Venting about multiple acceptances (warning: not a pretty sight)

[Anonymous]

It kills me, just kills me when I see that some children have been accepted at two or three or even four of the schools that said, "no, thanks" to ours. Shoot me, but while I sincerely believe that those who have been accepted are good kids and I try really really hard to believe sincerely that they are as wonderful as my child (hey, I'm a parent), I don't believe that they are any MORE wonderful than my engaging, outgoing, compassionate, smart child.

I understand that there are too few spaces and too many applicants, yadda yadda yadda. I could live, or lat least live more comfortably, with the belief that it's random luck if everyone were accepted at a single school. But when the acceptances start piling up, all belief in randomness flies out the window. (Here, I refer you back to paragraph 1 in which I assert that your child may be as wonderful as but is not more wonderful than mine.) Especially when I read posts like the one on a recent thread where the poster's preschool AD advised him/her that everything would be okay if the family applied to five schools, and in fact, their child was admitted at three. We love our child's preschool, but it doesn't even have an AD!

Yes, I know that we are very fortunate to have these as our worries, I know that nothing is fair about schools, I know that nothing is fair about life, but I'm venting here!

And please don't say that if there weren't multiple acceptances, there would never be wait list movement. If there weren't multiple acceptances, fewer people would be wait listed in the first place.

Okay. I'm done. For now.

[Anonymous]

One correction: in the post I referenced, the poster says "one admissions director," not his/her preschool AD. My mistake.

[Anonymous]

Hey, it worked! Now that I've vented, I'm feeling weirdly better about this. Maybe the other kids are more wonderful. Who knows.

[Anonymous]

Speaking as a teacher who's sat on admissions committees, many of these schools are evaluating the parents just as much as the children. Will the family as a whole fit in with the community? Will the family as a whole add something to the character or vibrancy of the school community? Sometimes perfectly wonderful children have their applications torpedoed by pushy, rude, distant, noncommittal, aloof, etc. parents. Also, lawyers, World Bank/IMF, and lobbying-related folks are a dime a dozen. Most schools love authors, artists, journalists, entrepreneurs, etc.

I can tell you that I once adamantly suggested that a child not be accepted because a parent made it very clear that the only reason he was applying his child to our school was to get him into another school for which we were an unofficial feeder. See, the thing is, we'd have just as much preferred not to be a feeder for that school and were in a totally different place philosophically. The kid was great, but... not a good fit from a whole family perspective.

Finally, just as wonderful as almost all children may be, there are definitely kids who present themselves as "more wonderful" than others in terms of what a school wants. For example, we used to really take a long look at boys who didn't seem to be the stereotypical sporty, boyish types and girls who didn't seem to be the stereotypical princess types. Anyone who defied stereotypes was always interesting to us because we didn't want our students to grow up in an environment that reinforces sometimes unhealthy societal stereotypes. As another example, the somewhat quiet, polite, cooperative observer who doesn't talk a lot but asks really insightful or thoughtful questions when he/she does earns a second look. And another: Kids who aren't afraid to try something unfamiliar or difficult earn points. These sorts of behaviors or tendencies are things which can't really be taught just for a playdate, and they lend a lot of insight into the character and thinking of a child. Most admissions folks I know really value authenticity and usually aren't fooled by "scripts."

[Anonymous]

PP, that's one of the best insights into the admissions process I've read--thanks!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Speaking as a teacher who's sat on admissions committees, many of these schools are evaluating the parents just as much as the children. Will the family as a whole fit in with the community? Will the family as a whole add something to the character or vibrancy of the school community? Sometimes perfectly wonderful children have their applications torpedoed by pushy, rude, distant, noncommittal, aloof, etc. parents. Also, lawyers, World Bank/IMF, and lobbying-related folks are a dime a dozen. Most schools love authors, artists, journalists, entrepreneurs, etc.

I can tell you that I once adamantly suggested that a child not be accepted because a parent made it very clear that the only reason he was applying his child to our school was to get him into another school for which we were an unofficial feeder. See, the thing is, we'd have just as much preferred not to be a feeder for that school and were in a totally different place philosophically. The kid was great, but... not a good fit from a whole family perspective.

Finally, just as wonderful as almost all children may be, there are definitely kids who present themselves as "more wonderful" than others in terms of what a school wants. For example, we used to really take a long look at boys who didn't seem to be the stereotypical sporty, boyish types and girls who didn't seem to be the stereotypical princess types. Anyone who defied stereotypes was always interesting to us because we didn't want our students to grow up in an environment that reinforces sometimes unhealthy societal stereotypes. As another example, the somewhat quiet, polite, cooperative observer who doesn't talk a lot but asks really insightful or thoughtful questions when he/she does earns a second look. And another: Kids who aren't afraid to try something unfamiliar or difficult earn points. These sorts of behaviors or tendencies are things which can't really be taught just for a playdate, and they lend a lot of insight into the character and thinking of a child. Most admissions folks I know really value authenticity and usually aren't fooled by "scripts."

Oh, bleck. Give me a break. It's such a ridiculous and elitist process. You want artists and authors, but you charge at least $25k a year to go to your schools. You judge a poor child by his/her whole family. You refer to children by names like "princess types." You serve as feeder schools but then get insulted when parents are honest enough to say it out loud. And finally you talk about the "character of a child" when some of these children are three years old while applying.

I think you sound like a horrible person.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Speaking as a teacher who's sat on admissions committees, many of these schools are evaluating the parents just as much as the children. Will the family as a whole fit in with the community? Will the family as a whole add something to the character or vibrancy of the school community? Sometimes perfectly wonderful children have their applications torpedoed by pushy, rude, distant, noncommittal, aloof, etc. parents. Also, lawyers, World Bank/IMF, and lobbying-related folks are a dime a dozen. Most schools love authors, artists, journalists, entrepreneurs, etc.

I can tell you that I once adamantly suggested that a child not be accepted because a parent made it very clear that the only reason he was applying his child to our school was to get him into another school for which we were an unofficial feeder. See, the thing is, we'd have just as much preferred not to be a feeder for that school and were in a totally different place philosophically. The kid was great, but... not a good fit from a whole family perspective.

Finally, just as wonderful as almost all children may be, there are definitely kids who present themselves as "more wonderful" than others in terms of what a school wants. For example, we used to really take a long look at boys who didn't seem to be the stereotypical sporty, boyish types and girls who didn't seem to be the stereotypical princess types. Anyone who defied stereotypes was always interesting to us because we didn't want our students to grow up in an environment that reinforces sometimes unhealthy societal stereotypes. As another example, the somewhat quiet, polite, cooperative observer who doesn't talk a lot but asks really insightful or thoughtful questions when he/she does earns a second look. And another: Kids who aren't afraid to try something unfamiliar or difficult earn points. These sorts of behaviors or tendencies are things which can't really be taught just for a playdate, and they lend a lot of insight into the character and thinking of a child. Most admissions folks I know really value authenticity and usually aren't fooled by "scripts."

How disingenuous. Are you saying that you regularly reject the children of super-wealthy and connected and famous parents, who have multiple letters written for them by other wealthy alum?

Your whole message was so rude to OP, who is sad that her child didn't get in. You are basically saying that either something is wrong with her as a parent (your first para) or that her child isn't one of the "more wonderful" ones.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:.... Also, lawyers, World Bank/IMF, and lobbying-related folks are a dime a dozen. Most schools love authors, artists, journalists, entrepreneurs, etc.

What a hypocritical statement... When the moment comes for a private school to collect donations for its annual fund I am sure that "lawyers, World Bank/IMF, and lobbying-related folks" sound far more appealing than the notoriously less affluent artists and authors....
And, to be sure, this statement also reproduces the stereotypes that schools allegedly want to question. How can you generalize so superficially about professions?
What a bleak insight into the admissions process....

[Anonymous]

given that these children were all accepted by different admission committees (unless they compare notes), I think it is safe to say that they do stand out in some way. Not saying that it is right but that is a possibility that you need at accept. Also, I think that former teacher make a valid point - I think a lot of these rejections are really about the parents. If the "rabid" nature of some of the DCUM posters come out in parent interviews then I could see how an admission committee would "run not walk" away from that family.

[Anonymous]

I agree. That poster sounded horrible.

I totally understand the desire to look for the quirky, the uninhibited, the offbeat. However, if you stuff your whole school filled with these non-stereotypical children, guess what? You don't have diversity! And what is with putting down all the major professions in Washington DC. What's wrong with the World Bank and the IMF? Why don't you put down all the people who live in the 20007 and 20016 zip codes too. Yeah, let's hate them too.

What's wrong with a sporty boy? Does that make him unable to appreciate science? Does it mean he won't read?

Blech. Seriously, this person is a loser. A loser who has been given a small amount of power in her otherwise loser life. She holds the power over whether your 4 year old gets into private school. She's like the postal worker who treats you like crap when you don't have your forms ready. She has one moment in the sun.

[Anonymous]

You people are the losers--stop taking everything so personally. The poster was being totally reasonable and straightforward. He/she didn't put down the various professions, or types of children, but merely commented that the more unusual families and kids will stand out more. I guess that really touches a nerve!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sometimes perfectly wonderful children have their applications torpedoed by pushy, rude, distant, noncommittal, aloof, etc. parents. Also, lawyers, World Bank/IMF, and lobbying-related folks are a dime a dozen. Most schools love authors, artists, journalists, entrepreneurs, etc.

This is enlightening. I'm a total novice at this private school application thing. Just before the application deadline, my DD said she wanted to apply to a private school her friend attends so we decided to go through with process and then, if she got accepted, decide on whether she should attend. Since we missed the open house and tour, I asked a lot of questions about the school at the admissions interview rather than focusing on promoting my child. (That is, putting forth her strengths and talents in the best light possible just the way I would my own in a job interview) My ambivalence at spending huge amounts of money was also evident. She has been waitlisted at the school, apparently because her grades are not as strong as they would like at that level. This explanation makes sense to me (and is a huge incentive for her to now take her grades seriously!) but I'm now also wondering how much my interview also affected her chances.

I think I will only let her apply again next year is if she applies to multiple schools, and if I am completely committed to it and willing to take on the campaign that seems to be required to position one's family as a desirable applicant.

[Anonymous]

I completely agree that it is mostly about the parents and NOT the actual applicant when it comes to getting into many of these schools. Admissions Directors cannot possible glean that much information about a child's personality from a one-time 30-45 minute play visit when the child is less than 2 years old!

We applied to an "elite" preschool and my child was 21 months old during the play visit. We eventually got in off the wait list, so I had a chance to get to know the kids who got in initially (instead of us). The only other kid who fit my child's profile (in terms of race, gender, non-sibling, non-alum, etc.) had parents who were more impressive (and better looking) than my DH and myself. Very nice people. A SAHM Mom and a very interesting, independently wealthy artist-type as a Dad. Given a choice between them and me I probably would've picked them, too. But, the kids are virtually indistinguishable in terms of personality, looks, and behavior. They are great friends.

So, yes, the process is about you and not about your child. The older the child gets, the more that will change. Test scores begin to carry more weight later on than they do in the K application process.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:given that these children were all accepted by different admission committees (unless they compare notes), I think it is safe to say that they do stand out in some way.

I think the question is: Do they stand out because of their own qualities? Or do they stand out because of their family's wealth/connections, the preschool they attend, etc.? For many of us, it is difficult to see how much differentiation there can be among all these bright children. The teacher's post does identify ways in which some children may stand out, but how many of these quirky kids are there? Are the quirky kids the ones with multiple acceptances? Are all the schools that accept them looking for the same kind of quirkiness?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You people are the losers--stop taking everything so personally. The poster was being totally reasonable and straightforward. He/she didn't put down the various professions, or types of children, but merely commented that the more unusual families and kids will stand out more. I guess that really touches a nerve!

Umm, my child went from the play group of our choice, to our number one preschool, to one of the Big Three. I don't feel too much like a "loser" when it comes to getting my child placed in good private schools.

I agree with the other posters that this teacher sounds like someone who has very little power in her life (I mean, she's a TEACHER) and it has all gone to her head. Stereotyping people like she does is so ignorant in this day and age. It's sad that someone like her has any power at all to affect children's lives.

It's especially sad because she chose to answer in this way to OP, who was looking for support.