boy, do T20 school love private high schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kids at two different Baltimore privates, this cycle best since Covid.

This is kind of the universal view for non-big 3/previously considered top tier privates.

Conventional wisdom is that many private colleges and universities may be looking outside their normal private feeder high schools to other /less well-known private schools as a way to increase. “diversity “

That’s nice, but both of these schools schools are well established schools long known for academic rigor. Just as much feeder schools historically as the DC big 3.

Pp here with kid at a well regarded public.

I believe that private school kids benefit from a smaller class size and college counseling. The counselors will group kids so they are spread out applying ED to top colleges with highest chance of admission whether they are legacy or athletes. The kids can be spread out across many T20 colleges for top half of the class.

Publics don’t have that kind of counseling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Good Counsel page is less impressive that our local HS

Of course it is LOL

Most privates are.

Except in the minds of the DCURBAN moms who spend upwards of $50,000 per year for subpar education, ie indoctrination into crap religions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kids at two different Baltimore privates, this cycle best since Covid.

This is kind of the universal view for non-big 3/previously considered top tier privates.

Conventional wisdom is that many private colleges and universities may be looking outside their normal private feeder high schools to other /less well-known private schools as a way to increase. “diversity “

That’s nice, but both of these schools schools are well established schools long known for academic rigor. Just as much feeder schools historically as the DC big 3.

Pp here with kid at a well regarded public.

I believe that private school kids benefit from a smaller class size and college counseling. The counselors will group kids so they are spread out applying ED to top colleges with highest chance of admission whether they are legacy or athletes. The kids can be spread out across many T20 colleges for top half of the class.

Publics don’t have that kind of counseling.

Aren't you cute... No.

Publics do better than private in college admissions that is an actual fact.

[Anonymous]

Here are the facts from a WSJ article. It's pretty clear that privates do better at the top schools, and always have. This article is from September 2023.

It's somewhat comical that people think kids are doing better or worse in any given year.

"Among all high-school students in the U.S., 8.5% attend private high schools, according to federal data. Among the eight Ivy League schools, the percentage of students who graduate from a private high school is about four to five times that.

At Harvard, 37% of the class of 2025 attended private schools, while at Princeton, the share is 40%, with Brown at 41%, and Dartmouth, 44%, according to the schools’ websites or surveys taken by student newspapers. Between 10% and 30% of Ivy League undergraduates are international, many of whom attended private high schools."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kids at two different Baltimore privates, this cycle best since Covid.

This is kind of the universal view for non-big 3/previously considered top tier privates.

Conventional wisdom is that many private colleges and universities may be looking outside their normal private feeder high schools to other /less well-known private schools as a way to increase. “diversity “

That’s nice, but both of these schools schools are well established schools long known for academic rigor. Just as much feeder schools historically as the DC big 3.

Pp here with kid at a well regarded public.

I believe that private school kids benefit from a smaller class size and college counseling. The counselors will group kids so they are spread out applying ED to top colleges with highest chance of admission whether they are legacy or athletes. The kids can be spread out across many T20 colleges for top half of the class.

Publics don’t have that kind of counseling.

Aren't you cute... No.

Publics do better than private in college admissions that is an actual fact.

This is just an inaccurate statement. Because of the pure number of students, more students from public may have more students going to elite colleges but they don’t do better in college admissions as a whole.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kids at two different Baltimore privates, this cycle best since Covid.

This is kind of the universal view for non-big 3/previously considered top tier privates.

Conventional wisdom is that many private colleges and universities may be looking outside their normal private feeder high schools to other /less well-known private schools as a way to increase. “diversity “

That’s nice, but both of these schools schools are well established schools long known for academic rigor. Just as much feeder schools historically as the DC big 3.

Pp here with kid at a well regarded public.

I believe that private school kids benefit from a smaller class size and college counseling. The counselors will group kids so they are spread out applying ED to top colleges with highest chance of admission whether they are legacy or athletes. The kids can be spread out across many T20 colleges for top half of the class.

Publics don’t have that kind of counseling.

Aren't you cute... No.

Publics do better than private in college admissions that is an actual fact.

This is just an inaccurate statement. Because of the pure number of students, more students from public may have more students going to elite colleges but they don’t do better in college admissions as a whole.

And the focus really is: would your particular kid do better in one school or the other.

[Anonymous]

Post-SC ruling and Test fluid world, the safest thing a t20 can do is double their questbridge and posse numbers and then load up on affluent families and/or kids coming from known privates.

They’ll end up w a barbell community - rich and poor - but they’ll increase Pell numbers which gets mentioned in the NYT and helps w ratings, their diversity numbers will look fine (also sure to be a NYT follow up article), the yield numbers will be solid and their budget will be fine.

So they’ve decided that’s a deal they’re willing to take. To look better to outsiders while keeping full pay kids. Even if it creates a problematic situation within the classroom.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here are the facts from a WSJ article. It's pretty clear that privates do better at the top schools, and always have. This article is from September 2023.

It's somewhat comical that people think kids are doing better or worse in any given year.

"Among all high-school students in the U.S., 8.5% attend private high schools, according to federal data. Among the eight Ivy League schools, the percentage of students who graduate from a private high school is about four to five times that.

At Harvard, 37% of the class of 2025 attended private schools, while at Princeton, the share is 40%, with Brown at 41%, and Dartmouth, 44%, according to the schools’ websites or surveys taken by student newspapers. Between 10% and 30% of Ivy League undergraduates are international, many of whom attended private high schools."

It’s not comical. Admissions offices thought they could use TO to take kids they wanted under cover. They really do want to give kids a chance. They didn’t count on the faculty protesting so loudly that these TO classes were so much weaker and couldn’t do they work.

Those 3 cycles sucked for private schools.

Now it’s swung back.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My observation is that it has been a good year for affluent families - whether in public or private. I am on the west coast and private schools have done exceptionally well here, but so have well resourced public schools. Everyone is shocked at where kids are getting in. I do wonder how long it will hold up!

It's good to ED if you know you can pay it.

This is part of it, but I am seeing kids get need-based scholarships also to selective colleges.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I wonder why private school kids do not have the same issue as public magnet schools, where the fierce competition from classmates is an issue?

My guess is full pay is a hook. Need a lot of those in order to discount the tuition for all the other bright lower EFC students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here are the facts from a WSJ article. It's pretty clear that privates do better at the top schools, and always have. This article is from September 2023.

It's somewhat comical that people think kids are doing better or worse in any given year.

"Among all high-school students in the U.S., 8.5% attend private high schools, according to federal data. Among the eight Ivy League schools, the percentage of students who graduate from a private high school is about four to five times that.

At Harvard, 37% of the class of 2025 attended private schools, while at Princeton, the share is 40%, with Brown at 41%, and Dartmouth, 44%, according to the schools’ websites or surveys taken by student newspapers. Between 10% and 30% of Ivy League undergraduates are international, many of whom attended private high schools."

It’s not comical. Admissions offices thought they could use TO to take kids they wanted under cover. They really do want to give kids a chance. They didn’t count on the faculty protesting so loudly that these TO classes were so much weaker and couldn’t do they work.

Those 3 cycles sucked for private schools.

Now it’s swung back.

No those cycles were no different. The article is from September 2023.

There has been really no difference. The problem is if your kid isn’t admitted then somehow the cycle was bad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Post-SC ruling and Test fluid world, the safest thing a t20 can do is double their questbridge and posse numbers and then load up on affluent families and/or kids coming from known privates.

They’ll end up w a barbell community - rich and poor - but they’ll increase Pell numbers which gets mentioned in the NYT and helps w ratings, their diversity numbers will look fine (also sure to be a NYT follow up article), the yield numbers will be solid and their budget will be fine.

So they’ve decided that’s a deal they’re willing to take. To look better to outsiders while keeping full pay kids. Even if it creates a problematic situation within the classroom.

A lot of the T10s are beginning to require test scores, and it will be rolling downhill from there.

I think blowing up number of applicants to game the system when you have TO is going to now be taken into consideration in terms of 'selectivity'. When you require test scores you start eliminating a large group of potential applicants that don't have what it takes so total number of applicants goes down in this 'self-selecting, pre-selection'. I don't think for a second the Ivies that will now require test scores are going to sit quiet while the ones that don't report more and more selectivity. They are all starting to fall like dominoes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here are the facts from a WSJ article. It's pretty clear that privates do better at the top schools, and always have. This article is from September 2023.

It's somewhat comical that people think kids are doing better or worse in any given year.

"Among all high-school students in the U.S., 8.5% attend private high schools, according to federal data. Among the eight Ivy League schools, the percentage of students who graduate from a private high school is about four to five times that.

At Harvard, 37% of the class of 2025 attended private schools, while at Princeton, the share is 40%, with Brown at 41%, and Dartmouth, 44%, according to the schools’ websites or surveys taken by student newspapers. Between 10% and 30% of Ivy League undergraduates are international, many of whom attended private high schools."

It’s not comical. Admissions offices thought they could use TO to take kids they wanted under cover. They really do want to give kids a chance. They didn’t count on the faculty protesting so loudly that these TO classes were so much weaker and couldn’t do they work.

Those 3 cycles sucked for private schools.

Now it’s swung back.

No those cycles were no different. The article is from September 2023.

There has been really no difference. The problem is if your kid isn’t admitted then somehow the cycle was bad.

The data isn’t from sept 2023

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My observation is that it has been a good year for affluent families - whether in public or private. I am on the west coast and private schools have done exceptionally well here, but so have well resourced public schools. Everyone is shocked at where kids are getting in. I do wonder how long it will hold up!

It's good to ED if you know you can pay it.

This is part of it, but I am seeing kids get need-based scholarships also to selective colleges.

That's the thing. If you have the money to pay, you can ED and get a boost. If you are eligble for need based, you can get in for less. But, a lot of families fall in the middle where there is no aid, but 80-90K a year is not an option. That cuts out a lot of public school families.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Post-SC ruling and Test fluid world, the safest thing a t20 can do is double their questbridge and posse numbers and then load up on affluent families and/or kids coming from known privates.

They’ll end up w a barbell community - rich and poor - but they’ll increase Pell numbers which gets mentioned in the NYT and helps w ratings, their diversity numbers will look fine (also sure to be a NYT follow up article), the yield numbers will be solid and their budget will be fine.

So they’ve decided that’s a deal they’re willing to take. To look better to outsiders while keeping full pay kids. Even if it creates a problematic situation within the classroom.

Agree.