Big 3 College Placement 2018-19 Cycle

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I heard the opposite. Strong early results for Sidwell. Difference is they don’t seem to talk it up much as there is an unspoken attempt to downplay things a bit until more of the class has heard back from RD applications. I actually think that is quite a nice thing to do and wish my DS’ school was similar where kids already wearing Yale and Penn tee-shirts which I personally find obnoxious.

Unfortunately, early results are not very strong for this year's seniors at SFS. Parents have lost confidence in the college counseling office. At least half the senior class has hired private college counselors, and junior parents are already lining up the same for next year. A basic revamp/restructuring of the college function is needed urgently.

Well if SFS is top dog in the area and the Ivies already know it, and if SFS offers the darnedest best courses towering over even the top Ivy Freshman/Sophomore courses, the students are near geniuses if not already are and have stellar ECs that only money can buy (e.g. service only in far away overseas places or private coaching by top dog professional sports coaches), and if external, private college coaches that demand sea of green before offer their expert concierge service to the gates to the top echelon of Ivies to said students, it is mind boggling to think the EA/ED results will be anything but Holiday Celebratory. How could you say the results aren't very strong for this year's seniors at SFS? Could you be more specific by stating the results you know of (may be you don't know only a small fraction of the results!).

Isn't GDS now the top dog?

[Anonymous]

IMO this thread needs fewer bare assertions about who's supposedly the "top dog" and more fact-based specifics, so that the rest of us can make our own minds about whose results are actually the best.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
We know one thing is true: Legacy is a big admission boost. This is borne out by the higher admit rates for legacies than non-legacies.

This tells us little about the qualifications. The admit rate could be a lot higher because schools think there is a much higher likelihood the applicant will attend if granted admission.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Being full pay and/or a legacy is what gets your kid into a top school, not because they're particularly smart. Going to a Big 3 private signals full pay.

At Harvard,33% of the class is legacy. and "approximately 70 percent of our students receive some form of aid, and about 60 percent receive need–based scholarships and pay an average of $12,000 per year. Twenty percent of parents pay nothing".

Please do the math on this and justify your statement.

An assessment consistent with these figures are that nearly all the legacies pay to attend and everyone else gets free/discounted tuition.

[Anonymous]

Yeah, anyone who thinks that there's zero difference in the quality of the average applicant from the legacy and non-legacy pools is delusional.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, anyone who thinks that there's zero difference in the quality of the average applicant from the legacy and non-legacy pools is delusional.

Qualities of applicant are irrelevant. Surely a number of legacies apply to HYP because their parents would be disappointed if they didn't. And they don't get in. What matters is qualifications of those accepted.

[Anonymous]

Honest question - what is the purpose of having this information? Let's say there is a helpful parent at each of these schools who is plugged into his/her kid's social media and can post an accurate,honest list of results to date.

What do you do with this information? Does it help with your own kid's college search process? If so, how?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, anyone who thinks that there's zero difference in the quality of the average applicant from the legacy and non-legacy pools is delusional.

I agree. Legacy applicants are better.

"Amy Reitz, general manager of Intersect, a division of Hobsons, said the data raise interesting ideas but do not demonstrate the kind of bias many assume exists -- at least on a national level.

"There may be an underlying correlation regarding parent education and how that manifests itself in student performance," she said via email. "But by and large, the data appears to be indicating that admission of legacy applicants based on qualifications is in line with nonlegacy applicants. If anything, we’re seeing overrepresentation of overqualified applicants -- meaning legacy applicants are more likely to be academically overqualified for the same institution their parent(s) attended than the general population."

https://www.insidehighered.com/admissions/article/2017/08/21/data-provide-insights-advantages-and-qualifications-legacy-applicants

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I heard the opposite. Strong early results for Sidwell. Difference is they don’t seem to talk it up much as there is an unspoken attempt to downplay things a bit until more of the class has heard back from RD applications. I actually think that is quite a nice thing to do and wish my DS’ school was similar where kids already wearing Yale and Penn tee-shirts which I personally find obnoxious.

Unfortunately, early results are not very strong for this year's seniors at SFS. Parents have lost confidence in the college counseling office. At least half the senior class has hired private college counselors, and junior parents are already lining up the same for next year. A basic revamp/restructuring of the college function is needed urgently.

Well if SFS is top dog in the area and the Ivies already know it, and if SFS offers the darnedest best courses towering over even the top Ivy Freshman/Sophomore courses, the students are near geniuses if not already are and have stellar ECs that only money can buy (e.g. service only in far away overseas places or private coaching by top dog professional sports coaches), and if external, private college coaches that demand sea of green before offer their expert concierge service to the gates to the top echelon of Ivies to said students, it is mind boggling to think the EA/ED results will be anything but Holiday Celebratory. How could you say the results aren't very strong for this year's seniors at SFS? Could you be more specific by stating the results you know of (may be you don't know only a small fraction of the results!).

Get back on your meds and when your condition normalizes take an expository writing course,

Expository Writing:

Main Idea - SFS is the top dog private school in DC metro area.
Supporting evidence - Everybody calls it part of top three privates. But SFS parents, students, and alumni all know that SFS is the top dog period and full stop. No argumentabboutit! Just ask them.
Conclusion - Hell may freeze but there is no way in hell that SFS seniors could have anything but stellar EA/ED results. Anyone who says otherwise will have to substantiate with data or else they should take their meds and after their condition normalizes shoud take an expository writing course so that they can explain their reasons in writing.

[Anonymous]

It is not the fault of SFS college admissions counselors if Susie doesn’t get into Harvard. You really can’t be that naive to believe that Susie didn’t get into Harvard because of who is sitting in the college counseling chair. And that if there was “a better counselor”, Harvard would have let her in. Come on.

[Anonymous]

Speaking as a Sidwell parent, and has one who has had 2 older children graduate from Sidwell, the College Counseling office is the strongest it’s ever been. There are unique years when the caliber of the students + the make-up of the class (legacy + recruited athletes) result in seemingly phenomenal ED results (the class of 2017 comes to mind when ED results were off the charts positive.) That was one of the “best years” in recent memory (8-10 to Yale, 4-5 to Harvard, 7-8 to Penn, 3-4 Stanford, 7-8 Northwestern, multiple to Columbia, Princeton, etc.) The SAME head of counseling (who is fantastic, btw) was there for that killer year, is there this year. The class make-up at any school has an enormous amount to do with ED results.

[Anonymous]

+10000. And, it is getting more competitive everywhere, every year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe results were lost somewhere in this thread for SFS...but I have not seen any posters responding to what the EA/ED results were for SFS. Can someone post their findings? Thanks!

You won't get a straight answer. The GDS results posted earlier are not accurate.

I heard that GDS is having a very good year so far. Sidwell, not so much.

So said the GDS parent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe results were lost somewhere in this thread for SFS...but I have not seen any posters responding to what the EA/ED results were for SFS. Can someone post their findings? Thanks!

You won't get a straight answer. The GDS results posted earlier are not accurate.

I heard that GDS is having a very good year so far. Sidwell, not so much.

GDS is having a good year - most (but not all) kids I know got into their ED/EA schools

Please give it a rest, GDS mom.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Speaking as a Sidwell parent, and has one who has had 2 older children graduate from Sidwell, the College Counseling office is the strongest it’s ever been. There are unique years when the caliber of the students + the make-up of the class (legacy + recruited athletes) result in seemingly phenomenal ED results (the class of 2017 comes to mind when ED results were off the charts positive.) That was one of the “best years” in recent memory (8-10 to Yale, 4-5 to Harvard, 7-8 to Penn, 3-4 Stanford, 7-8 Northwestern, multiple to Columbia, Princeton, etc.) The SAME head of counseling (who is fantastic, btw) was there for that killer year, is there this year. The class make-up at any school has an enormous amount to do with ED results.

Sad to say, the quality of the staff varies tremendously from B- to F. That is indefensible.