Compared Against Peers - T20 Admissions

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am confused as to why this is more of an issue at private schools. At public schools, dozens of kids apply to the same competitive schools and the chips fall where they may. There isn’t the same level of ownership over the process. Everyone knows they have zero control and they have a “might as well try” attitude.

It’s an issue at some privates because families are paying and many expect a return on their investment. That’s not the case at public school. In addition, private families appear to prefer top private colleges and they all have low acceptance rates.

And those selective private universities tend to prefer high performing kids from good public schools. Compare the college lists from the W schools to the privates.

If elite college acceptances are the goal, it's a very poor return on investment

Huh? The private schools still have better matriculation on a per capita basis. Rich or upper middle class kids are not an institutional priority at any school, public or private, unless they are donors or legacy. Smart kids from poor rural or urban districts are in demand.

And there are more and more qualified public school kids than ever. They outnumber kids in private schools by a wide margin.

There will always be the NYC private schools and New England prep schools who send an impressive amount of students to Ivy leagues. There’s also the science public schools around the country who only take top students who are sending an impressive amount to MIT and other top schools.

All things considered with GPAs, tests etc being equal, mediocre private schools probably have the least desirable student.

If you say so, you obviously have a huge chip on your shoulder. All I know is that the private schools I send my kids to have far better matriculation than our local public schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:GPA is the product of a hell of a lot more than capacity. Test scores are the common denominator that cannot be influenced by non-capacity considerations.

You cannot be serious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am confused as to why this is more of an issue at private schools. At public schools, dozens of kids apply to the same competitive schools and the chips fall where they may. There isn’t the same level of ownership over the process. Everyone knows they have zero control and they have a “might as well try” attitude.

It’s an issue at some privates because families are paying and many expect a return on their investment. That’s not the case at public school. In addition, private families appear to prefer top private colleges and they all have low acceptance rates.

And those selective private universities tend to prefer high performing kids from good public schools. Compare the college lists from the W schools to the privates.

If elite college acceptances are the goal, it's a very poor return on investment

Huh? The private schools still have better matriculation on a per capita basis. Rich or upper middle class kids are not an institutional priority at any school, public or private, unless they are donors or legacy. Smart kids from poor rural or urban districts are in demand.

And there are more and more qualified public school kids than ever. They outnumber kids in private schools by a wide margin.

There will always be the NYC private schools and New England prep schools who send an impressive amount of students to Ivy leagues. There’s also the science public schools around the country who only take top students who are sending an impressive amount to MIT and other top schools.

All things considered with GPAs, tests etc being equal, mediocre private schools probably have the least desirable student.

If you say so, you obviously have a huge chip on your shoulder. All I know is that the private schools I send my kids to have far better matriculation than our local public schools.

Yup. Since your private screens out all but the top students via entry exams, you will likely end up with overall better students than your public, that takes all comers. But I bet if you compare your private to the top 20% of the local public, there is similar matriculation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We were at a top uni and the Dir of Admissions said explicitly that the first group of students any applicant is up against is the other applicants from their school. They will not take all 15 applicants from Big Fancy Private. You have to beat your classmates first and then the others from your region.

Which uni?

It doesn't matter. This is the truth. For top schools you are competing against your own classmates which is why AP courses and rank (don't tell me they don't - they do and colleges can tell) matter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am confused as to why this is more of an issue at private schools. At public schools, dozens of kids apply to the same competitive schools and the chips fall where they may. There isn’t the same level of ownership over the process. Everyone knows they have zero control and they have a “might as well try” attitude.

It’s an issue at some privates because families are paying and many expect a return on their investment. That’s not the case at public school. In addition, private families appear to prefer top private colleges and they all have low acceptance rates.

And those selective private universities tend to prefer high performing kids from good public schools. Compare the college lists from the W schools to the privates.

If elite college acceptances are the goal, it's a very poor return on investment

Huh? The private schools still have better matriculation on a per capita basis. Rich or upper middle class kids are not an institutional priority at any school, public or private, unless they are donors or legacy. Smart kids from poor rural or urban districts are in demand.

And there are more and more qualified public school kids than ever. They outnumber kids in private schools by a wide margin.

There will always be the NYC private schools and New England prep schools who send an impressive amount of students to Ivy leagues. There’s also the science public schools around the country who only take top students who are sending an impressive amount to MIT and other top schools.

All things considered with GPAs, tests etc being equal, mediocre private schools probably have the least desirable student.

If you say so, you obviously have a huge chip on your shoulder. All I know is that the private schools I send my kids to have far better matriculation than our local public schools.

Yup. Since your private screens out all but the top students via entry exams, you will likely end up with overall better students than your public, that takes all comers. But I bet if you compare your private to the top 20% of the local public, there is similar matriculation.

Always an excuse. The numbers are what they are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They definitely compare kids from one school. I was looking through the SCIOR data for my kid's school and I think it's best for everyone when the academic outliers ED successfully.

In several recent years an academic superstar (4.0 or a hair below) has run the table during regular decision and basically shut everyone else out. The schools don't have quotas per say but an exceptionally strong kid can seemingly hurt the chances of the 3.8s or low 3.9s.

So the kid didn’t ED?

I'm not PP but at our school last year, we know of someone who got in SCEA to their dream school but proceeded to run the table in RD for kicks (and was successful at running the table) but then (no surprise) went to the dream school from SCEA. That was crummy and I can't believe the parents and CCO thought it was ok.

We go to a big public, but I'm finding this thread fascinating. I do want to defend that parent, though. My kid applied REA to Yale and I hope she gets in. But I bet she will continue to apply to other T20s even if she does. The reason she applied to an REA school rather than an ED school is that she doesn't know where she wants to go-- wants to know her options, visit the schools again, etc. before deciding. It never crossed my mind that this would have any effect on any other kid at the school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We were at a top uni and the Dir of Admissions said explicitly that the first group of students any applicant is up against is the other applicants from their school. They will not take all 15 applicants from Big Fancy Private. You have to beat your classmates first and then the others from your region.

Which uni?

It doesn't matter. This is the truth. For top schools you are competing against your own classmates which is why AP courses and rank (don't tell me they don't - they do and colleges can tell) matter.

That’s ridiculous. You should be competing against the entire pool.

Someone with a 3.90 unweighted, 4.56 weighted, ranked 124/525 in their school based on unweighted GPA, 15 APs, 5’s on all 15 AP exams, and a 1600 SAT score absolutely should not be subordinated by AOs to a kid with a 3.95 unweighted, 4.22 weighted, ranked 3/116 in their school based on unweighted GPA, 7 APs, 3s and 4s on five AP exams, and test optional.

The system is irredeemable if that’s actually what’s occurring out there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am confused as to why this is more of an issue at private schools. At public schools, dozens of kids apply to the same competitive schools and the chips fall where they may. There isn’t the same level of ownership over the process. Everyone knows they have zero control and they have a “might as well try” attitude.

It’s an issue at some privates because families are paying and many expect a return on their investment. That’s not the case at public school. In addition, private families appear to prefer top private colleges and they all have low acceptance rates.

And those selective private universities tend to prefer high performing kids from good public schools. Compare the college lists from the W schools to the privates.

If elite college acceptances are the goal, it's a very poor return on investment

Huh? The private schools still have better matriculation on a per capita basis. Rich or upper middle class kids are not an institutional priority at any school, public or private, unless they are donors or legacy. Smart kids from poor rural or urban districts are in demand.

And there are more and more qualified public school kids than ever. They outnumber kids in private schools by a wide margin.

There will always be the NYC private schools and New England prep schools who send an impressive amount of students to Ivy leagues. There’s also the science public schools around the country who only take top students who are sending an impressive amount to MIT and other top schools.

All things considered with GPAs, tests etc being equal, mediocre private schools probably have the least desirable student.

If you say so, you obviously have a huge chip on your shoulder. All I know is that the private schools I send my kids to have far better matriculation than our local public schools.

Yup. Since your private screens out all but the top students via entry exams, you will likely end up with overall better students than your public, that takes all comers. But I bet if you compare your private to the top 20% of the local public, there is similar matriculation.

Pretty much. It's hard to compare a private school that caters to the rich and can reject students with a public high school that takes everyone and has more than 2000 students. But the top 20 percent of public school students are generally outstanding. And colleges do seem to prefer them these days over students from Sidwell, St. Albans etc.

The private school boost isn't happening in DC. That's a NY thing. And it's real. Or some of the NE boarding schools like Andover. Or Harvard-Westlake in LA. But not the DMV for otherwise unhooked kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They definitely compare kids from one school. I was looking through the SCIOR data for my kid's school and I think it's best for everyone when the academic outliers ED successfully.

In several recent years an academic superstar (4.0 or a hair below) has run the table during regular decision and basically shut everyone else out. The schools don't have quotas per say but an exceptionally strong kid can seemingly hurt the chances of the 3.8s or low 3.9s.

So the kid didn’t ED?

I'm not PP but at our school last year, we know of someone who got in SCEA to their dream school but proceeded to run the table in RD for kicks (and was successful at running the table) but then (no surprise) went to the dream school from SCEA. That was crummy and I can't believe the parents and CCO thought it was ok.

We go to a big public, but I'm finding this thread fascinating. I do want to defend that parent, though. My kid applied REA to Yale and I hope she gets in. But I bet she will continue to apply to other T20s even if she does. The reason she applied to an REA school rather than an ED school is that she doesn't know where she wants to go-- wants to know her options, visit the schools again, etc. before deciding. It never crossed my mind that this would have any effect on any other kid at the school.

Please call Yale and its HYPS ilk SCEA; REA is Georgetown and Notre Dame (allowing you to apply early to multiple privates, just not ED).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We were at a top uni and the Dir of Admissions said explicitly that the first group of students any applicant is up against is the other applicants from their school. They will not take all 15 applicants from Big Fancy Private. You have to beat your classmates first and then the others from your region.

Which uni?

It doesn't matter. This is the truth. For top schools you are competing against your own classmates which is why AP courses and rank (don't tell me they don't - they do and colleges can tell) matter.

That’s ridiculous. You should be competing against the entire pool.

Someone with a 3.90 unweighted, 4.56 weighted, ranked 124/525 in their school based on unweighted GPA, 15 APs, 5’s on all 15 AP exams, and a 1600 SAT score absolutely should not be subordinated by AOs to a kid with a 3.95 unweighted, 4.22 weighted, ranked 3/116 in their school based on unweighted GPA, 7 APs, 3s and 4s on five AP exams, and test optional.

The system is irredeemable if that’s actually what’s occurring out there.

This won’t happen at MIT.

But yes happens most other places. And the colleges want it that way….

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am confused as to why this is more of an issue at private schools. At public schools, dozens of kids apply to the same competitive schools and the chips fall where they may. There isn’t the same level of ownership over the process. Everyone knows they have zero control and they have a “might as well try” attitude.

It’s an issue at some privates because families are paying and many expect a return on their investment. That’s not the case at public school. In addition, private families appear to prefer top private colleges and they all have low acceptance rates.

And those selective private universities tend to prefer high performing kids from good public schools. Compare the college lists from the W schools to the privates.

If elite college acceptances are the goal, it's a very poor return on investment

Huh? The private schools still have better matriculation on a per capita basis. Rich or upper middle class kids are not an institutional priority at any school, public or private, unless they are donors or legacy. Smart kids from poor rural or urban districts are in demand.

And there are more and more qualified public school kids than ever. They outnumber kids in private schools by a wide margin.

There will always be the NYC private schools and New England prep schools who send an impressive amount of students to Ivy leagues. There’s also the science public schools around the country who only take top students who are sending an impressive amount to MIT and other top schools.

All things considered with GPAs, tests etc being equal, mediocre private schools probably have the least desirable student.

If you say so, you obviously have a huge chip on your shoulder. All I know is that the private schools I send my kids to have far better matriculation than our local public schools.

Yup. Since your private screens out all but the top students via entry exams, you will likely end up with overall better students than your public, that takes all comers. But I bet if you compare your private to the top 20% of the local public, there is similar matriculation.

Pretty much. It's hard to compare a private school that caters to the rich and can reject students with a public high school that takes everyone and has more than 2000 students. But the top 20 percent of public school students are generally outstanding. And colleges do seem to prefer them these days over students from Sidwell, St. Albans etc.

The private school boost isn't happening in DC. That's a NY thing. And it's real. Or some of the NE boarding schools like Andover. Or Harvard-Westlake in LA. But not the DMV for otherwise unhooked kids.

Huge private school boost in Miami (check out ransom Everglades matriculation last year!) and other cities like Chicago…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We were at a top uni and the Dir of Admissions said explicitly that the first group of students any applicant is up against is the other applicants from their school. They will not take all 15 applicants from Big Fancy Private. You have to beat your classmates first and then the others from your region.

Which uni?

It doesn't matter. This is the truth. For top schools you are competing against your own classmates which is why AP courses and rank (don't tell me they don't - they do and colleges can tell) matter.

That’s ridiculous. You should be competing against the entire pool.

Someone with a 3.90 unweighted, 4.56 weighted, ranked 124/525 in their school based on unweighted GPA, 15 APs, 5’s on all 15 AP exams, and a 1600 SAT score absolutely should not be subordinated by AOs to a kid with a 3.95 unweighted, 4.22 weighted, ranked 3/116 in their school based on unweighted GPA, 7 APs, 3s and 4s on five AP exams, and test optional.

The system is irredeemable if that’s actually what’s occurring out there.

You don't say anything about personal qualities. Those matter to schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, friend at top NYC private with top academics did not get into first choice Ivy because there were 2 kids with bigger hooks ahead in line.

My DD from a DMV private had 4 of 4 admitted ED to an Ivy only 1 year after 0 of 3 were admitted. There is no quota or limit per class even in ED.

I read somewhere that colleges will admit in clumps like this when they have a lower stats hooked (eg super legacy) kid they really to admit without looking unfair. I’m guessing they’d be more conscious of this at private high schools where students are more likely to be aware of their peers’ standing than at a large public.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:GPA is the product of a hell of a lot more than capacity. Test scores are the common denominator that cannot be influenced by non-capacity considerations.

You cannot be serious.

oh PP is serious and ridiculous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We were at a top uni and the Dir of Admissions said explicitly that the first group of students any applicant is up against is the other applicants from their school. They will not take all 15 applicants from Big Fancy Private. You have to beat your classmates first and then the others from your region.

Which uni?

It doesn't matter. This is the truth. For top schools you are competing against your own classmates which is why AP courses and rank (don't tell me they don't - they do and colleges can tell) matter.

That’s ridiculous. You should be competing against the entire pool.

Someone with a 3.90 unweighted, 4.56 weighted, ranked 124/525 in their school based on unweighted GPA, 15 APs, 5’s on all 15 AP exams, and a 1600 SAT score absolutely should not be subordinated by AOs to a kid with a 3.95 unweighted, 4.22 weighted, ranked 3/116 in their school based on unweighted GPA, 7 APs, 3s and 4s on five AP exams, and test optional.

The system is irredeemable if that’s actually what’s occurring out there.

You don't say anything about personal qualities. Those matter to schools.

Assume ECs and essays are identical, letters of rec. are reflective of their academic differences.