybe 50 spots up the USNWR rankings, AND the school can see the student has opened their emails and navigated to their webpage (through cookies tracking the IP address natch)? They might be able to buy the kid with heavy merit aid plus Honors College, preferential treatment for course enrollment and things like Study Year Abroad, etc. But if they think the kid is likely in the T-15 constellation, and they sense the student isn't truly interested or has better options, that school's best off rejecting the student to preserve their yield.

According to their methodology, yield is not a factor in the USNWR rankings. https://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/articles/how-us-news-calculated-the-rankings

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From what I am hearing now, it’s a very strong year for Sidwell. Many kids are in the process of deciding between great choices. Note to future classes: ED, SCEA, EA results are not indicative of anything other than schools locking in (with a lot of game theory) their institutional priorities. Stay chill and it will all work out.

That is not what I am hearing from my senior. I do not want to give more detail than this, as it would require talking about specific college destinations and therefore specific students. And this is not me as a parent being snooty about colleges. The students I am hearing about are unhappy.

Is it possible for you to say something broadly about the set of students this might cover? For example, is this still the group in the hardest classes that earlier threads were fretting about after ED/SCEA? Or is it more broad set kids with good GPA? Or something other group?

My sense is it is a perception issue. Kids I know have a great choice but it was not their first choice nor did they have as many choices as previous years' kids. They also got some head scratching denials (good kids who were way above stats). So some may view as good news bc they are into great schools but others may view it as disappointing bc wasn't what they were hoping for. Both are probably partially correct.

Sorry i can't share more info.

I'm guessing these are "yield preservation" denials. The USNWR rankings punish schools for admitted students who choose to go elsewhere. When a kid is too far above the stats, the school has to ask itself if there's any way they're really going to be able to sway the kid from what the public perceives as more prestigious options. Competing maybe 50 spots up the USNWR rankings, AND the school can see the student has opened their emails and navigated to their webpage (through cookies tracking the IP address natch)? They might be able to buy the kid with heavy merit aid plus Honors College, preferential treatment for course enrollment and things like Study Year Abroad, etc. But if they think the kid is likely in the T-15 constellation, and they sense the student isn't truly interested or has better options, that school's best off rejecting the student to preserve their yield.

According to their methodology, yield is not a factor in the USNWR rankings. https://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/articles/how-us-news-calculated-the-rankings

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From what I am hearing now, it’s a very strong year for Sidwell. Many kids are in the process of deciding between great choices. Note to future classes: ED, SCEA, EA results are not indicative of anything other than schools locking in (with a lot of game theory) their institutional priorities. Stay chill and it will all work out.

That is not what I am hearing from my senior. I do not want to give more detail than this, as it would require talking about specific college destinations and therefore specific students. And this is not me as a parent being snooty about colleges. The students I am hearing about are unhappy.

Is it possible for you to say something broadly about the set of students this might cover? For example, is this still the group in the hardest classes that earlier threads were fretting about after ED/SCEA? Or is it more broad set kids with good GPA? Or something other group?

My sense is it is a perception issue. Kids I know have a great choice but it was not their first choice nor did they have as many choices as previous years' kids. They also got some head scratching denials (good kids who were way above stats). So some may view as good news bc they are into great schools but others may view it as disappointing bc wasn't what they were hoping for. Both are probably partially correct.

Sorry i can't share more info.

I'm guessing these are "yield preservation" denials. The USNWR rankings punish schools for admitted students who choose to go elsewhere. When a kid is too far above the stats, the school has to ask itself if there's any way they're really going to be able to sway the kid from what the public perceives as more prestigious options. Competing maybe 50 spots up the USNWR rankings, AND the school can see the student has opened their emails and navigated to their webpage (through cookies tracking the IP address natch)? They might be able to buy the kid with heavy merit aid plus Honors College, preferential treatment for course enrollment and things like Study Year Abroad, etc. But if they think the kid is likely in the T-15 constellation, and they sense the student isn't truly interested or has better options, that school's best off rejecting the student to preserve their yield.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From what I am hearing now, it’s a very strong year for Sidwell. Many kids are in the process of deciding between great choices. Note to future classes: ED, SCEA, EA results are not indicative of anything other than schools locking in (with a lot of game theory) their institutional priorities. Stay chill and it will all work out.

That is not what I am hearing from my senior. I do not want to give more detail than this, as it would require talking about specific college destinations and therefore specific students. And this is not me as a parent being snooty about colleges. The students I am hearing about are unhappy.

Is it possible for you to say something broadly about the set of students this might cover? For example, is this still the group in the hardest classes that earlier threads were fretting about after ED/SCEA? Or is it more broad set kids with good GPA? Or something other group?

My sense is it is a perception issue. Kids I know have a great choice but it was not their first choice nor did they have as many choices as previous years' kids. They also got some head scratching denials (good kids who were way above stats). So some may view as good news bc they are into great schools but others may view it as disappointing bc wasn't what they were hoping for. Both are probably partially correct.

Sorry i can't share more info.