is boarding school HS a hook for college?
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
Private Hs—not a big 3 or big 5 or the $50-60k type. |
Anonymous
Can you share your son’s stats and activities? What do you think set him apart? Thanks! I love hearing stories of successful applicants who are unhooked. . |
Anonymous
Living independently? Do students at your child's school do their own laundry, cook their own meals, commute to their activities, and earn an income? |
Anonymous
That's a tiny fraction. It doesn't matter. |
Anonymous
There's someone who was involved in college admissions at some point who comes on this forum to defend the honor of admissions officers everywhere and they always demand proof and then reject any that is offered. But just in case the individual here really is arguing in good faith and want proof, here you go: PP said colleges are looking for donors, and it's absolutely true. It's always been known that virtually all colleges have some version of the "Dean's Interest List" and there was plenty of evidence introduced in the Harvard litigation: https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2018/10/18/day-three-harvard-admissions-trial/ Hughes referenced the emails as he quizzed Fitzsimmons on the “Dean’s Interest List,” a special and confidential list of applicants Harvard compiles every admissions cycle. Though the University closely guards the details, applicants on that list are often related to or of interest to top donors — and court filings show list members benefit from a significantly inflated acceptance rate. In one 2013 email headlined “My Hero,” former Dean of the Harvard Kennedy School David T. Ellwood ’75 thanked Fitzsimmons for his help admitting a set of students with very particular qualifications. “Once again you have done wonders. I am simply thrilled about the folks you were able to admit,” Ellwood wrote in the email. “[Redacted] and [redacted] are all big wins. [Redacted] has already committed to a building.” In a separate email Hughes presented, Associate Vice President for Alumni Affairs and Development Roger P. Cheever ’67 reflected on the pros and cons of another Harvard hopeful. This student’s family at one point donated $8.7 million to the University — but more recent years had proven “challenging,” Cheever wrote. “[Redacted] was a devoted [redacted] Chair and generous donor,” Cheever's email reads. “Going forward, I don’t see a significant opportunity for further major gifts. [Redacted] had an art collection which conceivably could come our way.” Cheever closed the email by noting he would “call it a 2” — an apparent attempt to score the applicant-and-donation package. After Hughes asked Fitzsimmons to explain the number, the dean said the “2” ranking meant the candidate would receive a boost in the admissions process. I am simply thrilled about the folks you were able to admit... [Redacted] and [redacted] are all big wins. [Redacted] has already committed to a building. Fitzsimmons described the boost given to a “2” applicant as “reasonably serious,” though not as significant as the preference given to a “1” candidate. The dean previously admitted in pre-trial testimony that greater “financial contribution[s]” can lead to higher ratings for individual applicants. There are other mechanisms that are used to ensure that the admissions class isn't overfilled with kids that need financial aid (GW got caught, but as the article points out, they aren't alone in this). Note that "gapping" described below works especially well because nearly all schools that are "need blind" are not "need blind" for the wait list. I'd also like to point out that, when the information about GW admissions came out, lower level workers in the admissions office were shocked, because the "second review" happened at the top level. Just like the "Dean's Interest List," the review of the general population of applications was done, and then the top officers of the university would have a conversation about how to make it work out from a $$ perspective. The very richest colleges, like Harvard, can afford to have the "thumb on the scale" only for the mega donors, while less rich colleges have to reach further down. https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshfreedman/2013/10/22/when-students-are-rejected-for-being-poor-the-george-washington-university-and-the-roots-of-a-troubled-system/ While the school claimed to be "need-blind" in its admissions – that it would not factor a student's ability to pay into its admissions decision – it turns out that this policy was only half-true at best. The first reading of applications was "need-blind," while the second was not. Or, in the words of the university's damage control statement, "Consideration of need occurs at the very end of the admissions process." The GW Hatchet, the student newspaper that broke the story, noted that this policy affected up to 10 percent of the student population. Students could be shifted from admitted to not admitted if they required too much financial aid. ******** Schools tend to deal with this type of financial aid shortfall in two ways. First, they can do what GWU admitted to doing: Realizing that its business model requires enrolling more wealthy students and fewer low-income students, GWU chooses not to accept as many low-income students. Then it publicly states that higher education is the great equalizer and that the school is actively committed to enrolling more low-income students. Second, they can do what is called "gapping" or "admit-deny." Under these practices, schools admit students and then deliberately offer them financial aid packages that they know will be too small for the student to afford. Then the schools publicly state that higher education is the great equalizer and that the school is actively committed to enrolling more low-income students. The Chronicle of Higher Education reports that GWU does both. GWU is not alone, however. Many schools, including public schools, face these incentives and have likely engaged in similarly questionable tactics. Although GWU is easy to scapegoat because they have been at the forefront of these changes, the problem extends to similar schools throughout the country. |
Anonymous
FWIW, in the Harvard litigation, the emails regarding the "Dean's Interest List" were going to the Dean of Admissions. In any case, that's a distinction without a difference. Being admitted (or not) is the decision of the university. If the admissions office ranks students for admissions, and those rankings are overruled or otherwise rearranged by virtue of input from the development office or any one else (as it was at GW), it doesn't matter in the end. The admissions office itself can be as pure as the driven snow and it can still be true that the final decision on whether you are admitted or not can be influenced by $$. |
Anonymous
Listened to a fascinating podcast today (The Game: episode 14/red flags to avoid). Interestingly he said do not fill in SSN on common app to selective/T25 colleges if you don’t need financial aid. Similarly don’t fill in FAFSA if you don’t need aid. Doing so gives signals to AO that you may need aid, and that could disadvantage you (he said there’s a difference btw “what colleges say and how they use the info”). Conversely, he also talked about not giving up too much information about parents’ professions (if it shows too much $$$ privilege without enough corresponding benefit) or related issues with kids (mostly Indian or south Asian) not being strategic with major choice and picking same major as parents’ profession (which can show overt parental influence and not enough child agency/uniqueness). All in all very interesting. |
Anonymous
|
Just looked up The Game podcast. Sends me to some guy Alex’s business podcast. I can’t find the one you mention. Please identify so I can search by host name? Thank you!
|
Anonymous
This is interesting….way more common I bet than we think. |
Anonymous
Np. It’s called The Game: A guide to elite college admissions. Heard about it in this site. |
Anonymous
Google search: In this episode, we cover the much more strategic attitude—versus a purely “instructions-following” mindset—students should take into the application process for each and every piece of information admissions officers will view, including components that might seem like pure “data entry.” We highlight negative perceptions and various red flags that can be associated with variables such as (1) parent occupations, (2) students' future plans/career interests, (3) inclusion of social security numbers, (4) description of activities and accomplishments, and (5) writing style. Taken together, we show how subtle variations in a student’s responses can alter the perception of their uniqueness, likability, and even the authenticity of the application itself. “The Game” is hosted by Sam Hassell and brought to you by Great Minds Advising. Web: greatmindsadvising.com Email: info@greatmindsadvising.com FB: www.facebook.com/GreatMindsAdvising IG: @greatmindsadvising TikTok: @greatmindsadvising YouTube: @GreatMindsAdvising |
Anonymous
He’s a fancy Westchester college counselor. Caters to UHNW and HNW parents whose kids are applying to T25. |
Anonymous
She said readiness for living independently, not that they already were, jerk. But yes, kids at boarding school do often do their own laundry, help with cooking/dishes, are responsible for making their way places and have cars and off campus jobs. |
Anonymous
And, that you have a slew of money!!! |
Anonymous
| I have friends whose kids go to boarding school for free. I pay more money in sports for my kids than they do at their boarding school and yet their kids will prob end up at Harvard 😆 |