Does going to a Big 3 school really help with college admissions?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Agree. The kids at top public HS in MoCo, VA are very bright too. Their parents aren’t paying $40k/year for school—but these kids are as bright or brighter than Big 3 and have SAT scores and AP credits through the roof. You have to remember in this area, kids are coming from homes from parents with multiple degrees, PhD, law, medical, MBA, etc. that do choose strong public schools. It’s different than areas that the only option is private. It’s the Lake Wobegon effect. The same in places like Palo Alto.

I think your analysis is on target and I'm a huge private school booster.

[Anonymous]

I think the only help you get in college admissions is that the private school counselors have fewer kids and therefore more time to handhold kids through the process. In terms of actually getting admitted there seems to be no real difference (says a mom who had one in private and one at Wilson)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:STAs most recent class placements are an interesting indication. More than 20 out of the 80 or so kids went to Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford and Chicago. A bunch more went to Duke, Vandy, Penn, Cornell, Columbia and NYU. When 50 or so out of 80 do that well ( and many of the others went to UNC, Michigan, Wash U, Amherst, and the like) there is something positive going on.

How many of them are legacies or donor admits? How many are athletic admits?

zero.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What isn't often discussed, but should be is that if you can fully pay for university and don't need any financial aid, you get an edge up in admissions. Most kids at a Big 3 have parents who can fully pay AND are willing to fully pay for private college. All thing being equal if you have two kids with similar stats, the full pay kid is going to be admitted.

It really is affirmative action for rich people. Most people have to fully pay. Our HHI is around $175,000. We can't pay for a Big 3 or private university.

Your post asserts that college is a right. And that expensive colleges are a right as well.

I think the inference is actually that college admission should be a merit based, and coming from a wealthy family is not a merit-based criterion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What isn't often discussed, but should be is that if you can fully pay for university and don't need any financial aid, you get an edge up in admissions. Most kids at a Big 3 have parents who can fully pay AND are willing to fully pay for private college. All thing being equal if you have two kids with similar stats, the full pay kid is going to be admitted.

It really is affirmative action for rich people. Most people have to fully pay. Our HHI is around $175,000. We can't pay for a Big 3 or private university.

Your post asserts that college is a right. And that expensive colleges are a right as well.

I think the inference is actually that college admission should be a merit based, and coming from a wealthy family is not a merit-based criterion.

I’m serious here: why should a private college education be merit based? There are very, very few experiences or goods in our society that are merit based. Colleges admit students according to what the college needs, not out of the goodness of their hearts. And they need plenty of full pay students. I don’t think that anyone is entitled to a private college education, and there’s no particular reason why admission to private colleges should be entirely merit based. You could argue that it is in colleges’ best interests to be that way, but that’s not what you’re arguing, is it?

For context: our family makes $150,000 a year, so private college will be a significant financial burden. I’m OK with that. I understand that not everybody can afford everything.

[Anonymous]

Your concept of merit is very narrow in that it excludes ability to pay. That might be a defensible definition, but it is arbitrary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Which schools do you mean when you say Big 3?

I thought the big three were Sidwell, GDS, and Maret? I've also heard STA and NCS included in the big three (big five)? The note explaining the term at the top of this forum is from 2010, so not very helpful. Is there a general consensus as to what people mean when they use this phrase?

Also, as an aside, I am really glad to have found this forum because it has provided me with so much helpful information that I would not otherwise have access to (not being local) but I don't understand why there are so many unkind remarks and replies. Many people seem genuinely interested in sharing information, but a significant number also seem intent on being hurtful. I assume the tone here isn't representative of the ethos of the parenting community in the DMV area in general?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:STAs most recent class placements are an interesting indication. More than 20 out of the 80 or so kids went to Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford and Chicago. A bunch more went to Duke, Vandy, Penn, Cornell, Columbia and NYU. When 50 or so out of 80 do that well ( and many of the others went to UNC, Michigan, Wash U, Amherst, and the like) there is something positive going on.

How many of them are legacies or donor admits? How many are athletic admits?

zero.

Wow. My DS was in that class and I think you have been misinformed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:STAs most recent class placements are an interesting indication. More than 20 out of the 80 or so kids went to Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford and Chicago. A bunch more went to Duke, Vandy, Penn, Cornell, Columbia and NYU. When 50 or so out of 80 do that well ( and many of the others went to UNC, Michigan, Wash U, Amherst, and the like) there is something positive going on.

How many of them are legacies or donor admits? How many are athletic admits?

zero.

Wow. My DS was in that class and I think you have been misinformed.

I was kidding, genius, because it’s a dumb question

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:STAs most recent class placements are an interesting indication. More than 20 out of the 80 or so kids went to Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford and Chicago. A bunch more went to Duke, Vandy, Penn, Cornell, Columbia and NYU. When 50 or so out of 80 do that well ( and many of the others went to UNC, Michigan, Wash U, Amherst, and the like) there is something positive going on.

How many of them are legacies or donor admits? How many are athletic admits?

A small percentage, just like at public schools.

[Anonymous]

A good friend's DD (not from this area) went to Deerfield. Super high stats and GPA, did multiple accelerated supplemental and summer programs throughout middle school and high school, well-rounded, started her own business in 9th grade, a genuinely good kid, etc. No hooks, parents educated but not connected or super wealthy. Did not get into Harvard. Ended up at another school she was ultimately happy with, but I really thought this kid of all the kids we know would have her pick of schools. For what it's worth, she's only a few years out of undergrad and already quite financially successful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A good friend's DD (not from this area) went to Deerfield. Super high stats and GPA, did multiple accelerated supplemental and summer programs throughout middle school and high school, well-rounded, started her own business in 9th grade, a genuinely good kid, etc. No hooks, parents educated but not connected or super wealthy. Did not get into Harvard. Ended up at another school she was ultimately happy with, but I really thought this kid of all the kids we know would have her pick of schools. For what it's worth, she's only a few years out of undergrad and already quite financially successful.

So she didn’t do gender studies major and aim to work at a protest shop NGO?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A good friend's DD (not from this area) went to Deerfield. Super high stats and GPA, did multiple accelerated supplemental and summer programs throughout middle school and high school, well-rounded, started her own business in 9th grade, a genuinely good kid, etc. No hooks, parents educated but not connected or super wealthy. Did not get into Harvard. Ended up at another school she was ultimately happy with, but I really thought this kid of all the kids we know would have her pick of schools. For what it's worth, she's only a few years out of undergrad and already quite financially successful.

So she didn’t do gender studies major and aim to work at a protest shop NGO?

Nor did she major in being an asshole like you obviously did.

[Anonymous]

IMHO college placement is worse for unhooked kids in the top 1/3 of their Big 3 class. Big 3 HS admits test in. The mean SAT scores are 1400+. It's very difficult to be in the top 10% when class size is so small and 1/2 the class is capable of being in top 20% of their public school class. College placement is largely a comparison between candidates from the same school. Hooked candidates will be selected over unhooked candidates from the same school if they have comparable stats.

If college placement is the primary driver, do not choose a Big 3 for your high achieving DC. If you choose a Big 3 because college preparedness and the extras a Big 3 offers are most important, then go for it. You will not be disappointed.

[Anonymous]

How do you know if you are in the the top 10% if they don't rank?