Sunday, March 20, 2011

Follow the bouncing ball.

We said that we wouldn't accept the "credit" for the changes to the application.  We reminded them that we had never mentioned the application but that it was mentioned in front of us by them in response to our saying that our children had been accepted based on their own merits, using the same (published) eligibility criteria as their peers.

We laid out our concerns about the changes:  1) concerns with the validity of the additional assessment as a predictor of success and the potential to use it as a tool to screen out our children; and 2) concerns that the requirement to handwrite the application essay might put undue burden on children with fine motor issues.  Regarding the handwritten essay, we also expressed our surprise (though a better word choice would have been "dismay" or possibly even "outrage") that this change had happened since each of us had mentioned that our children produce a better product when they type than when they handwrite.

So why did it take us a week to respond?  Because Drafts #1-8 responded with emotion, and the message was likely to have been lost.  Drafts #9-11 were less emotional but still contained too many pithy comments.  We knew we were on firmer ground with Drafts #12 and 13, and we hit a finalized version seven days and 15 drafts into it.

The ball is back in their court again.  Not to repeat myself, but wouldn't it be something if...

No comments: