I'd love to be a fly on the wall during admissions decision meetings

[Anonymous]

Does anyone really know what goes on when the admissions committees meet to decide who to accept? How often do they meet? Do they all go through every single file of every applicant one at a time? Do they each vote "admit" or "decline" or "waitlist" and then whoever gets the most votes wins? Do they try to build a class full of a bunch of different students? For example, say, after admitting the legacies and siblings, they need 5 boys and 6 girls. Do they go through the files looking for a few reserved kids and a few leaders, etc? Just wondering how candid they really are behind closed doors. Do they say things like "Oh, not Mikey. He was really clingy and didn't cooperate at all." Or "That Jane was a sweetheart. She did exactly what we asked her to do and used good manners." Or "Not the Johnson Family. The parents came to the interview late and didn't seem very well prepared with any meaningful questions about the school."

[Anonymous]

Some insider scoop would be great to hear! Great question!

[Anonymous]

I'd love to hear the answer too--bump.

[Anonymous]

Parent here, but former educator that sat on admissions committees at several of the DC independent schools frequently mentioned on these forums within the last decade or so (I won't give more info for fear of giving away my superhero secret identity!). As a parent, I sympathize with being nervous about people in a room discussing my child without me there to defend him/her like a mother bear! But, remember that people who are in education are there because they like and understand kids. The discussions were not mean-spirited in tone, and at both institutions I was impressed with the care taken by my colleagues to thoroughly read the files and to make these decisions in a way that is sensitive to the feelings of the parents and kids involved. The content of the discussions was different at each institution, more I think because one focused on 9th grade admissions and the other on elementary age admissions. For the 9th grade admissions, the opening discussion was always academic -- could the child do the work? Within that threshhold discussion, it ranged from being excited about a potential academic superstar (teachers get excited about that) to making judgments as to whether the child by working hard and with support could have a positive academic experience. For "special talents," unless the child was national level in something like dance or music (which occasionally happens), the biggest focus was athletics. A very good athlete will have an edge at many schools if all other things are equal, and a superstar athlete may have that edge even if all things are not equal. Like it or not, parents and alums in this town do seem to care about athletics and schools get criticized if they lose regularly in high profile sports UNLESS the schools have made it clear that they are not going to play the sports "game." Elementary admissions -- which is I think where most of the interest on this board is (saying that as a fairly new parent myself who reads this board!) -- was trickier. While the committees wanted to make academics the first focus, they know from experience that it is so much harder to project academic performance for a Kindergartener than for an 8th grader applying to 9th grade. So yes, more attention is paid to play dates and interactions with the other kids -- did they seem eager to learn? Articulate? Excited about any kinds of ideas, whether books they've read, things about science, etc.? And yes, the child's behavior matters -- hitting or bullying other kids, for example, will come up. Procedurally, my experience at both places is that every folder was discussed, but that clear-cut "yes" or "no" decisions got less time. The middle pile got a lot of time. Mostly the schools focused more on individuals with less of a worry about creating a Frankensteinianly perfect "class," but there is no question diversity (ethnic and racial and to some extent geographic, e.g. interesting international family) is a plus during the process. Not that many comments about parents--generally it only came up if the prior school had tipped someone off that the parents were very difficult, or if someone was spectacularly awful (and think Michael Scott on the TV show "The office" level of awful) during the interview. Even there, it wasn't a disqualifier -- if we wanted the kid we'd admit them and hope to educate the parents (or hope they had an off day based on anxiety). Numbers of meetings? Lots and lots during the big decision times, and lots of individual late nights of people reading folders and making their comments. Sometimes some pretty civil but impassioned arguments on the committee whether or not to admit someone, but generally it was not a counting heads/voting situation as an attempt to come to consensus on each child (which happened most of the time).

[Anonymous]

Thanks PP! You do not mention legacy, sibling connected. Also gender balance in the selection process. In any event, this is precisely what I expected. Do people think there's something mysterious going on behind closed doors? Thanks for the description!

[Anonymous]

PP: Thanks for this rarity: A truly insider perspective on the issue. I hope you will not mind additional questions?

Given the ranging debates on the issue here - could you wigh in on whether WPPSI scores matter much at the pre-K/K level?

Does parental "status" matter - outside of the big hitter politicos and mega bucks donors.

How much information gets gleaned from playdates (what if a child has an off day but does not engage in extreme behaviors such as hitting and bullying - is that still fatal to the application). Do teacher recommendations matter?

[Anonymous]

PP, thanks for putting the hilarious image of Michael Scott going through this process--priceless!

[Anonymous]

[b]Hi, I am the 12:02 poster. My post was so darn long that I did leave some things out, but I will try to respond to the new questions. I would add that I only worked at a couple of places, and my experiences may not have been typical in all ways (although I suspect there are some verities that cut across the schools in DC, at least.)
--WPPSI scores and the pre-K level: I was dealing with slightly older kids, so I can't say for sure other than anecdotally based on conversations with other admissions types. My sense is that they are just part of the picture; it is know that for younger kids in particular they can really miss the boat depending on the child's attention span/state of mind at the moment (who among us hasn't had our bright-eyed little child have the occasional day when he/she just does not want to deal with questions from adults!). So I wouldn't give up if they young 'un isn't a 99th percentile!
--Playdates: It's probably a little frustrating that I can't give an iron-clad answer on this, but basically my experience was that yes, they mattered some, but more as corroborating material (for example, a clearly bright and engaged and articulate youngster as seen on a play date can counteract a somewhat lower test score). If the child is a little bit shy or reserved (or even gets upset) that's not fatal by any means -- these folks do know kids and understand they have off days! (For younger kids, my best advice is to try to ensure they've had a enough sleep and to eat -- I too get cranky when I'm tired or hungry. The cheese stick in the purse isn't a bad idea!)
--Parental status: Like most of these other things, it matters at the extreme upper end: any school in town would have loved to take the Obama kids, test scores be d-----! (Shoot, even St. Albans might have been tempted to make a special one-time exception to the all-boys set-up!) But below the level of, say, a senator, I honestly don't think it matters much. Often a compelling narrative (single parent without a college education, or working class parents reaching out for an educational dream by applying to private school) is more powerful to the people on the admissions staff. Moreover, even where the parent is high-level high-status (Senator McStately), these schools know that if the child would truly be miserable at the school (usually because it isn't a great academic fit), they can be buying trouble by admitting them in pursuit of the status but then having to deal with the consequences of a possibly unhappy youngster over months or years. For money to matter (the fabled "development case") I think it has to be in the hundreds of millions of dollars/donate a new building category to matter, and the same still holds true that the schools don't want to have an unhappy child of Daddy Warbucks if the school is truly not the right fit for the youngster.
--Siblings and legacies: I would say that siblings and legacies get put into that "middle pile" where they will get the benefit of a full discussion even if the might otherwise be in the clear-cut reject/waitlist pile. the schools are senstitive that it can be very upsetting and even hurtful to reject a sibling or the child of a devoted alum, but they also really want to get "new blood" and bright students. So not infrequently the result of the longer discussion is still reject or waitlist, but the decsion may be communicated by the Admissions Director (or even the Head of School) directly to the family in question so that they don't have to open a letter to get the news. For siblings, if the current child is doing very well at the school (academically, in the arts, athletically), that can help the younger sib, and yes, sometimes you'll hear comments along the lines of "what a great family." But if the schools really think it wouldn't work for the younger child, they'll hold the line.
--Gender balance: My sense is that most of these schools don't worry TOO much about this year-to-year, because their applicant demographics are fairly stable from year to year, but that they might pay more attention in outreach and recruiting if they see application levels from boys or girls drop over a several year period.

[Anonymous]

Me, 12:02 again, glad somebody liked The Office reference. I've seen a few "Michael Scott" types but sadly, never a Dwight Schrute parent going through the process. ("I assume that my child's ability to kill and skin a rabbit with his teeth will be given due weight during the admissions process?!") That would have been great!

[Anonymous]

Wow. After all this time surfing this site, an excellent post by a true insider (with a great sense of humor as an additional bonus!). Thanks PP.

This answered many of my questions and in a sense matched my expectations of the admissions process: These are decisions made by capable mature people who have seen just about every type of case over the course of their careers.

I am a former Ivy League faculty member with quite a number of experience on the other side of this, having served on admissions committees (at a couple of different Ivies actually). Interestingly the same description applied there. A robust and reasonable group of people deciding on who to admit. Everything matters but nearly nothing is truly fatal. Tough decisions get made and many good people get rejected at the end. Even admissions committee members would admit that if they looked at the same group of people the next year, a different set may get in because of the randomness of the process and how close many of the applicants seem in their "merits".

Thanks again PP. While your post may not set too many minds here at rest, it is a excellent contribution to this discussion.

[Anonymous]

Could I ask another question of 12.02. Given the number of applications, does the admissions staff even have to get to the middle pile?

I would have thought that each school would get at least 10/20 applications at the pre-K/K level in which all the criteria have been maxed out: top WPPSI scores, great playdates, excellent recommendations, pleasant parents and essays. Is this not the case?

Are there substantial "weaknesses" in most cases so that the process involves real decision making?

[Anonymous]

Thanks so much poster. I am the OP and I am glad to know the schools put a lot of thought and discussion into the process. Every school I've been to has been an overall positive experience but I always wondered if that was just a "show."

[Anonymous]

12:02 What about SSAT scores for Middle School and up? Schools say no cutoffs but that's in the aggregate and I hear tell that schools like to see results in the 80th percentile or higher. Is that true?

[Anonymous]

Hello, 12:02 again. Thanks for the kind responses to my posts -- I hope they help somewhat, anyway. 13:55's overall description of the process is accurate (and eloquent!).

Some responses to follow-up questions (and then I've got to go walk the dog!):

To 14:00, it was surprising to me how many applicants fell into a "middle pile" where there was at least something to talk about. A lot of the time it wasn't so much that these were applications with flaws or "substantial weaknesses", but rather that there were a few truly outstanding applicants and then lots of good ones that could be hard to distinguish from each other, but had to be because there were more qualified applicants than slots. It is also complicated by the fact that pre-K/K admissions is definitely trickier than for the higher grades, because there isn't as much of a track record and the predicting tools are of limited utility! When I first came to DC as a faculty member at one of these DC independent schools, I remember being surprised that there was such a wide range of ability among the students (I naively had thought they'd all be geniuses; it was actually refreshing when it wasn't the case). When I asked a colleague about it (yes, over a drink!), my colleague basically said that it's tough to predict later performance at the pre-K/K stage, and that kids who looked similar intellectually at age 4 often developed down different paths in the next 14 years.

To 14:05, I think it is literally true that there are no cut-offs, BUT that schools have found SSAT scores to be pretty good predictors so they pay close attention to them. (The same reason that, despite criticism of the SAT, most colleges still look at them.) I think the 80th percentile or higher may be a pretty good rule of thumb, but it would depend on the school (maybe try to gently ask around with current parents) and on the other attributes of the child. For example, a child coming out of a good independent feeder school with straight As and great recommendations but more modest test scores has the advantage of a track record that can overcome the test scores. There may also be reasons to explain the test scores. I can remember a school I worked at admitting a youngster with very low test scores in the recognition that English was the child's third language and the child had not had the advantage of attending a strong school as a younger child. The recommenders, and the impression given by the child in person, was that the child was bright and hungry to learn and had a limitless work ethic. The committee held its collective breath but the youngster ended up a student of distinction and paved the way for others in similar circumstances later.

[Anonymous]

14.47: In many ways your description of the process makes me feel a lot better. I was worried (unreasonably) that small uncontrollable things might make a real difference. The fact that the process takes careful consideration of things without treating small weaknesses (such as off day on a playdate) as fatal is really good to know.