Do elite college admissions officers look at private school as a negative?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Many children go to private school with financial aid. I wouldn't see it as a negative.

It should be obvious which ECs mainly just cost money and which ones required hard work.

High test scores require hard work and test prep is widely available so calling that "pay to play" is just not accurate.

False

[Anonymous]

I think for need aware colleges it’s a plus and need blind schools it’s a hinderance. So I guess most elite colleges it hurts, but schools like Tulane, Miami, and NYU, it’s plus. Also for waitlists, it’s seems to be a plus, but maybe more need blind schools are need aware for waitlist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Our public school college and career admissions counselor has lectured parents several times about “equity” and how college admissions committees are trained to screen out students who had “pay to play” opportunities. She gave the example of high test scores due to tutoring, a non-profit, international service trips and expensive enrichment opportunities.

But here’s the thing. What I spend on my child to prep for the SAT is a tiny tiny fraction of what some parents spend for a private high school.

Curious as to others thoughts.

Your counselor was right - at least as far as this year's admissions goes. Things went very differently than they had in previous years for full pay unhooked kids who had top stats and were applying to top schools (I'd say this is not just T20 but even trickling down into T30/T40).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No it is not a negative. For the most part, the strong private schools send a higher percentage of graduating seniors to elite schools than public schools. You can't just look at numbers of students because of the stark difference in student population. For example, for class of 22, Churchill HS sent approximately 7% of their graduating seniors to top 20 universities whereas strong private schools were are in the 25-35% range of graduating students. So as a high achieving private school student at a rigorous school, you will have a much stronger chance of admission to an elite school.

You are not accounting for the fact that the reason there are higher percentage from private is because there are more hooked kids at the private. Larger presence of legacy, VIP, URM, athlete to start and especially of kids that overlap multiple categories.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Many children go to private school with financial aid. I wouldn't see it as a negative.

It should be obvious which ECs mainly just cost money and which ones required hard work.

High test scores require hard work and test prep is widely available so calling that "pay to play" is just not accurate.

I am certain that any kid at an elite private with financial aid would find a way to make that clear.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our public school college and career admissions counselor has lectured parents several times about “equity” and how college admissions committees are trained to screen out students who had “pay to play” opportunities. She gave the example of high test scores due to tutoring, a non-profit, international service trips and expensive enrichment opportunities.

But here’s the thing. What I spend on my child to prep for the SAT is a tiny tiny fraction of what some parents spend for a private high school.

Curious as to others thoughts.

This post is quite amusing because it only proves that the college counseling at public schools is subpar.

Pay to play does not include tutoring because there is no way for an admissions officer to know if a high score is due to tutoring.

Private high schools actually have an advantage because the counseling is much better and students are known to be better prepared for college and they don't have the level of grade inflation of public schools.

LOL - so - this is not the case at our competitive DMV private!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many children go to private school with financial aid. I wouldn't see it as a negative.

It should be obvious which ECs mainly just cost money and which ones required hard work.

High test scores require hard work and test prep is widely available so calling that "pay to play" is just not accurate.

I am certain that any kid at an elite private with financial aid would find a way to make that clear.

How? My kids receive aid at an "elite private". How do i make that clear?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Our public school college and career admissions counselor has lectured parents several times about “equity” and how college admissions committees are trained to screen out students who had “pay to play” opportunities. She gave the example of high test scores due to tutoring, a non-profit, international service trips and expensive enrichment opportunities.

But here’s the thing. What I spend on my child to prep for the SAT is a tiny tiny fraction of what some parents spend for a private high school.

Curious as to others thoughts.

Private school is a significant advantage. Large competitive urban public schools are the most disadvantaged.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our public school college and career admissions counselor has lectured parents several times about “equity” and how college admissions committees are trained to screen out students who had “pay to play” opportunities. She gave the example of high test scores due to tutoring, a non-profit, international service trips and expensive enrichment opportunities.

But here’s the thing. What I spend on my child to prep for the SAT is a tiny tiny fraction of what some parents spend for a private high school.

Curious as to others thoughts.

This post is quite amusing because it only proves that the college counseling at public schools is subpar.

Pay to play does not include tutoring because there is no way for an admissions officer to know if a high score is due to tutoring.

Private high schools actually have an advantage because the counseling is much better and students are known to be better prepared for college and they don't have the level of grade inflation of public schools.

LOL - so - this is not the case at our competitive DMV private!

You don't know how bad and impersonal it can be at large size public schools. Warehouse style.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our public school college and career admissions counselor has lectured parents several times about “equity” and how college admissions committees are trained to screen out students who had “pay to play” opportunities. She gave the example of high test scores due to tutoring, a non-profit, international service trips and expensive enrichment opportunities.

But here’s the thing. What I spend on my child to prep for the SAT is a tiny tiny fraction of what some parents spend for a private high school.

Curious as to others thoughts.

Your counselor was right - at least as far as this year's admissions goes. Things went very differently than they had in previous years for full pay unhooked kids who had top stats and were applying to top schools (I'd say this is not just T20 but even trickling down into T30/T40).

Have you participated in one of the junior/senior parent college case studies where you play the role of an admissions officer reading fictional files and making a decision? Playing the role of being on the other side, I was looking for consistency in the narrative/profile - why is going on an international service trip part important to you as a person and how is it consistent with other things presented in the application. What will you do with it to enhance our college community? That was only one aspect combined with looking at GPA, class rigor, recommendations and institutional priorities …and those decisions were in context of who else applied.

[Anonymous]

The education level of the parents will tell you more about the outcome than whether the kid went public or private.

[Anonymous]

My understanding is that at top schools, if you’re unhooked kid is private-schooled, white and UMC they are held to a higher standard because it will be assumed that they had more opportunities. Asian students and girls have a harder time because the competition is stiffer. I don’t know if it’s fair or not, but we prepared accordingly, making sure that our DD used the opportunities of her private school experience to the max, had top test scores and great ECs.
On the other hand, need-aware SLACs with endowments under 2 billion will assume that you are full pay if you go to private school, and if you’re super-rich that will help too.

[Anonymous]

*your

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My understanding is that at top schools, if you’re unhooked kid is private-schooled, white and UMC they are held to a higher standard because it will be assumed that they had more opportunities. Asian students and girls have a harder time because the competition is stiffer. I don’t know if it’s fair or not, but we prepared accordingly, making sure that our DD used the opportunities of her private school experience to the max, had top test scores and great ECs.
On the other hand, need-aware SLACs with endowments under 2 billion will assume that you are full pay if you go to private school, and if you’re super-rich that will help too.

The top schools are filled with white UMC kids so either there is so either the money outright is part of the hook/advantage in some way and/or many of the other “hooks” skew towards white UMC kids like legacy, athlete for certain expensive sports , big donor, faculty kids etc.

Also how is it a “higher standard”. That’s actually the same standard - that you make the most of the resources that you have available. Maybe it’s how you look at it but if I gave you $100 and you made you a $10 return (10%) and someone else was given $50 and made you a $9 return (18%) in my mind the person with the $9 return did more with less not less with more. So I agree that it was wise to make the most of the private school opportunities and test prep etc but I disagree that it’s a higher standard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My understanding is that at top schools, if you’re unhooked kid is private-schooled, white and UMC they are held to a higher standard because it will be assumed that they had more opportunities. Asian students and girls have a harder time because the competition is stiffer. I don’t know if it’s fair or not, but we prepared accordingly, making sure that our DD used the opportunities of her private school experience to the max, had top test scores and great ECs.
On the other hand, need-aware SLACs with endowments under 2 billion will assume that you are full pay if you go to private school, and if you’re super-rich that will help too.

The top schools are filled with white UMC kids so either there is so either the money outright is part of the hook/advantage in some way and/or many of the other “hooks” skew towards white UMC kids like legacy, athlete for certain expensive sports , big donor, faculty kids etc.

Also how is it a “higher standard”. That’s actually the same standard - that you make the most of the resources that you have available. Maybe it’s how you look at it but if I gave you $100 and you made you a $10 return (10%) and someone else was given $50 and made you a $9 return (18%) in my mind the person with the $9 return did more with less not less with more. So I agree that it was wise to make the most of the private school opportunities and test prep etc but I disagree that it’s a higher standard.

PP here. Your point is well taken.