Sidwell 2023 College outcomes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not to be crass, but I really don't see why schools wouldn't be falling over themselves to accept students who have excellent college preparation, come from a background with means, and a family who obviously values education. They are likely to be full-pay, donate to the school etc. My kids and I just went to public schools and we're not part of this "Big 3" world in any way, but even with all emphasis on increasing first gen, need blind, diversity etc. I would think at the end of the day schools would still reward the relatively small population of kids who go to top private schools with selective college admissions.

Agree. But as a parent of 3 "Big 3" graduates, I see why colleges are just as anxious to fill their classes with Big 3 graduates as those from urban no-name high schools. The Big 3 graduates are a "safe bet." They will contribute to the college community, excel after graduation, and will most likely become consistent and increasingly deep pocket donors.

It's not just the full pay. It's the fact that, as much as the whole first gen/POC/DEI pressures count, the colleges need a core of students who will reliably pay the bills, graduate on time, go on to successful careers, and develop into active and financially reliable alumni. The "Big 3" type of students fulfill that role with less risk than the other categories.

I discount this idea that schools are thinking at all about alumni donations 20 years down the road. AOs are thinking about metrics they are being judged on- diversity, test scores, acceptance rate, yield and staying within the FA budget. Donations down the road will primarily come from the handful of people who hit it big. No way to predict who that will be looking at a 17 year old’s essay. These decisions are made by actual people who are responding to direct pressures - not some committee of wise elders planning decades into the future

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not to be crass, but I really don't see why schools wouldn't be falling over themselves to accept students who have excellent college preparation, come from a background with means, and a family who obviously values education. They are likely to be full-pay, donate to the school etc. My kids and I just went to public schools and we're not part of this "Big 3" world in any way, but even with all emphasis on increasing first gen, need blind, diversity etc. I would think at the end of the day schools would still reward the relatively small population of kids who go to top private schools with selective college admissions.

Agree. But as a parent of 3 "Big 3" graduates, I see why colleges are just as anxious to fill their classes with Big 3 graduates as those from urban no-name high schools. The Big 3 graduates are a "safe bet." They will contribute to the college community, excel after graduation, and will most likely become consistent and increasingly deep pocket donors.

It's not just the full pay. It's the fact that, as much as the whole first gen/POC/DEI pressures count, the colleges need a core of students who will reliably pay the bills, graduate on time, go on to successful careers, and develop into active and financially reliable alumni. The "Big 3" type of students fulfill that role with less risk than the other categories.

I discount this idea that schools are thinking at all about alumni donations 20 years down the road. AOs are thinking about metrics they are being judged on- diversity, test scores, acceptance rate, yield and staying within the FA budget. Donations down the road will primarily come from the handful of people who hit it big. No way to predict who that will be looking at a 17 year old’s essay. These decisions are made by actual people who are responding to direct pressures - not some committee of wise elders planning decades into the future

I agree with this argument -- and this explains the outcomes as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Would they consider ranking students?

GDS ranking students? Does this not go against what GDS represents? Ranking is inherently not inclusive and equitable!!

Agree. If they have a ranking, it got to be adjusted by race, income, gender, etc., so that the ranking is equitable.

Have the top DC privates never ranked? Most places moved away from it but did rank decades ago. If admissions is struggle longer term, I wouldn't be shocked if they consider it (GDS unlikely to be first).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not to be crass, but I really don't see why schools wouldn't be falling over themselves to accept students who have excellent college preparation, come from a background with means, and a family who obviously values education. They are likely to be full-pay, donate to the school etc. My kids and I just went to public schools and we're not part of this "Big 3" world in any way, but even with all emphasis on increasing first gen, need blind, diversity etc. I would think at the end of the day schools would still reward the relatively small population of kids who go to top private schools with selective college admissions.

Agree. But as a parent of 3 "Big 3" graduates, I see why colleges are just as anxious to fill their classes with Big 3 graduates as those from urban no-name high schools. The Big 3 graduates are a "safe bet." They will contribute to the college community, excel after graduation, and will most likely become consistent and increasingly deep pocket donors.

It's not just the full pay. It's the fact that, as much as the whole first gen/POC/DEI pressures count, the colleges need a core of students who will reliably pay the bills, graduate on time, go on to successful careers, and develop into active and financially reliable alumni. The "Big 3" type of students fulfill that role with less risk than the other categories.

I discount this idea that schools are thinking at all about alumni donations 20 years down the road. AOs are thinking about metrics they are being judged on- diversity, test scores, acceptance rate, yield and staying within the FA budget. Donations down the road will primarily come from the handful of people who hit it big. No way to predict who that will be looking at a 17 year old’s essay. These decisions are made by actual people who are responding to direct pressures - not some committee of wise elders planning decades into the future

I agree with this argument -- and this explains the outcomes as well.

Add to this the reality that top schools have such big endowments now, incremental donations are kind of meaningless. If a $10 billion endowment goes up 10 pct, that is a billion dollars. But how much is that same school raising every year from alumni outside of major gifts? $20 million? Sure the schools keep the fund raising machine going because why not, in the same way a millionaire will use a $5 off coupon when ordering pizza. But it doesn’t really matter. What does matter financially is making sure x percent of customers pay full price, but that percent is less important than it used to be for the schools with mega endowments. FGLI is really a manifestation of these schools having more money than they know what to do with. How many new buildings can you build? These campuses are already non-stop construction zones

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not to be crass, but I really don't see why schools wouldn't be falling over themselves to accept students who have excellent college preparation, come from a background with means, and a family who obviously values education. They are likely to be full-pay, donate to the school etc. My kids and I just went to public schools and we're not part of this "Big 3" world in any way, but even with all emphasis on increasing first gen, need blind, diversity etc. I would think at the end of the day schools would still reward the relatively small population of kids who go to top private schools with selective college admissions.

Agree. But as a parent of 3 "Big 3" graduates, I see why colleges are just as anxious to fill their classes with Big 3 graduates as those from urban no-name high schools. The Big 3 graduates are a "safe bet." They will contribute to the college community, excel after graduation, and will most likely become consistent and increasingly deep pocket donors.

It's not just the full pay. It's the fact that, as much as the whole first gen/POC/DEI pressures count, the colleges need a core of students who will reliably pay the bills, graduate on time, go on to successful careers, and develop into active and financially reliable alumni. The "Big 3" type of students fulfill that role with less risk than the other categories.

I discount this idea that schools are thinking at all about alumni donations 20 years down the road. AOs are thinking about metrics they are being judged on- diversity, test scores, acceptance rate, yield and staying within the FA budget. Donations down the road will primarily come from the handful of people who hit it big. No way to predict who that will be looking at a 17 year old’s essay. These decisions are made by actual people who are responding to direct pressures - not some committee of wise elders planning decades into the future

I agree with this argument -- and this explains the outcomes as well.

This is 100 percent accurate. Univ fundraising has more or less given up on small donations..over 85 percent of money raised comes from gifts > 5 million at the top schools. The rest is peanuts and wot worth wasting time on. This, in turn, influences admissions attitudes..Curious, PP: Do you work in a Univ fund raising office?


Add to this the reality that top schools have such big endowments now, incremental donations are kind of meaningless. If a $10 billion endowment goes up 10 pct, that is a billion dollars. But how much is that same school raising every year from alumni outside of major gifts? $20 million? Sure the schools keep the fund raising machine going because why not, in the same way a millionaire will use a $5 off coupon when ordering pizza. But it doesn’t really matter. What does matter financially is making sure x percent of customers pay full price, but that percent is less important than it used to be for the schools with mega endowments. FGLI is really a manifestation of these schools having more money than they know what to do with. How many new buildings can you build? These campuses are already non-stop construction zones

[Anonymous]

This is 100 percent accurate. Univ fundraising has more or less given up on small donations..over 85 percent of money raised comes from gifts > 5 million at the top schools. The rest is peanuts and wot worth wasting time on. This, in turn, influences admissions attitudes..Curious, PP: Do you work in a Univ fund raising office?

[Anonymous]

Any point waiting on waitlist clearance in T20?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is 100 percent accurate. Univ fundraising has more or less given up on small donations..over 85 percent of money raised comes from gifts > 5 million at the top schools. The rest is peanuts and wot worth wasting time on. This, in turn, influences admissions attitudes..Curious, PP: Do you work in a Univ fund raising office?

I’m highly involved as an alum volunteer. That being said, there is no evidence at my Alma mater (which has more money than G-d) that they are slowing down on small gifts. No reason they should be as the small gifts at least cover development staff costs. The thing about greed is that it cannot be satiated

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is 100 percent accurate. Univ fundraising has more or less given up on small donations..over 85 percent of money raised comes from gifts > 5 million at the top schools. The rest is peanuts and wot worth wasting time on. This, in turn, influences admissions attitudes..Curious, PP: Do you work in a Univ fund raising office?

I’m highly involved as an alum volunteer. That being said, there is no evidence at my Alma mater (which has more money than G-d) that they are slowing down on small gifts. No reason they should be as the small gifts at least cover development staff costs. The thing about greed is that it cannot be satiated

T10 Univ Insider here: It is now well established that 15 percent of the development staff bring in 85 of the gift money in most top schools (b/c of large gifts). So, small alum donations in response to mail/e-mail/other out reach is very small proportion of the overall pie and is increasingly seen as an annoying headache. It may cover the costs of the staff, but just about..

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is 100 percent accurate. Univ fundraising has more or less given up on small donations..over 85 percent of money raised comes from gifts > 5 million at the top schools. The rest is peanuts and wot worth wasting time on. This, in turn, influences admissions attitudes..Curious, PP: Do you work in a Univ fund raising office?

I’m highly involved as an alum volunteer. That being said, there is no evidence at my Alma mater (which has more money than G-d) that they are slowing down on small gifts. No reason they should be as the small gifts at least cover development staff costs. The thing about greed is that it cannot be satiated

T10 Univ Insider here: It is now well established that 15 percent of the development staff bring in 85 of the gift money in most top schools (b/c of large gifts). So, small alum donations in response to mail/e-mail/other out reach is very small proportion of the overall pie and is increasingly seen as an annoying headache. It may cover the costs of the staff, but just about..

There seems to be a reluctance to stop doing it though. It is also really the only way to maintain alumni engagement. And those small donations when a student is 5 years out can become big ones when a student is 25 years out. So you want them to stay connected.

I think the problem now though is everyone is giving up on the idea that moderate generosity could have any impact, at least when it comes to top 10 schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is 100 percent accurate. Univ fundraising has more or less given up on small donations..over 85 percent of money raised comes from gifts > 5 million at the top schools. The rest is peanuts and wot worth wasting time on. This, in turn, influences admissions attitudes..Curious, PP: Do you work in a Univ fund raising office?

I’m highly involved as an alum volunteer. That being said, there is no evidence at my Alma mater (which has more money than G-d) that they are slowing down on small gifts. No reason they should be as the small gifts at least cover development staff costs. The thing about greed is that it cannot be satiated

T10 Univ Insider here: It is now well established that 15 percent of the development staff bring in 85 of the gift money in most top schools (b/c of large gifts). So, small alum donations in response to mail/e-mail/other out reach is very small proportion of the overall pie and is increasingly seen as an annoying headache. It may cover the costs of the staff, but just about..

There seems to be a reluctance to stop doing it though. It is also really the only way to maintain alumni engagement. And those small donations when a student is 5 years out can become big ones when a student is 25 years out. So you want them to stay connected.

I think the problem now though is everyone is giving up on the idea that moderate generosity could have any impact, at least when it comes to top 10 schools.

That's for sure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is 100 percent accurate. Univ fundraising has more or less given up on small donations..over 85 percent of money raised comes from gifts > 5 million at the top schools. The rest is peanuts and wot worth wasting time on. This, in turn, influences admissions attitudes..Curious, PP: Do you work in a Univ fund raising office?

I’m highly involved as an alum volunteer. That being said, there is no evidence at my Alma mater (which has more money than G-d) that they are slowing down on small gifts. No reason they should be as the small gifts at least cover development staff costs. The thing about greed is that it cannot be satiated

T10 Univ Insider here: It is now well established that 15 percent of the development staff bring in 85 of the gift money in most top schools (b/c of large gifts). So, small alum donations in response to mail/e-mail/other out reach is very small proportion of the overall pie and is increasingly seen as an annoying headache. It may cover the costs of the staff, but just about..

Gosh, I really wish my Ivy League undergrad and professional schools would get the message that the mailings don't generate revenue! I throw the solicitations unopened into the recycling bin. I gave small-ish amounts to an activity I was involved in for undergrad over the years but it finally dawned on me that both schools have more money than God and that I'm better off sending my money to the truly needy, and Ivy Leagues simply aren't in that category. It's gross that they keep on fundraising (and wasting paper).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is 100 percent accurate. Univ fundraising has more or less given up on small donations..over 85 percent of money raised comes from gifts > 5 million at the top schools. The rest is peanuts and wot worth wasting time on. This, in turn, influences admissions attitudes..Curious, PP: Do you work in a Univ fund raising office?

I’m highly involved as an alum volunteer. That being said, there is no evidence at my Alma mater (which has more money than G-d) that they are slowing down on small gifts. No reason they should be as the small gifts at least cover development staff costs. The thing about greed is that it cannot be satiated

T10 Univ Insider here: It is now well established that 15 percent of the development staff bring in 85 of the gift money in most top schools (b/c of large gifts). So, small alum donations in response to mail/e-mail/other out reach is very small proportion of the overall pie and is increasingly seen as an annoying headache. It may cover the costs of the staff, but just about..

Gosh, I really wish my Ivy League undergrad and professional schools would get the message that the mailings don't generate revenue! I throw the solicitations unopened into the recycling bin. I gave small-ish amounts to an activity I was involved in for undergrad over the years but it finally dawned on me that both schools have more money than God and that I'm better off sending my money to the truly needy, and Ivy Leagues simply aren't in that category. It's gross that they keep on fundraising (and wasting paper).

You can call them and ask them to stop mailing you. We also give to our schools and direct donations to very specific programs that we were involved with. We let the development office know we did not want a lot of mail. We have to remind them every so often (3yrs or so?) but they do respond accordingly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is 100 percent accurate. Univ fundraising has more or less given up on small donations..over 85 percent of money raised comes from gifts > 5 million at the top schools. The rest is peanuts and wot worth wasting time on. This, in turn, influences admissions attitudes..Curious, PP: Do you work in a Univ fund raising office?

I’m highly involved as an alum volunteer. That being said, there is no evidence at my Alma mater (which has more money than G-d) that they are slowing down on small gifts. No reason they should be as the small gifts at least cover development staff costs. The thing about greed is that it cannot be satiated

T10 Univ Insider here: It is now well established that 15 percent of the development staff bring in 85 of the gift money in most top schools (b/c of large gifts). So, small alum donations in response to mail/e-mail/other out reach is very small proportion of the overall pie and is increasingly seen as an annoying headache. It may cover the costs of the staff, but just about..

Gosh, I really wish my Ivy League undergrad and professional schools would get the message that the mailings don't generate revenue! I throw the solicitations unopened into the recycling bin. I gave small-ish amounts to an activity I was involved in for undergrad over the years but it finally dawned on me that both schools have more money than God and that I'm better off sending my money to the truly needy, and Ivy Leagues simply aren't in that category. It's gross that they keep on fundraising (and wasting paper).

You can call them and ask them to stop mailing you. We also give to our schools and direct donations to very specific programs that we were involved with. We let the development office know we did not want a lot of mail. We have to remind them every so often (3yrs or so?) but they do respond accordingly.

Same. We donate directly to our pet causes at our alma maters but not to the general fund. We feel our money goes where it does the most good. The general fund gets plenty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sidwell 23 family. Definitely a tough year. Many seniors and families (us included) are starting to grow frustrated with Sidwell's grade deflation and feel like there should be some sort of change going forward to communicate to colleges the rigor of the curriculum and the rarity of "high" GPAs.

To some previous posters: yes, the majority of Ivies this year have been heavy, heavy legacy - think a parent with time on the board, generational legacy, that sort of thing. Yes, UChicago accepted a very very high number of students again this year, but many of those who have been accepted will most likely end up choosing others instead.

Public universities this year were very, very scary for Sidwell students: Wisco was arguably the biggest shocker of the year and rejected/waitlisted deserving students in droves. Much less success at Michigan this year as well.

Sidwell is still just as strong as (if not stronger than) in years past when it comes to highly selective LACS and did well with EDs there.

Dalton kids are much cooler, they are engaged in more interesting activities. Who wants to take a spoiled brat kid who got handed everything from sidwell? If I was an admissions officer Id choose either the cool kids or kids who are unhooked and work their butts off from public and urms.

There are instructors at Sidwell who essentially NEVER give above a B+ on papers. So, students endlessly grind and wear themselves trying to get a decent grade in the class. What is Sidwell doing exactly?

^^ hopefully the administration is finally starting to see the negative effects of this with regards to college admissions

Umm, no they are not. We have two kids at Sidwell -- spaced a number of years apart. Older one graduated and younger DC has some time left. This has been a standard complaint about Sidwell for a while. School simply does not engage. Those interested should look at Dalton outcomes. They used to be just like Sidwell. Now, there is an ocean of a difference between the two schools.

Are there simply more legacy at Dalton?

Or are you saying Dalton has lowered its standards and is no longer “rigorous?”

No, def not saying that. I live in NYC and know a lot of Dalton parents. They all seem hooked.

DD goes to camp with girls who went to Dalton, Spence, Chapin, etc. These schools have wealthier parents than Sidwell hands down. I don’t think it’s just legacy, but probably some major donors.

How have the legacy kids done at Sidwell (non-major donor)?
Dalton is wealthier but not to the extent that large numbers of megadonors are getting their kids into school each year.