private school admissions--what sets kids apart?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think ot ia kindness. Applicants are mostly all smart and what puts them apart is kindness. Quaker schools for example prefer kids who outwardly convey kindness..

I think it's a great school and have a DD who attends and it is happy but it is not a kind school nor are many of the other students kind. Not the first word that would come to mind when I think of Sidwell.

This hasn't been our experience. I have two kids at Sidwell and while kids at any school can be horrible...I do really think the majority of them are kind - especially in comparison to the previous school my children attended.

I’m glad to hear this — our DD is starting K in the fall and kindness and empathy are two areas she needs to keep working on (at home and school). I really was drawn to the Quaker values, great reputation of the school, high standards, and diversity.

It’s good that you can recognize areas for improvement and embrace. Good luck on your journey.

[Anonymous]

It’s all such an unhealthy rat race.

Wait until at least half the smug people in these top private schools end up attending your state school for college.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Some schools are just really hard to get into. Families in public assume the only hurdle is paying for it and they can hop over whenever they like, but it just doesn’t work like that. The sooner you can make the switch the better your chances, assuming it’s an entry year.

💯

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Test scores, first choice letters, legacy, URM, sports, being potentially very large donors in addition to full pay.

You seem very confident that you know what went into the other kids' applications, and sometimes there are things that their parents haven't mentioned to you.

I agree with this. We have been through admissions multiple times with our kids. The times we have been successful, it felt like an all-out siege, but none of the strategizing and effort would have been visible to other parents.

What did you do that wouldn’t have been obvious to others?

We have been accepted to 2nd tier schools only and WL at first tier. I still don’t understand why. ISEE scores 7,8,9,9; national placement in science; city recognition for art portfolio (submitted to school); plays 4 sports; UMC family that is active at K-8; parent recognized for school donations; well written parent statements and student essay. Applied to top tier in K, 6, and 9 - all WL. I know legacy kids with lower stats who get in. The non-legacy kids (very view) who do get in have similar stats. What did you do differently?

Did you ask the HoS at your K-8 why your child was not admitted to top tier for 9th? HoS at St Pats, Lowell, Sheridan, Norwood would know.

Yes, I asked, but I feel like I got a 'non-answer' - "competition was steep and there were just so many great kids and not enough spots". It just seems like other "great kids" similar to mine get the spots and never my kid. Oh well, my focus is on my younger ones now and I'm not sure top tier is for them - I'm tempted to send them there the older ones went for simplicity.

Your emphasis on "first tier" and "2nd tier" could be your answer.

Are you saying there isn't a pecking order in high schools or just that it is supposed to remain unsaid?

You’re saying too much of the quiet part out loud. Also focused too much on rankings instead of showing fit. You’re supposed to say things like “Jr wants to go to the library every day to learn after school and is looking for a school where there are more kids like her,” not “we’re looking for Jr to be in a top tier school.”

This is also internally in your K-8 discussions with teachers and administrators. If you don’t show you know why your daughter would be a better fit at NCS than Holton beyond that NCS is ranked first, especially if administrators think Holton would also be a fit or might be a better fit, they may not bat for you with NCS.

So gross and eye-rolly. How do you do that crap and not vomit all over yourselves? You know in 20 years NONE of this will matter!

I don’t. But I know people who do, and do so successfully.

I also think this practice is completely unfair. For all these schools’ talk about systemic bias no one seems to realize that parents of most kids coming from underprivileged backgrounds don’t know don’t have time to learn the difference between Sidwell and GDS. They just want their kids to go to the best schools and “get ahead,” sometimes without much of an idea of what that means. It’s unfair to ask them to have a reason to want to a school beyond “I want the best for my child.”

Why exactly is it unfair? Because you assume they don't have the fortitude to make a distinction? Equating privilege, or lack there of, with an (in)ability to appropriately analyze options is at best, short-sighted, at worst, insulting. Underprivileged is not synonymous with incapable or stupid.

Have you ever been underprivileged? I have. Where I come from, people don't use phrases like "fortitude to make a distinction." People use phrases like "you know those presidents sent their girls to Sidwell." When I had to write my "Why Princeton" essay, my dad said, "That essay is stupid. You just write, 'Because it's Princeton.' There. Three words. Done." I had to explain that it wasn't how that worked, and that when there was a 250 word limit, the essay shouldn't be 3 words. By that point, I was more privileged than he was, even though he was more capable than I.

He was more capable than me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Test scores, first choice letters, legacy, URM, sports, being potentially very large donors in addition to full pay.

You seem very confident that you know what went into the other kids' applications, and sometimes there are things that their parents haven't mentioned to you.

I agree with this. We have been through admissions multiple times with our kids. The times we have been successful, it felt like an all-out siege, but none of the strategizing and effort would have been visible to other parents.

What did you do that wouldn’t have been obvious to others?

We have been accepted to 2nd tier schools only and WL at first tier. I still don’t understand why. ISEE scores 7,8,9,9; national placement in science; city recognition for art portfolio (submitted to school); plays 4 sports; UMC family that is active at K-8; parent recognized for school donations; well written parent statements and student essay. Applied to top tier in K, 6, and 9 - all WL. I know legacy kids with lower stats who get in. The non-legacy kids (very view) who do get in have similar stats. What did you do differently?

Did you ask the HoS at your K-8 why your child was not admitted to top tier for 9th? HoS at St Pats, Lowell, Sheridan, Norwood would know.

Yes, I asked, but I feel like I got a 'non-answer' - "competition was steep and there were just so many great kids and not enough spots". It just seems like other "great kids" similar to mine get the spots and never my kid. Oh well, my focus is on my younger ones now and I'm not sure top tier is for them - I'm tempted to send them there the older ones went for simplicity.

Your emphasis on "first tier" and "2nd tier" could be your answer.

Are you saying there isn't a pecking order in high schools or just that it is supposed to remain unsaid?

You’re saying too much of the quiet part out loud. Also focused too much on rankings instead of showing fit. You’re supposed to say things like “Jr wants to go to the library every day to learn after school and is looking for a school where there are more kids like her,” not “we’re looking for Jr to be in a top tier school.”

This is also internally in your K-8 discussions with teachers and administrators. If you don’t show you know why your daughter would be a better fit at NCS than Holton beyond that NCS is ranked first, especially if administrators think Holton would also be a fit or might be a better fit, they may not bat for you with NCS.

So gross and eye-rolly. How do you do that crap and not vomit all over yourselves? You know in 20 years NONE of this will matter!

I don’t. But I know people who do, and do so successfully.

I also think this practice is completely unfair. For all these schools’ talk about systemic bias no one seems to realize that parents of most kids coming from underprivileged backgrounds don’t know don’t have time to learn the difference between Sidwell and GDS. They just want their kids to go to the best schools and “get ahead,” sometimes without much of an idea of what that means. It’s unfair to ask them to have a reason to want to a school beyond “I want the best for my child.”

Why exactly is it unfair? Because you assume they don't have the fortitude to make a distinction? Equating privilege, or lack there of, with an (in)ability to appropriately analyze options is at best, short-sighted, at worst, insulting. Underprivileged is not synonymous with incapable or stupid.

What distinction is there between SFS and GDS? Is one more ethical and less racist? I was able to follow the thread until these posts.

Curious about this also.

There are some pretty significant differences between SFS and GDS and if parents looked closely, it would be obvious. First, SFS is a Quaker School and while some people chose to ignore that - Quakerism is very much a part of the school. Someone mentioned that SFS takes diversity seriously by the numbers - I would agree with this, but it also keeps classes gender balanced and makes it so that none of the classes are over dominated with one race (despite what some people might believe...all kids at the school benefit from this). GDS and Sidwell have very different founding stories and to me, this was interesting. I actually loved GDS' founding story (though we ultimately decided on Sidwell) and thought the school was lovely. But the schools, to me, had a very different vibe. I would say that Sidwell is "liberal" but I think GDS might have Sidwell beat a bit in that area.

I agree with this point. We applied to both schools, however Sidwell does hold Quaker values at the center of their curriculum. I grew up in Pennsylvania where Quaker schools are very common and it speaks to me as a Jewish American family — holding peace, simplicity, and equality as ways to educate our DD.

Simplicity and equality at $60k/yr?

Everyone I’ve talked to said it’s a tough, competitive environment for kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Test scores, first choice letters, legacy, URM, sports, being potentially very large donors in addition to full pay.

You seem very confident that you know what went into the other kids' applications, and sometimes there are things that their parents haven't mentioned to you.

I agree with this. We have been through admissions multiple times with our kids. The times we have been successful, it felt like an all-out siege, but none of the strategizing and effort would have been visible to other parents.

What did you do that wouldn’t have been obvious to others?

We have been accepted to 2nd tier schools only and WL at first tier. I still don’t understand why. ISEE scores 7,8,9,9; national placement in science; city recognition for art portfolio (submitted to school); plays 4 sports; UMC family that is active at K-8; parent recognized for school donations; well written parent statements and student essay. Applied to top tier in K, 6, and 9 - all WL. I know legacy kids with lower stats who get in. The non-legacy kids (very view) who do get in have similar stats. What did you do differently?

Did you ask the HoS at your K-8 why your child was not admitted to top tier for 9th? HoS at St Pats, Lowell, Sheridan, Norwood would know.

Yes, I asked, but I feel like I got a 'non-answer' - "competition was steep and there were just so many great kids and not enough spots". It just seems like other "great kids" similar to mine get the spots and never my kid. Oh well, my focus is on my younger ones now and I'm not sure top tier is for them - I'm tempted to send them there the older ones went for simplicity.

Your emphasis on "first tier" and "2nd tier" could be your answer.

Are you saying there isn't a pecking order in high schools or just that it is supposed to remain unsaid?

You’re saying too much of the quiet part out loud. Also focused too much on rankings instead of showing fit. You’re supposed to say things like “Jr wants to go to the library every day to learn after school and is looking for a school where there are more kids like her,” not “we’re looking for Jr to be in a top tier school.”

This is also internally in your K-8 discussions with teachers and administrators. If you don’t show you know why your daughter would be a better fit at NCS than Holton beyond that NCS is ranked first, especially if administrators think Holton would also be a fit or might be a better fit, they may not bat for you with NCS.

So gross and eye-rolly. How do you do that crap and not vomit all over yourselves? You know in 20 years NONE of this will matter!

I don’t. But I know people who do, and do so successfully.

I also think this practice is completely unfair. For all these schools’ talk about systemic bias no one seems to realize that parents of most kids coming from underprivileged backgrounds don’t know don’t have time to learn the difference between Sidwell and GDS. They just want their kids to go to the best schools and “get ahead,” sometimes without much of an idea of what that means. It’s unfair to ask them to have a reason to want to a school beyond “I want the best for my child.”

Why exactly is it unfair? Because you assume they don't have the fortitude to make a distinction? Equating privilege, or lack there of, with an (in)ability to appropriately analyze options is at best, short-sighted, at worst, insulting. Underprivileged is not synonymous with incapable or stupid.

What distinction is there between SFS and GDS? Is one more ethical and less racist? I was able to follow the thread until these posts.

Curious about this also.

There are some pretty significant differences between SFS and GDS and if parents looked closely, it would be obvious. First, SFS is a Quaker School and while some people chose to ignore that - Quakerism is very much a part of the school. Someone mentioned that SFS takes diversity seriously by the numbers - I would agree with this, but it also keeps classes gender balanced and makes it so that none of the classes are over dominated with one race (despite what some people might believe...all kids at the school benefit from this). GDS and Sidwell have very different founding stories and to me, this was interesting. I actually loved GDS' founding story (though we ultimately decided on Sidwell) and thought the school was lovely. But the schools, to me, had a very different vibe. I would say that Sidwell is "liberal" but I think GDS might have Sidwell beat a bit in that area.

I agree with this point. We applied to both schools, however Sidwell does hold Quaker values at the center of their curriculum. I grew up in Pennsylvania where Quaker schools are very common and it speaks to me as a Jewish American family — holding peace, simplicity, and equality as ways to educate our DD.

Simplicity and equality at $60k/yr?

Everyone I’ve talked to said it’s a tough, competitive environment for kids.

“Simplicity and equality at $60k/yr?”

Now imagine being twelve-years-old, new to this world, and trying to understand why you’re supposed to talk about simplicity in school and pretend that after school kids don’t talk about their mom’s new Porche. Or if you actually live a simpler life (less privileged) and somehow that excludes you from social events. Or if you’re supposed to be kind but then realize that’s only in public. Lots of people are privately unkind and no one seems to care.

It’s confusing if you’re not from “the club” and don’t have anyone explain it to you.

Not everyone can belong to every club. Public to Ivy also sets up a young adult well for life. It’s a different, not a worse option.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Test scores, first choice letters, legacy, URM, sports, being potentially very large donors in addition to full pay.

You seem very confident that you know what went into the other kids' applications, and sometimes there are things that their parents haven't mentioned to you.

I agree with this. We have been through admissions multiple times with our kids. The times we have been successful, it felt like an all-out siege, but none of the strategizing and effort would have been visible to other parents.

What did you do that wouldn’t have been obvious to others?

We have been accepted to 2nd tier schools only and WL at first tier. I still don’t understand why. ISEE scores 7,8,9,9; national placement in science; city recognition for art portfolio (submitted to school); plays 4 sports; UMC family that is active at K-8; parent recognized for school donations; well written parent statements and student essay. Applied to top tier in K, 6, and 9 - all WL. I know legacy kids with lower stats who get in. The non-legacy kids (very view) who do get in have similar stats. What did you do differently?

Did you ask the HoS at your K-8 why your child was not admitted to top tier for 9th? HoS at St Pats, Lowell, Sheridan, Norwood would know.

Yes, I asked, but I feel like I got a 'non-answer' - "competition was steep and there were just so many great kids and not enough spots". It just seems like other "great kids" similar to mine get the spots and never my kid. Oh well, my focus is on my younger ones now and I'm not sure top tier is for them - I'm tempted to send them there the older ones went for simplicity.

Your emphasis on "first tier" and "2nd tier" could be your answer.

Are you saying there isn't a pecking order in high schools or just that it is supposed to remain unsaid?

You’re saying too much of the quiet part out loud. Also focused too much on rankings instead of showing fit. You’re supposed to say things like “Jr wants to go to the library every day to learn after school and is looking for a school where there are more kids like her,” not “we’re looking for Jr to be in a top tier school.”

This is also internally in your K-8 discussions with teachers and administrators. If you don’t show you know why your daughter would be a better fit at NCS than Holton beyond that NCS is ranked first, especially if administrators think Holton would also be a fit or might be a better fit, they may not bat for you with NCS.

So gross and eye-rolly. How do you do that crap and not vomit all over yourselves? You know in 20 years NONE of this will matter!

I don’t. But I know people who do, and do so successfully.

I also think this practice is completely unfair. For all these schools’ talk about systemic bias no one seems to realize that parents of most kids coming from underprivileged backgrounds don’t know don’t have time to learn the difference between Sidwell and GDS. They just want their kids to go to the best schools and “get ahead,” sometimes without much of an idea of what that means. It’s unfair to ask them to have a reason to want to a school beyond “I want the best for my child.”

Why exactly is it unfair? Because you assume they don't have the fortitude to make a distinction? Equating privilege, or lack there of, with an (in)ability to appropriately analyze options is at best, short-sighted, at worst, insulting. Underprivileged is not synonymous with incapable or stupid.

Have you ever been underprivileged? I have. Where I come from, people don't use phrases like "fortitude to make a distinction." People use phrases like "you know those presidents sent their girls to Sidwell." When I had to write my "Why Princeton" essay, my dad said, "That essay is stupid. You just write, 'Because it's Princeton.' There. Three words. Done." I had to explain that it wasn't how that worked, and that when there was a 250 word limit, the essay shouldn't be 3 words. By that point, I was more privileged than he was, even though he was more capable than I.

He was more capable than me.

Actually, both “than I” and “than me” are fine but not great. Best is to add the verb at the end: “than I was.”
- professional editor (who thinks pointing out spelling and grammar errors/typos on informal online posts is a jerk move that reflects badly on the corrector, not the poster)

[Anonymous]

Family whose kids got into a Big 3 don’t have particularly special kids - kids are very middle of the road (preschool even counseled parents in one case that Big 3 would not be good environment for child). What they have in common:
-Applied for earliest years when deficits are less obvious
-Parent legacy (+ parents’ siblings attended)
-Grandparents VIP adjacent
-Donor family

These kids will probably be totally middling students, like their parents, and get into a decent but unimpressive SLAC due again to family legacy and donations. They will then recreate the cycle by choosing stress free downwardly mobile careers and supplementing their incomes through trust funds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Test scores, first choice letters, legacy, URM, sports, being potentially very large donors in addition to full pay.

You seem very confident that you know what went into the other kids' applications, and sometimes there are things that their parents haven't mentioned to you.

I agree with this. We have been through admissions multiple times with our kids. The times we have been successful, it felt like an all-out siege, but none of the strategizing and effort would have been visible to other parents.

What did you do that wouldn’t have been obvious to others?

We have been accepted to 2nd tier schools only and WL at first tier. I still don’t understand why. ISEE scores 7,8,9,9; national placement in science; city recognition for art portfolio (submitted to school); plays 4 sports; UMC family that is active at K-8; parent recognized for school donations; well written parent statements and student essay. Applied to top tier in K, 6, and 9 - all WL. I know legacy kids with lower stats who get in. The non-legacy kids (very view) who do get in have similar stats. What did you do differently?

Did you ask the HoS at your K-8 why your child was not admitted to top tier for 9th? HoS at St Pats, Lowell, Sheridan, Norwood would know.

Yes, I asked, but I feel like I got a 'non-answer' - "competition was steep and there were just so many great kids and not enough spots". It just seems like other "great kids" similar to mine get the spots and never my kid. Oh well, my focus is on my younger ones now and I'm not sure top tier is for them - I'm tempted to send them there the older ones went for simplicity.

Your emphasis on "first tier" and "2nd tier" could be your answer.

Are you saying there isn't a pecking order in high schools or just that it is supposed to remain unsaid?

You’re saying too much of the quiet part out loud. Also focused too much on rankings instead of showing fit. You’re supposed to say things like “Jr wants to go to the library every day to learn after school and is looking for a school where there are more kids like her,” not “we’re looking for Jr to be in a top tier school.”

This is also internally in your K-8 discussions with teachers and administrators. If you don’t show you know why your daughter would be a better fit at NCS than Holton beyond that NCS is ranked first, especially if administrators think Holton would also be a fit or might be a better fit, they may not bat for you with NCS.

So gross and eye-rolly. How do you do that crap and not vomit all over yourselves? You know in 20 years NONE of this will matter!

I don’t. But I know people who do, and do so successfully.

I also think this practice is completely unfair. For all these schools’ talk about systemic bias no one seems to realize that parents of most kids coming from underprivileged backgrounds don’t know don’t have time to learn the difference between Sidwell and GDS. They just want their kids to go to the best schools and “get ahead,” sometimes without much of an idea of what that means. It’s unfair to ask them to have a reason to want to a school beyond “I want the best for my child.”

Why exactly is it unfair? Because you assume they don't have the fortitude to make a distinction? Equating privilege, or lack there of, with an (in)ability to appropriately analyze options is at best, short-sighted, at worst, insulting. Underprivileged is not synonymous with incapable or stupid.

Have you ever been underprivileged? I have. Where I come from, people don't use phrases like "fortitude to make a distinction." People use phrases like "you know those presidents sent their girls to Sidwell." When I had to write my "Why Princeton" essay, my dad said, "That essay is stupid. You just write, 'Because it's Princeton.' There. Three words. Done." I had to explain that it wasn't how that worked, and that when there was a 250 word limit, the essay shouldn't be 3 words. By that point, I was more privileged than he was, even though he was more capable than I.

He was more capable than me.

Actually, both “than I” and “than me” are fine but not great. Best is to add the verb at the end: “than I was.”
- professional editor (who thinks pointing out spelling and grammar errors/typos on informal online posts is a jerk move that reflects badly on the corrector, not the poster)

NP: you just did it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Test scores, first choice letters, legacy, URM, sports, being potentially very large donors in addition to full pay.

You seem very confident that you know what went into the other kids' applications, and sometimes there are things that their parents haven't mentioned to you.

I agree with this. We have been through admissions multiple times with our kids. The times we have been successful, it felt like an all-out siege, but none of the strategizing and effort would have been visible to other parents.

What did you do that wouldn’t have been obvious to others?

We have been accepted to 2nd tier schools only and WL at first tier. I still don’t understand why. ISEE scores 7,8,9,9; national placement in science; city recognition for art portfolio (submitted to school); plays 4 sports; UMC family that is active at K-8; parent recognized for school donations; well written parent statements and student essay. Applied to top tier in K, 6, and 9 - all WL. I know legacy kids with lower stats who get in. The non-legacy kids (very view) who do get in have similar stats. What did you do differently?

Did you ask the HoS at your K-8 why your child was not admitted to top tier for 9th? HoS at St Pats, Lowell, Sheridan, Norwood would know.

Yes, I asked, but I feel like I got a 'non-answer' - "competition was steep and there were just so many great kids and not enough spots". It just seems like other "great kids" similar to mine get the spots and never my kid. Oh well, my focus is on my younger ones now and I'm not sure top tier is for them - I'm tempted to send them there the older ones went for simplicity.

Your emphasis on "first tier" and "2nd tier" could be your answer.

Are you saying there isn't a pecking order in high schools or just that it is supposed to remain unsaid?

You’re saying too much of the quiet part out loud. Also focused too much on rankings instead of showing fit. You’re supposed to say things like “Jr wants to go to the library every day to learn after school and is looking for a school where there are more kids like her,” not “we’re looking for Jr to be in a top tier school.”

This is also internally in your K-8 discussions with teachers and administrators. If you don’t show you know why your daughter would be a better fit at NCS than Holton beyond that NCS is ranked first, especially if administrators think Holton would also be a fit or might be a better fit, they may not bat for you with NCS.

So gross and eye-rolly. How do you do that crap and not vomit all over yourselves? You know in 20 years NONE of this will matter!

I don’t. But I know people who do, and do so successfully.

I also think this practice is completely unfair. For all these schools’ talk about systemic bias no one seems to realize that parents of most kids coming from underprivileged backgrounds don’t know don’t have time to learn the difference between Sidwell and GDS. They just want their kids to go to the best schools and “get ahead,” sometimes without much of an idea of what that means. It’s unfair to ask them to have a reason to want to a school beyond “I want the best for my child.”

Why exactly is it unfair? Because you assume they don't have the fortitude to make a distinction? Equating privilege, or lack there of, with an (in)ability to appropriately analyze options is at best, short-sighted, at worst, insulting. Underprivileged is not synonymous with incapable or stupid.

Have you ever been underprivileged? I have. Where I come from, people don't use phrases like "fortitude to make a distinction." People use phrases like "you know those presidents sent their girls to Sidwell." When I had to write my "Why Princeton" essay, my dad said, "That essay is stupid. You just write, 'Because it's Princeton.' There. Three words. Done." I had to explain that it wasn't how that worked, and that when there was a 250 word limit, the essay shouldn't be 3 words. By that point, I was more privileged than he was, even though he was more capable than I.

He was more capable than me.

Actually, both “than I” and “than me” are fine but not great. Best is to add the verb at the end: “than I was.”
- professional editor (who thinks pointing out spelling and grammar errors/typos on informal online posts is a jerk move that reflects badly on the corrector, not the poster)

NP: you just did it.

Yup, I did. There are exceptions to everything. Since this person was both being a jerk to make the correction in the first place and *wrong* about the correction, I felt it was worth making the exception. Had they been a jerk but at least accurate in the correction, I’d have simply rolled my eyes to myself and moved on. People who are both very confidently incorrect and also jerks at the same time push all my buttons. It’s why I take frequent extended breaks from DCUM.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Test scores, first choice letters, legacy, URM, sports, being potentially very large donors in addition to full pay.

You seem very confident that you know what went into the other kids' applications, and sometimes there are things that their parents haven't mentioned to you.

I agree with this. We have been through admissions multiple times with our kids. The times we have been successful, it felt like an all-out siege, but none of the strategizing and effort would have been visible to other parents.

What did you do that wouldn’t have been obvious to others?

We have been accepted to 2nd tier schools only and WL at first tier. I still don’t understand why. ISEE scores 7,8,9,9; national placement in science; city recognition for art portfolio (submitted to school); plays 4 sports; UMC family that is active at K-8; parent recognized for school donations; well written parent statements and student essay. Applied to top tier in K, 6, and 9 - all WL. I know legacy kids with lower stats who get in. The non-legacy kids (very view) who do get in have similar stats. What did you do differently?

Did you ask the HoS at your K-8 why your child was not admitted to top tier for 9th? HoS at St Pats, Lowell, Sheridan, Norwood would know.

Yes, I asked, but I feel like I got a 'non-answer' - "competition was steep and there were just so many great kids and not enough spots". It just seems like other "great kids" similar to mine get the spots and never my kid. Oh well, my focus is on my younger ones now and I'm not sure top tier is for them - I'm tempted to send them there the older ones went for simplicity.

Your emphasis on "first tier" and "2nd tier" could be your answer.

Are you saying there isn't a pecking order in high schools or just that it is supposed to remain unsaid?

You’re saying too much of the quiet part out loud. Also focused too much on rankings instead of showing fit. You’re supposed to say things like “Jr wants to go to the library every day to learn after school and is looking for a school where there are more kids like her,” not “we’re looking for Jr to be in a top tier school.”

This is also internally in your K-8 discussions with teachers and administrators. If you don’t show you know why your daughter would be a better fit at NCS than Holton beyond that NCS is ranked first, especially if administrators think Holton would also be a fit or might be a better fit, they may not bat for you with NCS.

So gross and eye-rolly. How do you do that crap and not vomit all over yourselves? You know in 20 years NONE of this will matter!

I don’t. But I know people who do, and do so successfully.

I also think this practice is completely unfair. For all these schools’ talk about systemic bias no one seems to realize that parents of most kids coming from underprivileged backgrounds don’t know don’t have time to learn the difference between Sidwell and GDS. They just want their kids to go to the best schools and “get ahead,” sometimes without much of an idea of what that means. It’s unfair to ask them to have a reason to want to a school beyond “I want the best for my child.”

Why exactly is it unfair? Because you assume they don't have the fortitude to make a distinction? Equating privilege, or lack there of, with an (in)ability to appropriately analyze options is at best, short-sighted, at worst, insulting. Underprivileged is not synonymous with incapable or stupid.

Have you ever been underprivileged? I have. Where I come from, people don't use phrases like "fortitude to make a distinction." People use phrases like "you know those presidents sent their girls to Sidwell." When I had to write my "Why Princeton" essay, my dad said, "That essay is stupid. You just write, 'Because it's Princeton.' There. Three words. Done." I had to explain that it wasn't how that worked, and that when there was a 250 word limit, the essay shouldn't be 3 words. By that point, I was more privileged than he was, even though he was more capable than I.

He was more capable than me.

Wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Test scores, first choice letters, legacy, URM, sports, being potentially very large donors in addition to full pay.

You seem very confident that you know what went into the other kids' applications, and sometimes there are things that their parents haven't mentioned to you.

I agree with this. We have been through admissions multiple times with our kids. The times we have been successful, it felt like an all-out siege, but none of the strategizing and effort would have been visible to other parents.

What did you do that wouldn’t have been obvious to others?

We have been accepted to 2nd tier schools only and WL at first tier. I still don’t understand why. ISEE scores 7,8,9,9; national placement in science; city recognition for art portfolio (submitted to school); plays 4 sports; UMC family that is active at K-8; parent recognized for school donations; well written parent statements and student essay. Applied to top tier in K, 6, and 9 - all WL. I know legacy kids with lower stats who get in. The non-legacy kids (very view) who do get in have similar stats. What did you do differently?

Did you ask the HoS at your K-8 why your child was not admitted to top tier for 9th? HoS at St Pats, Lowell, Sheridan, Norwood would know.

Yes, I asked, but I feel like I got a 'non-answer' - "competition was steep and there were just so many great kids and not enough spots". It just seems like other "great kids" similar to mine get the spots and never my kid. Oh well, my focus is on my younger ones now and I'm not sure top tier is for them - I'm tempted to send them there the older ones went for simplicity.

Your emphasis on "first tier" and "2nd tier" could be your answer.

Are you saying there isn't a pecking order in high schools or just that it is supposed to remain unsaid?

You’re saying too much of the quiet part out loud. Also focused too much on rankings instead of showing fit. You’re supposed to say things like “Jr wants to go to the library every day to learn after school and is looking for a school where there are more kids like her,” not “we’re looking for Jr to be in a top tier school.”

This is also internally in your K-8 discussions with teachers and administrators. If you don’t show you know why your daughter would be a better fit at NCS than Holton beyond that NCS is ranked first, especially if administrators think Holton would also be a fit or might be a better fit, they may not bat for you with NCS.

So gross and eye-rolly. How do you do that crap and not vomit all over yourselves? You know in 20 years NONE of this will matter!

I don’t. But I know people who do, and do so successfully.

I also think this practice is completely unfair. For all these schools’ talk about systemic bias no one seems to realize that parents of most kids coming from underprivileged backgrounds don’t know don’t have time to learn the difference between Sidwell and GDS. They just want their kids to go to the best schools and “get ahead,” sometimes without much of an idea of what that means. It’s unfair to ask them to have a reason to want to a school beyond “I want the best for my child.”

Why exactly is it unfair? Because you assume they don't have the fortitude to make a distinction? Equating privilege, or lack there of, with an (in)ability to appropriately analyze options is at best, short-sighted, at worst, insulting. Underprivileged is not synonymous with incapable or stupid.

Have you ever been underprivileged? I have. Where I come from, people don't use phrases like "fortitude to make a distinction." People use phrases like "you know those presidents sent their girls to Sidwell." When I had to write my "Why Princeton" essay, my dad said, "That essay is stupid. You just write, 'Because it's Princeton.' There. Three words. Done." I had to explain that it wasn't how that worked, and that when there was a 250 word limit, the essay shouldn't be 3 words. By that point, I was more privileged than he was, even though he was more capable than I.

He was more capable than me.

Wrong.

"He was more capable than I am." Not: "He was more capable than me am."

[Anonymous]

VIP, $$ donor, exceptional athlete, charisma, and/or intelligence.

[Anonymous]

Our DC graduated from a private K-8 that has many boosters on DCUM. The kids that placed "best" (got their first choice at Big 3/5) schools were from the following categories: already had a sibling at the school, or parents were very wealthy and/or VIP's and had strong community connections to families and staff at the schools they wanted, or recruited athlete. Most of the other students did not get their top choices.

[Anonymous]

For the above poster - were there kids who were the top 3 kids in the class grade-wise who did not get in to their first choice for lack of the sibling/parent connections or athletics?