Misunderstanding about earlier admissions post

Forum Index » Private & Independent Schools

1 2 3 ► Go

Go to page...

04/08/2008 16:28

Subject: Misunderstanding about earlier admissions post

Anonymous

I wrote an admissions post from a teacher/admissions committee member perspective earlier, and a lot of people seemed to either misinterpret it... or, well, maybe they didn't and decided to get upset for some justifiable reason. The post is copied below in case you have no idea what I'm talking about, and here are a few additional thoughts...

1) I didn't mean to suggest that there's a *problem* with lawyers, World Bank/IMF, or lobbying types... only that they don't stand out because there are so many of them in DC. That's just how it is, at least at some schools. If you don't agree with it, that's fine. I didn't say I thought it was a good process (or not) -- I was just sharing information.
If you find that information frustrating, then I sympathize with you.

2) To whoever thinks it's unfair to judge a child by their family... first off, I'm not entirely sure how unfair that is when they're two or three years old. But beyond that, they're not necessarily judging the child by their family... they're judging the whole family. When a child is admitted to many schools, it's really the whole family that's being admitted, not just the child.

3) Am I saying that well-connected, rich people with lots of letters of recommendations don't get in? Well, certainly sometimes they don't -- and sometimes they do. If they're people who implicitly (or explicitly) emit an attitude of, "Dear God, she's only a TEACHER!" then that person can probably count on having trouble getting in. Plenty of schools take non-connected, non-rich people over much wealthier, much better connected families.

4) The people complaining about more creative types not being able to afford private school education... Well, many schools have fairly robust financial aid programs that are very supportive of middle class families with partial tuition grants.

5) I don't mean to suggest that kids fitting some of the characteristics I mentioned below are intrinsically better people than other children. I was simply noting some things that had stood out in the past when I was doing this to help one understand why some candidates may be more desirable to schools.

6) For anyone who suggested I'm somehow exercising power, that's pretty silly. I have no more power than anyone else on an anonymous chatboard. I'm simply providing one perspective on how the admissions process can pan out and why some candidates/families might look more desirable than others. If you don't like the observations I've shared because they seem biased against you, then I sympathize... but that doesn't change the observations.

7) For the person who was so dismissive of teachers, that's pretty sad. I've known plenty of truly amazing, well-educated, and fundamentally decent people who have been teachers. If you're dismissive of teachers, then why bother with school? Just hire a private tutor and be done with the whole process. Your child will probably get a better and more efficient academic education anyway.

8) I intended no suggestion that the original poster was anything, good or bad. My only intention in posting was to lend a perspective that might give people more information than they previously had.

9) A few of the people's posts I think are a clear illustration of how a parent's attitude could negatively influence their child's admissions chances.

10) For the person who didn't appreciate the princess type reference, I guess I'm a bit sorry... but not too much. I hope you sent a nasty letter to the editor of the Times and Post. Both newspapers have had some very interesting articles on the whole princess theme.

Speaking as a teacher who's sat on admissions committees, many of these schools are evaluating the parents just as much as the children. Will the family as a whole fit in with the community? Will the family as a whole add something to the character or vibrancy of the school community? Sometimes perfectly wonderful children have their applications torpedoed by pushy, rude, distant, noncommittal, aloof, etc. parents. Also, lawyers, World Bank/IMF, and lobbying-related folks are a dime a dozen. Most schools love authors, artists, journalists, entrepreneurs, etc.

I can tell you that I once adamantly suggested that a child not be accepted because a parent made it very clear that the only reason he was applying his child to our school was to get him into another school for which we were an unofficial feeder. See, the thing is, we'd have just as much preferred not to be a feeder for that school and were in a totally different place philosophically. The kid was great, but... not a good fit from a whole family perspective.

Finally, just as wonderful as almost all children may be, there are definitely kids who present themselves as "more wonderful" than others in terms of what a school wants. For example, we used to really take a long look at boys who didn't seem to be the stereotypical sporty, boyish types and girls who didn't seem to be the stereotypical princess types. Anyone who defied stereotypes was always interesting to us because we didn't want our students to grow up in an environment that reinforces sometimes unhealthy societal stereotypes. As another example, the somewhat quiet, polite, cooperative observer who doesn't talk a lot but asks really insightful or thoughtful questions when he/she does earns a second look. And another: Kids who aren't afraid to try something unfamiliar or difficult earn points. These sorts of behaviors or tendencies are things which can't really be taught just for a playdate, and they lend a lot of insight into the character and thinking of a child. Most admissions folks I know really value authenticity and usually aren't fooled by "scripts."