should private and independent school provide accountability and transparency admission

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do private colleges are now accountable and private schools not? Are they sacred cows?. What is the legal basis to treat two private entities differently? Is it ok to be race neutral in college admissions and not neutral in school admissions ?

Troll if you want but it will say a lot if you don’t provide a logical argument.

This might be news to you, but private entities that do not receive any govt funds, can discriminate all day long. Maybe they won’t do it because it’s not great PR but it certainly ain’t illegal.

Otherwise, all-boys and all-girls schools would also not be legal.

Your example is like saying that there are bathrooms for men and women, and hence you cannot complain about a man getting into a women’s bathroom. I agree with yet polciy.

Now more specifically, I also agree with all boys and girls schools. The advantage of the admission process in those schools is that it’s spelled out very explicitly the type of kids they admit; boy or girls plus additional characteristics. That’s very positive.

Now for co-ed school it would be nice to spell out very explicitly what is the criteria for admiission. Not mentioning here a formula or tests scores like many people interpret.

The underlying issue here is that the admission commute is trying to admit a portfolio of people with specific characteristics: wealth, talent, race, and gender. And the criteria is not fully disclosed. Many people are left out what was missing.

I would find more palatable a school that explicitly says that they admit rich families because we want mega donors.

Nothing against that. It’s just somehow that they do it but somehow pretend to be inclusive schools.

Don’t want to be too political. But I find similar to Trump that proposed tax cuts saying that they will benefit their base. There is some disconnect between the announced policies and the actual objectives.

Do well on your ISEE, SSAT, or HSPT if required, have good grades, get strong letters of recommendation, interview well (practice, practice, practice), write strong and creative essays that reveal your personality. Show an ability to get along with others, leadership or harmony, intellectual vitality, demonstrated commitment to the community, and talent in non-academic domains. This is what I understood to be the factors the schools are looking for. If you have a kindergartener rather than an upper schooler, then the scrutiny is partially on you as parents and not as much on the kid.

Agree. But also that should be disclosed. I don’t see anything wrong with that as long as is fully transparent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A benefit of private is that they can say no to difficult parents and poorly-behaved children. Advertising this would tick off the rejected families, which is why they don’t.

You can do like insurance companies. Charge a price based on an objective indicator,, let’s say credit score, that is highly correlated with bad behavior.

Not saying to check your credit score for school admission. Just to establish objective criteria.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do private colleges are now accountable and private schools not? Are they sacred cows?. What is the legal basis to treat two private entities differently? Is it ok to be race neutral in college admissions and not neutral in school admissions ?

Troll if you want but it will say a lot if you don’t provide a logical argument.

This might be news to you, but private entities that do not receive any govt funds, can discriminate all day long. Maybe they won’t do it because it’s not great PR but it certainly ain’t illegal.

Otherwise, all-boys and all-girls schools would also not be legal.

Your example is like saying that there are bathrooms for men and women, and hence you cannot complain about a man getting into a women’s bathroom. I agree with yet polciy.

Now more specifically, I also agree with all boys and girls schools. The advantage of the admission process in those schools is that it’s spelled out very explicitly the type of kids they admit; boy or girls plus additional characteristics. That’s very positive.

Now for co-ed school it would be nice to spell out very explicitly what is the criteria for admiission. Not mentioning here a formula or tests scores like many people interpret.

The underlying issue here is that the admission commute is trying to admit a portfolio of people with specific characteristics: wealth, talent, race, and gender. And the criteria is not fully disclosed. Many people are left out what was missing.

I would find more palatable a school that explicitly says that they admit rich families because we want mega donors.

Nothing against that. It’s just somehow that they do it but somehow pretend to be inclusive schools.

Don’t want to be too political. But I find similar to Trump that proposed tax cuts saying that they will benefit their base. There is some disconnect between the announced policies and the actual objectives.

Do well on your ISEE, SSAT, or HSPT if required, have good grades, get strong letters of recommendation, interview well (practice, practice, practice), write strong and creative essays that reveal your personality. Show an ability to get along with others, leadership or harmony, intellectual vitality, demonstrated commitment to the community, and talent in non-academic domains. This is what I understood to be the factors the schools are looking for. If you have a kindergartener rather than an upper schooler, then the scrutiny is partially on you as parents and not as much on the kid.

+1. And accept that even if your child accomplishes all of those criteria, they may still not get in because there are more qualified candidates than spots. Statistically, some of these privates have lower acceptance rates than competitive colleges.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do private colleges are now accountable and private schools not? Are they sacred cows?. What is the legal basis to treat two private entities differently? Is it ok to be race neutral in college admissions and not neutral in school admissions ?

Troll if you want but it will say a lot if you don’t provide a logical argument.

This might be news to you, but private entities that do not receive any govt funds, can discriminate all day long. Maybe they won’t do it because it’s not great PR but it certainly ain’t illegal.

Otherwise, all-boys and all-girls schools would also not be legal.

Your example is like saying that there are bathrooms for men and women, and hence you cannot complain about a man getting into a women’s bathroom. I agree with yet polciy.

Now more specifically, I also agree with all boys and girls schools. The advantage of the admission process in those schools is that it’s spelled out very explicitly the type of kids they admit; boy or girls plus additional characteristics. That’s very positive.

Now for co-ed school it would be nice to spell out very explicitly what is the criteria for admiission. Not mentioning here a formula or tests scores like many people interpret.

The underlying issue here is that the admission commute is trying to admit a portfolio of people with specific characteristics: wealth, talent, race, and gender. And the criteria is not fully disclosed. Many people are left out what was missing.

I would find more palatable a school that explicitly says that they admit rich families because we want mega donors.

Nothing against that. It’s just somehow that they do it but somehow pretend to be inclusive schools.

Don’t want to be too political. But I find similar to Trump that proposed tax cuts saying that they will benefit their base. There is some disconnect between the announced policies and the actual objectives.

Do well on your ISEE, SSAT, or HSPT if required, have good grades, get strong letters of recommendation, interview well (practice, practice, practice), write strong and creative essays that reveal your personality. Show an ability to get along with others, leadership or harmony, intellectual vitality, demonstrated commitment to the community, and talent in non-academic domains. This is what I understood to be the factors the schools are looking for. If you have a kindergartener rather than an upper schooler, then the scrutiny is partially on you as parents and not as much on the kid.

Agree. But also that should be disclosed. I don’t see anything wrong with that as long as is fully transparent.

The above seemed pretty transparent to me when my DC applied. We didn’t have a consultant or anything. Came from public school and we don’t have the money for that. However, it’s quite possible you can do all of the above and still get rejected because someone else’s kid did was deemed to be a better fit. I’ll give you an example from our own experience with private admissions. My kid checked some of the boxes very strongly: Straight A’s, all 9’s on ISEE, multiple national level achievements in their talent area, fair essays. But no leadership, no sports, was painfully nervous and shy in interview, mid-level community service bc too busy with their activity, but a very sweet kid and gets along with others so I am guessing recommenders said that. Friends’ kid applied to one of the same schools, his top choice, and got rejected but my DC accepted. This other kid had more leadership, more community service, also a good student, and super talented in multiple sports, and very outgoing. I’m guessing test scores and essays also good. Parents were naturally upset with rejection. My DC says that on shadow day that they attended together, the other kid came off as a bit rude and show-offish. This matches my impression of the kid in general, nice deep down, but can come on a bit strong. Not sure any admissions committee is going to tell the parents and the kid that he acted somewhat obnoxiously. I can’t even bring myself to mention that to the parents and I’m friends with them. I figure these disappointments happen in life and you gotta roll with it. If that kid had had a good shadow day and been in a better mood that day, perhaps my kid would have gotten pushed off the list. I don’t think anyone is entitled to a detailed explanation for why they didn’t win something.

[Anonymous]

To me the relevant questions is if schools are explicitly choosing based on race, and if that by itself is legal. Affirmative action no longer exists.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To me the relevant questions is if schools are explicitly choosing based on race, and if that by itself is legal. Affirmative action no longer exists.

Are you just talking about what’s legal? Then the Supreme Court ruling only affects schools receiving FFA. Whether you agree or not, those are the facts. And even if it did apply, schools should still be able to admit based on subjective measures like character or what interesting life experiences different children bring to a class. Or whether they need more athletes one year and more musicians the next. I have no interest in subjecting these schools to a witch hunt just because I feel someone deserved a spot but didn’t get it. All the children admitted at my child’s school are valuable contributors. Those who did not get in are hopefully thriving elsewhere. Nobody has a basic right to attend any particular private school.

Even though we’ve been through the process and agree it was stressful and a lot of work, I still don’t completely understand the level of obsession over getting into particular schools. I wonder if parents believe certain schools are needed for successful college admissions. They are not. As someone pointed out above, some schools are already quite selective when they admit students, so it’s no real surprise that the students do well when they later apply to colleges. But these same students would have been equally (perhaps even more) successful applying to college out of less selective schools. I’ve heard college admissions officers say that coming from a selective school can be both a blessing and a curse. You have to be a really stunning student to stand out at an Exeter, Harvard Westlake, Thomas Jefferson or Stuyvesant. I’m glad my DC got in at their first choice because they were not challenged at their public option, but if they didn’t get admitted—and that could easily have happened had we not been somewhat lucky—I am 100% confident they would have been completely fine nonetheless.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To me the relevant questions is if schools are explicitly choosing based on race, and if that by itself is legal. Affirmative action no longer exists.

Are you just talking about what’s legal? Then the Supreme Court ruling only affects schools receiving FFA. Whether you agree or not, those are the facts. And even if it did apply, schools should still be able to admit based on subjective measures like character or what interesting life experiences different children bring to a class. Or whether they need more athletes one year and more musicians the next. I have no interest in subjecting these schools to a witch hunt just because I feel someone deserved a spot but didn’t get it. All the children admitted at my child’s school are valuable contributors. Those who did not get in are hopefully thriving elsewhere. Nobody has a basic right to attend any particular private school.

Even though we’ve been through the process and agree it was stressful and a lot of work, I still don’t completely understand the level of obsession over getting into particular schools. I wonder if parents believe certain schools are needed for successful college admissions. They are not. As someone pointed out above, some schools are already quite selective when they admit students, so it’s no real surprise that the students do well when they later apply to colleges. But these same students would have been equally (perhaps even more) successful applying to college out of less selective schools. I’ve heard college admissions officers say that coming from a selective school can be both a blessing and a curse. You have to be a really stunning student to stand out at an Exeter, Harvard Westlake, Thomas Jefferson or Stuyvesant. I’m glad my DC got in at their first choice because they were not challenged at their public option, but if they didn’t get admitted—and that could easily have happened had we not been somewhat lucky—I am 100% confident they would have been completely fine nonetheless.

The Supreme Court's ruling in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (2023) effectively ended race-based affirmative action in college admissions. However, the decision directly applies to universities that receive federal funding, as it was based on interpretations of the Equal Protection Clause (for public universities) and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act (for private universities receiving federal funds).

Private universities that do not receive federal funding are not bound by the ruling, but very few institutions fall into this category.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To me the relevant questions is if schools are explicitly choosing based on race, and if that by itself is legal. Affirmative action no longer exists.

Are you just talking about what’s legal? Then the Supreme Court ruling only affects schools receiving FFA. Whether you agree or not, those are the facts. And even if it did apply, schools should still be able to admit based on subjective measures like character or what interesting life experiences different children bring to a class. Or whether they need more athletes one year and more musicians the next. I have no interest in subjecting these schools to a witch hunt just because I feel someone deserved a spot but didn’t get it. All the children admitted at my child’s school are valuable contributors. Those who did not get in are hopefully thriving elsewhere. Nobody has a basic right to attend any particular private school.

Even though we’ve been through the process and agree it was stressful and a lot of work, I still don’t completely understand the level of obsession over getting into particular schools. I wonder if parents believe certain schools are needed for successful college admissions. They are not. As someone pointed out above, some schools are already quite selective when they admit students, so it’s no real surprise that the students do well when they later apply to colleges. But these same students would have been equally (perhaps even more) successful applying to college out of less selective schools. I’ve heard college admissions officers say that coming from a selective school can be both a blessing and a curse. You have to be a really stunning student to stand out at an Exeter, Harvard Westlake, Thomas Jefferson or Stuyvesant. I’m glad my DC got in at their first choice because they were not challenged at their public option, but if they didn’t get admitted—and that could easily have happened had we not been somewhat lucky—I am 100% confident they would have been completely fine nonetheless.

The Supreme Court's ruling in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (2023) effectively ended race-based affirmative action in college admissions. However, the decision directly applies to universities that receive federal funding, as it was based on interpretations of the Equal Protection Clause (for public universities) and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act (for private universities receiving federal funds).

Private universities that do not receive federal funding are not bound by the ruling, but very few institutions fall into this category.

Yes "the decision directly applies to universities" so that has what to do with private secondary schools????????

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To me the relevant questions is if schools are explicitly choosing based on race, and if that by itself is legal. Affirmative action no longer exists.

Are you just talking about what’s legal? Then the Supreme Court ruling only affects schools receiving FFA. Whether you agree or not, those are the facts. And even if it did apply, schools should still be able to admit based on subjective measures like character or what interesting life experiences different children bring to a class. Or whether they need more athletes one year and more musicians the next. I have no interest in subjecting these schools to a witch hunt just because I feel someone deserved a spot but didn’t get it. All the children admitted at my child’s school are valuable contributors. Those who did not get in are hopefully thriving elsewhere. Nobody has a basic right to attend any particular private school.

Even though we’ve been through the process and agree it was stressful and a lot of work, I still don’t completely understand the level of obsession over getting into particular schools. I wonder if parents believe certain schools are needed for successful college admissions. They are not. As someone pointed out above, some schools are already quite selective when they admit students, so it’s no real surprise that the students do well when they later apply to colleges. But these same students would have been equally (perhaps even more) successful applying to college out of less selective schools. I’ve heard college admissions officers say that coming from a selective school can be both a blessing and a curse. You have to be a really stunning student to stand out at an Exeter, Harvard Westlake, Thomas Jefferson or Stuyvesant. I’m glad my DC got in at their first choice because they were not challenged at their public option, but if they didn’t get admitted—and that could easily have happened had we not been somewhat lucky—I am 100% confident they would have been completely fine nonetheless.

The Supreme Court's ruling in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (2023) effectively ended race-based affirmative action in college admissions. However, the decision directly applies to universities that receive federal funding, as it was based on interpretations of the Equal Protection Clause (for public universities) and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act (for private universities receiving federal funds).

Private universities that do not receive federal funding are not bound by the ruling, but very few institutions fall into this category.

Yes "the decision directly applies to universities" so that has what to do with private secondary schools????????

Department of education has started to enforce it also in schools!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To me the relevant questions is if schools are explicitly choosing based on race, and if that by itself is legal. Affirmative action no longer exists.

Are you just talking about what’s legal? Then the Supreme Court ruling only affects schools receiving FFA. Whether you agree or not, those are the facts. And even if it did apply, schools should still be able to admit based on subjective measures like character or what interesting life experiences different children bring to a class. Or whether they need more athletes one year and more musicians the next. I have no interest in subjecting these schools to a witch hunt just because I feel someone deserved a spot but didn’t get it. All the children admitted at my child’s school are valuable contributors. Those who did not get in are hopefully thriving elsewhere. Nobody has a basic right to attend any particular private school.

Even though we’ve been through the process and agree it was stressful and a lot of work, I still don’t completely understand the level of obsession over getting into particular schools. I wonder if parents believe certain schools are needed for successful college admissions. They are not. As someone pointed out above, some schools are already quite selective when they admit students, so it’s no real surprise that the students do well when they later apply to colleges. But these same students would have been equally (perhaps even more) successful applying to college out of less selective schools. I’ve heard college admissions officers say that coming from a selective school can be both a blessing and a curse. You have to be a really stunning student to stand out at an Exeter, Harvard Westlake, Thomas Jefferson or Stuyvesant. I’m glad my DC got in at their first choice because they were not challenged at their public option, but if they didn’t get admitted—and that could easily have happened had we not been somewhat lucky—I am 100% confident they would have been completely fine nonetheless.

But wait ! Most private schools are considered non-profits and do receive a form of federal aid by not paying income tax. Could the tax exemption be tretated as a form of federal aid? Maybe not right now, but in practical terms the tax exemption is like money given by the government that they hate so much.

Let’s see if the law is implemented to non-profit schools if they are willing to give up the tax advantage. I don’t think so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To me the relevant questions is if schools are explicitly choosing based on race, and if that by itself is legal. Affirmative action no longer exists.

Are you just talking about what’s legal? Then the Supreme Court ruling only affects schools receiving FFA. Whether you agree or not, those are the facts. And even if it did apply, schools should still be able to admit based on subjective measures like character or what interesting life experiences different children bring to a class. Or whether they need more athletes one year and more musicians the next. I have no interest in subjecting these schools to a witch hunt just because I feel someone deserved a spot but didn’t get it. All the children admitted at my child’s school are valuable contributors. Those who did not get in are hopefully thriving elsewhere. Nobody has a basic right to attend any particular private school.

Even though we’ve been through the process and agree it was stressful and a lot of work, I still don’t completely understand the level of obsession over getting into particular schools. I wonder if parents believe certain schools are needed for successful college admissions. They are not. As someone pointed out above, some schools are already quite selective when they admit students, so it’s no real surprise that the students do well when they later apply to colleges. But these same students would have been equally (perhaps even more) successful applying to college out of less selective schools. I’ve heard college admissions officers say that coming from a selective school can be both a blessing and a curse. You have to be a really stunning student to stand out at an Exeter, Harvard Westlake, Thomas Jefferson or Stuyvesant. I’m glad my DC got in at their first choice because they were not challenged at their public option, but if they didn’t get admitted—and that could easily have happened had we not been somewhat lucky—I am 100% confident they would have been completely fine nonetheless.

But wait ! Most private schools are considered non-profits and do receive a form of federal aid by not paying income tax. Could the tax exemption be tretated as a form of federal aid? Maybe not right now, but in practical terms the tax exemption is like money given by the government that they hate so much.

Let’s see if the law is implemented to non-profit schools if they are willing to give up the tax advantage. I don’t think so.

Somehow private schools have an image of themselves that they do not owe anything to the government, but in fact they are currently subsidized by the government. I think they should be a bit more humble.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To me the relevant questions is if schools are explicitly choosing based on race, and if that by itself is legal. Affirmative action no longer exists.

Are you just talking about what’s legal? Then the Supreme Court ruling only affects schools receiving FFA. Whether you agree or not, those are the facts. And even if it did apply, schools should still be able to admit based on subjective measures like character or what interesting life experiences different children bring to a class. Or whether they need more athletes one year and more musicians the next. I have no interest in subjecting these schools to a witch hunt just because I feel someone deserved a spot but didn’t get it. All the children admitted at my child’s school are valuable contributors. Those who did not get in are hopefully thriving elsewhere. Nobody has a basic right to attend any particular private school.

Even though we’ve been through the process and agree it was stressful and a lot of work, I still don’t completely understand the level of obsession over getting into particular schools. I wonder if parents believe certain schools are needed for successful college admissions. They are not. As someone pointed out above, some schools are already quite selective when they admit students, so it’s no real surprise that the students do well when they later apply to colleges. But these same students would have been equally (perhaps even more) successful applying to college out of less selective schools. I’ve heard college admissions officers say that coming from a selective school can be both a blessing and a curse. You have to be a really stunning student to stand out at an Exeter, Harvard Westlake, Thomas Jefferson or Stuyvesant. I’m glad my DC got in at their first choice because they were not challenged at their public option, but if they didn’t get admitted—and that could easily have happened had we not been somewhat lucky—I am 100% confident they would have been completely fine nonetheless.

But wait ! Most private schools are considered non-profits and do receive a form of federal aid by not paying income tax. Could the tax exemption be tretated as a form of federal aid? Maybe not right now, but in practical terms the tax exemption is like money given by the government that they hate so much.

Let’s see if the law is implemented to non-profit schools if they are willing to give up the tax advantage. I don’t think so.

Same with churches. I guess we should have the big hand of government stamp out their freedoms too and accept everyone. No more religious teaching, just like D.E.I. and CRT is out at universities. Get rid of all policies that discriminate against LGTBQ. Or whatever the government deems unfit depending upon the administration at any given time. Seems fair to you? Doesn’t seem right to me.

[Anonymous]

To be clear I am very pro LGTBQ and not a fan of churches that teach against it on a personal level. However I very much support religious freedom and freedom of speech. When you live in a free society you have to learn that you won’t always agree with others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To me the relevant questions is if schools are explicitly choosing based on race, and if that by itself is legal. Affirmative action no longer exists.

Are you just talking about what’s legal? Then the Supreme Court ruling only affects schools receiving FFA. Whether you agree or not, those are the facts. And even if it did apply, schools should still be able to admit based on subjective measures like character or what interesting life experiences different children bring to a class. Or whether they need more athletes one year and more musicians the next. I have no interest in subjecting these schools to a witch hunt just because I feel someone deserved a spot but didn’t get it. All the children admitted at my child’s school are valuable contributors. Those who did not get in are hopefully thriving elsewhere. Nobody has a basic right to attend any particular private school.

Even though we’ve been through the process and agree it was stressful and a lot of work, I still don’t completely understand the level of obsession over getting into particular schools. I wonder if parents believe certain schools are needed for successful college admissions. They are not. As someone pointed out above, some schools are already quite selective when they admit students, so it’s no real surprise that the students do well when they later apply to colleges. But these same students would have been equally (perhaps even more) successful applying to college out of less selective schools. I’ve heard college admissions officers say that coming from a selective school can be both a blessing and a curse. You have to be a really stunning student to stand out at an Exeter, Harvard Westlake, Thomas Jefferson or Stuyvesant. I’m glad my DC got in at their first choice because they were not challenged at their public option, but if they didn’t get admitted—and that could easily have happened had we not been somewhat lucky—I am 100% confident they would have been completely fine nonetheless.

But wait ! Most private schools are considered non-profits and do receive a form of federal aid by not paying income tax. Could the tax exemption be tretated as a form of federal aid? Maybe not right now, but in practical terms the tax exemption is like money given by the government that they hate so much.

Let’s see if the law is implemented to non-profit schools if they are willing to give up the tax advantage. I don’t think so.

Same with churches. I guess we should have the big hand of government stamp out their freedoms too and accept everyone. No more religious teaching, just like D.E.I. and CRT is out at universities. Get rid of all policies that discriminate against LGTBQ. Or whatever the government deems unfit depending upon the administration at any given time. Seems fair to you? Doesn’t seem right to me.

I understand churches. Why does the government has to subsidize schools for rich kids instead of using the money for public schools ?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To me the relevant questions is if schools are explicitly choosing based on race, and if that by itself is legal. Affirmative action no longer exists.

Are you just talking about what’s legal? Then the Supreme Court ruling only affects schools receiving FFA. Whether you agree or not, those are the facts. And even if it did apply, schools should still be able to admit based on subjective measures like character or what interesting life experiences different children bring to a class. Or whether they need more athletes one year and more musicians the next. I have no interest in subjecting these schools to a witch hunt just because I feel someone deserved a spot but didn’t get it. All the children admitted at my child’s school are valuable contributors. Those who did not get in are hopefully thriving elsewhere. Nobody has a basic right to attend any particular private school.

Even though we’ve been through the process and agree it was stressful and a lot of work, I still don’t completely understand the level of obsession over getting into particular schools. I wonder if parents believe certain schools are needed for successful college admissions. They are not. As someone pointed out above, some schools are already quite selective when they admit students, so it’s no real surprise that the students do well when they later apply to colleges. But these same students would have been equally (perhaps even more) successful applying to college out of less selective schools. I’ve heard college admissions officers say that coming from a selective school can be both a blessing and a curse. You have to be a really stunning student to stand out at an Exeter, Harvard Westlake, Thomas Jefferson or Stuyvesant. I’m glad my DC got in at their first choice because they were not challenged at their public option, but if they didn’t get admitted—and that could easily have happened had we not been somewhat lucky—I am 100% confident they would have been completely fine nonetheless.

But wait ! Most private schools are considered non-profits and do receive a form of federal aid by not paying income tax. Could the tax exemption be tretated as a form of federal aid? Maybe not right now, but in practical terms the tax exemption is like money given by the government that they hate so much.

Let’s see if the law is implemented to non-profit schools if they are willing to give up the tax advantage. I don’t think so.

Same with churches. I guess we should have the big hand of government stamp out their freedoms too and accept everyone. No more religious teaching, just like D.E.I. and CRT is out at universities. Get rid of all policies that discriminate against LGTBQ. Or whatever the government deems unfit depending upon the administration at any given time. Seems fair to you? Doesn’t seem right to me.

I understand churches. Why does the government has to subsidize schools for rich kids instead of using the money for public schools ?

Which schools specifically are you talking about? My child is at an independent on financial aid funded by the generosity of donors. The spot was certainly not owed to my child because the school does not accept everyone by design, and DC is getting what is in my opinion is a better education because of less government interference. There are certainly other options that exist for those that want it.