Why can't non top tier privates just increase rigor and test prep to remove the perceived gap?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sidwell and St. Albans appear downright provincial compared with the NYC private schools such as the Dalton school and Horace Mann. Their social circles are connected to the elite New England boarding schools. The DC privates are their own little micro-bubble. It is what it is I guess.

Seriously, who cares?

Who cares? Likely someone whose child didn’t get in. The WSJ did an an analysis of high schools who got the most students into HYPS and IIRC STA was eleventh in the country which was behind the elite NYC schools but obviously not by much.

How many of those are legacies? My guess is a lot. Also athletes. Seriously, who cares?

[Anonymous]

Legacies are under 15 percent of the undergrads at these schools. And just as many if not more are coming from public schools than private. Get over it.

[Anonymous]

I just searched for the WSJ article that someone referred to and it is data from the HS graduating class of 2003. Clearly not current info.

As for the 15% legacy- that may be true, but it doesn’t say a thing about the percentage of graduates attending HYPS from St Alban’s that are legacies or athletes. Again- I would bet pretty high.

[Anonymous]

And don't forget some families will be legacy at multiple Ivies. In my DC's PK class, there are parents who have 6 Ivy degrees between the two of them (parents who have two graduate degrees, usually, or a degree like a Penn M&T that is dual Wharton / School of Engineering), thus often covering four different schools.

For example: Dartmouth undergrad, Harvard Law married to Princeton undergrad, Yale Law. That greatly increases the legacy chances of a kid, as well as increasing the likelihood that one of the legacy schools is genuinely a great fit and first choice for them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And don't forget some families will be legacy at multiple Ivies. In my DC's PK class, there are parents who have 6 Ivy degrees between the two of them (parents who have two graduate degrees, usually, or a degree like a Penn M&T that is dual Wharton / School of Engineering), thus often covering four different schools.

For example: Dartmouth undergrad, Harvard Law married to Princeton undergrad, Yale Law. That greatly increases the legacy chances of a kid, as well as increasing the likelihood that one of the legacy schools is genuinely a great fit and first choice for them.

And somehow people still question the private to private admissions hook.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And don't forget some families will be legacy at multiple Ivies. In my DC's PK class, there are parents who have 6 Ivy degrees between the two of them (parents who have two graduate degrees, usually, or a degree like a Penn M&T that is dual Wharton / School of Engineering), thus often covering four different schools.

For example: Dartmouth undergrad, Harvard Law married to Princeton undergrad, Yale Law. That greatly increases the legacy chances of a kid, as well as increasing the likelihood that one of the legacy schools is genuinely a great fit and first choice for them.

You’d think kid is not considered a legacy at Harvard or Yale. Surprised you did not know that.

[Anonymous]

Being a legacy is not all that important unless you also give substantial money to your school. No reason for a college to reward or perpetuate years of of stinginess.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Being a legacy is not all that important unless you also give substantial money to your school. No reason for a college to reward or perpetuate years of of stinginess.

Of course. And the legacies that do matter, the multi-generational donors, guess where their children and grandchildren tend to go to high school?

[Anonymous]

OP, there is no lack of rigor at the other schools. The actual high school education has very little to do with college admissions.

[Anonymous]

The days of being able to get on on legacy basis alone ended a long time ago.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The days of being able to get on on legacy basis alone ended a long time ago.

One would hope. The point is the legacies get in when there is tie between candidates. In practice, this means the non-legacies have to be better than the legacies to get in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The days of being able to get on on legacy basis alone ended a long time ago.

One would hope. The point is the legacies get in when there is tie between candidates. In practice, this means the non-legacies have to be better than the legacies to get in.

No way. Legacy boosts are huge-a few selective schools have gotten rid of them on moral grounds (like MIT).
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/586465/

Applying to college as a legacy is like having a superpower. It has been estimated to double or quadruple one’s chances of getting into a highly selective school, and has been found to be roughly equivalent to a 160-point boost on the SAT. At the most selective institutions in the United States, it’s typical for 10 to 15 percent of students to have a parent who also attended.

[Anonymous]

Clearly you can't read. No one said legacy boosts don't exist anymore. It's just that they used to be even bigger.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Clearly you can't read. No one said legacy boosts don't exist anymore. It's just that they used to be even bigger.

Clearly you can't write. You said: "The days of being able to get on on legacy basis alone ended a long time ago." One only has to read Daniel Golden's "The Price of Admissions" or look at Jared Kushner's admission to Harvard when his school described him as "mediocre" to know that is false.

[Anonymous]

Clearly you have no reading comprehension. How in the world was Jared Kushner's admission to Harvard based on legacy basis alone?