Big 5 = "most desired" schools, not necessarily "the best"

[Anonymous]

And particularly if your child is not supremely self-confident. -- an Ivy grad who was (and is) not supremely self-confident, who would have done MUCH better and been MUCH happier had I not been entirely undistinguished in college.

[Anonymous]

PP, I think you might be mistaken in assuming that all are Ivy-obsessed. I'm sure some parents are Ivy-obsessed, but I don't think that's why Ivy admission stats are being discussed. I suspect the reason people are citing so many stats about Ivy admissions here is that those are the stats most often reported. If someone has admission stats for Amherst/Williams (or CalTech or Chicago or UVa or G'Town) for all these DC schools, I'm sure everyone here would be happy to look at them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I can't help but think that for those of you obssessed with the Ivies, that this is trickling down to your children and putting undue pressure upon them. I am hearing that to be accepted to these schools is the "be all and end all" and universally-accepted form of educational success.

Honestly, you're reading too much into these posts. The goal of most posters seems to be to get away from the subjective "my school is better than your school", which I think we're all really tired of, and focus the discussion on hard stats. The goal doesn't seem to be to provide another outlet for Ivy obsession. Cornell was used as an example -- it's not Harvard, Princeton or Yale.

And to be quite fair, it's about as hard to get into Williams, Amherst or Middlebury as it is to get into Harvard, Princeton or Yale!

[Anonymous]

It's harder to get into Amherst than into Cornell. That too could be construed as parental pressure, although I'm sure that's not your goal.

The point of the thread is more that a lot of good colleges are really tough to get into, and are the most highly-touted high schools helping in the process.l

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can't help but think that for those of you obssessed with the Ivies, that this is trickling down to your children and putting undue pressure upon them. I am hearing that to be accepted to these schools is the "be all and end all" and universally-accepted form of educational success.

Honestly, you're reading too much into these posts. The goal of most posters seems to be to get away from the subjective "my school is better than your school", which I think we're all really tired of, and focus the discussion on hard stats. The goal doesn't seem to be to provide another outlet for Ivy obsession. Cornell was used as an example -- it's not Harvard, Princeton or Yale.

And to be quite fair, it's about as hard to get into Williams, Amherst or Middlebury as it is to get into Harvard, Princeton or Yale!

The problem with this is that we don't have enough of a comprehensive data set in order to reasonably compare schools and base sound conclusions. That leaves many to infur a certain pecking order based on incomplete data.

[Anonymous]

It's WSJ that's obsessed with the Ivies. That's the only comparative college acceptance data I could find. It's not the study I would have done. It's what somebody else did and posted online.

Re Ivies. I went to one. It changed my life. My daughter's already got that new life. I don't care whether or not she goes to an Ivy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The problem with this is that we don't have enough of a comprehensive data set in order to reasonably compare schools and base sound conclusions. That leaves many to infur a certain pecking order based on incomplete data.

What's funny/interesting/ironic depending our your mood and POV, is that people here seem to have no qualms about creating a pecking order based on no data. Then it's just endless rounds of claims and accusations. But when some data finally gets brought to bear, suddenly it's not comprehensive enough to be anything but misleading.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What's funny/interesting/ironic depending our your mood and POV, is that people here seem to have no qualms about creating a pecking order based on no data. Then it's just endless rounds of claims and accusations. But when some data finally gets brought to bear, suddenly it's not comprehensive enough to be anything but misleading.

I agree. I sometimes wonder if the problem is that some people just don't like what some of the data might imply. To be clear, I don't think this thread has generated enough solid data to create any ranking of schools, nor do I think any ranking would be meaningful. However, it seems that even a hint of ranking gets some people very uncomfortable. I suppose I can understand that discomfort, so I'm not criticizing the agitation.

[Anonymous]

Hey, if the threat of more data nixes all future ranking discussions, I'd be only too happy!!

I'd much rather see conversations about which schools work for whom and why.

[Anonymous]

Thank you so very much for saying that, 17:56. It's exactly where we need to go.

Life is never simple enough where we can neatly put things into distinct categories and claim they are best and work for all. The purpose of these forums is to find and share useful and helpful information for all of us. And we are all so very different.

There is a perfect school for each of our kids that will allow them to develop their full potential and thrive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What's funny/interesting/ironic depending our your mood and POV, is that people here seem to have no qualms about creating a pecking order based on no data. Then it's just endless rounds of claims and accusations. But when some data finally gets brought to bear, suddenly it's not comprehensive enough to be anything but misleading.

I agree. I sometimes wonder if the problem is that some people just don't like what some of the data might imply. To be clear, I don't think this thread has generated enough solid data to create any ranking of schools, nor do I think any ranking would be meaningful. However, it seems that even a hint of ranking gets some people very uncomfortable. I suppose I can understand that discomfort, so I'm not criticizing the agitation.

I think what happens is that people recognize it's easier to identify those schools that are desired by the majority of applicants than it is to try and force a ranking of those schools based on which one is better than another.

This really goes back to the original point of the thread. Yes, people can argue about whether its 2, 3, 5, or 10 schools that are "the most" in demand - but some basic data on # of applicants per school constitutes a reasonably sound basis for making a determination of demand. You could, in fact, rank the schools based on the # of applications received or perhaps the % admissions rate.

This was the original point... that you in fact can ascertain demand and selectivity, but you should not assume that automatically means a school is best for your kid. Comparing this to colleges, it's like knowing that Harvard, Williams, Duke, UVA and other schools are in high demand - but you should not assume that if your kid is right for Duke then they'd be right for UVA. You have to make your own determination of best based on those factors which are most important to your child, your family, and your values.

What makes a lot of people uncomfortable is when we start picking off some discrete data points and start comparing schools in a vacuum. For instance, if in this thread we had started with comparing school's athletic records rather than National Merit scores, people would have been screaming about how athletic records alone cannot possibly be a good basis for comparing which schools are best. The deal here is that for one family, highly intellectual and math focused achievement (as measured by something like National Merit scores) might be what they value most in a school. But for another family, they might value a school more that has very solid academics (as perhaps measured by a reasonable number of National Merit semifinalists, but maybe not the most) but combined with a significant focus on excellence on the ball fields. For this family, a highly intellectual (and perhaps a little geeky) school is clearly not a school that's best for their child.

I think some people have a hard time seeing this perspective. Without trying to insult anyone in any way, I think it's often folks who come from a POV of putting the highest value on the intellectual aspects of a private school that have some trouble understanding that for many families, the intellectual piece really is only one aspect they are looking for. Just as a PP said they would not include any school in the "top schools" that did not have top academics, so too might this family say that they would not include any school that does not have top athletics.

FWIW.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think what happens is that people recognize it's easier to identify those schools that are desired by the majority of applicants than it is to try and force a ranking of those schools based on which one is better than another.

But it isn't. Aside from the Norwood numbers, it's not as if people produced data about applications and acceptances -- much less matriculation (i.e. which acceptances were accepted when people had choices).

And "selectivity" seems to be used to suggest that the kids admitted are the cream of the crop rather than simply that demand exceeds supply. So the data on NMSFs, for example, put the applications in a different light.

Basically, I think that most private school parents would prefer to talk about desire and exclusiveness (I have something many people want but few people can have) than about what makes a school a good school. I agree that academics isn't the only criterion, but I'm looking for an education for my DC not a country club or a finishing school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think what happens is that people recognize it's easier to identify those schools that are desired by the majority of applicants than it is to try and force a ranking of those schools based on which one is better than another.

But it isn't. Aside from the Norwood numbers, it's not as if people produced data about applications and acceptances -- much less matriculation (i.e. which acceptances were accepted when people had choices).

And "selectivity" seems to be used to suggest that the kids admitted are the cream of the crop rather than simply that demand exceeds supply. So the data on NMSFs, for example, put the applications in a different light.

Basically, I think that most private school parents would prefer to talk about desire and exclusiveness (I have something many people want but few people can have) than about what makes a school a good school. I agree that academics isn't the only criterion, but I'm looking for an education for my DC not a country club or a finishing school.

I didn't suggest that we have a complete data set to measure demand. I think a lot of people have a decent general idea about it from looking at different sources (Norwood, various magazine articles, admit/waitlist/reject postings on DCUM, etc) - but I agree we've never seen a complete set of data on it.

Also not suggesting that the schools that are most in demand admit the smartest/best kids either. Simply suggesting that demand is what it is... more families desire admission to certain schools than other schools... and that you CAN measure that objectively if you have the data. (but you can't measure "best" b/c that's subjective). Agree that the NMSF data reveals if your top value is for your kid to be around smart kids as measured by the most NMSF's in the area, then move to Fairfax and send them to TJ... that was an interesting insight.

I agree that many parents are interested in perceived exclusivity. Let's be realistic here... exclusivity and prestige (real or perceived) is an important benefit for many. Do you honestly think your kid can get as good an undergraduate academic education at Harvard as they can at a smaller, more personal liberal arts school? No, they can't (as a PP said, for most of their classes in their first few years they'll have a TA). But people value Harvard for the name and the connections, and for the doors that it will open to grad school and beyond. The same is true of elite private schools - at least that's the perception and what drives a lot of the intense debate on which schools are best. And it probably does hold true in some respects so perhaps should not be entirely dismissed... someone graduating in the bottom third of the class from Sidwell will have a lot more college options than someone graduating from the bottom third at a small lesser-recognized private school.

There are certainly those who choose a school just for a social status (ie they think it will get them invited to the right parties) - but I believe those parents and in the minority and most are acting rationally and focused on what they perceive is best for their kid - "perceived exclusivity" included.

We should be careful about being too idealistic on this boards.

[Anonymous]

I actually think the National Merit Scholarship Semifinalist and college data are more illuminating than the demand data. The NMSSF and college data are based on actual results, not on peoples' subjective and possibly very irrational perceptions. As an economist, I think that decision-making is frequently subject to all sorts of irrational factors like the desire for status and the perceived quality of an education rather than its actual quality. Maybe that's why I see the demand data as really just a step away from what we usually see here on DCUM -- i.e. a group of people (at a single school no less) who are making very subjective judgments about quality.

The college data is actually great for the MD publics. But you have to buy the Bethesda Magazine for this month, which I did at Whole Foods, to see it for the six MD publics for about 400 colleges.

But unfortunately this sort of college data simply doesn't exist for the privates. Unless families on DCUM that have access to it and are willing to post it....

And I guess it needs to be said again, although several people have said it pages ago: nobody, but nobody, thinks that NMSSF or Ivy admittances are the be-all-and-end-all of choosing a school for your kid. I think we can all agree that finding the best fit for your kid is what really counts.

I think we'd all like to see threads about what schools work for whom, and why -- but for some reason, we can't bring ourselves to conduct this sort of discussion rationally, without descending into catfights within a page or two. Worse, the catfights never include anything helpful, like why somebody's kid likes St. Pats, instead it's just a bunch of people accusing each other of being boosters. So I've given up on that route, I just can't bring myself to read anymore threads on why Maret is better than GDS, or WIS is better than Potomac,, or St. Pats is better than all of them -- sorry!

That said, this has been a helpful excercise in identifying the limited datapoints that are out there, which in my view is an improvement over reading endless cat fights about whose school is better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do you honestly think your kid can get as good an undergraduate academic education at Harvard as they can at a smaller, more personal liberal arts school? No, they can't (as a PP said, for most of their classes in their first few years they'll have a TA).

Absolutely. I could not have gotten same education if I'd gone to Amherst rather than Harvard as an undergrad. (I know this in part because I subsequently taught a number of PhD-seeking Amherst undergrads). Some kids thrive in a major research university where undergraduate education isn't the end-all and be-all. I was one of those kids. DC looks likely to be another. This doesn't make me a sucker for prestige or the Ivies (I think a kid like me would be happier at Chicago or Hopkins than at Princeton, for example); just someone who doesn't believe that smaller is always better from an educational perspective. I'll take a major research university where people are playing at the top of their game over a bucolic college town where faculty have nothing better to do than shower undergrads with attention any day!

I certainly don't expect everyone to think this way, but it's not naive or idealistic to prefer Harvard for purely educational reasons.