do feeder schools still matter? or matter more?

[Anonymous]

Of course it is. Why pay that much and not get some advantage for their kids? The schools get to say their kids are fab and not have to prove it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is the lack of ranking or GPA just a way to preserve special treatment away from the hoi polloi? Eliminating AP classes, too. If an admissions office can’t make an apples to apples comparison to top public students they can’t find the public student superior…

Our kids' school does same and I've got no idea if this was always the case or evolved over time (our kids are not lifers so have limited knowledge of the school). It is a progressive ed school so may be the former. School doesn't offer APs, but that has to do with teachers having a great degree of control over curriculum and not teaching to the test. And could be that the admin doesn't want to wade into the "weighing" of grades as they do not offer higher track classes in English/history as they do for maths/science. FWIW, I have a DC who crushes the latter but struggles in the former so it's not as if every strong STEM student is also tops in the humanities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Of course it is. Why pay that much and not get some advantage for their kids? The schools get to say their kids are fab and not have to prove it.

I don't know if you are new to college admissions, but AOs, especially the regional ones, know the schools, know the curriculums, etc. Colleges are not accepting kids just because their HS CCOs said they were "fab." It just doesn't work that way.

[Anonymous]

Yes, that is correct. Ranking is for hoi polloi. APs are being eliminated because elite schools think are able to teach subjects better than the often shallow and sometimes ideological AP curriculum stipulates.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Of course it is. Why pay that much and not get some advantage for their kids? The schools get to say their kids are fab and not have to prove it.

Because you are far more likely to meet the connected rich at Collegiate than at Harvard these days.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course it is. Why pay that much and not get some advantage for their kids? The schools get to say their kids are fab and not have to prove it.

Because you are far more likely to meet the connected rich at Collegiate than at Harvard these days.

💯

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course it is. Why pay that much and not get some advantage for their kids? The schools get to say their kids are fab and not have to prove it.

I don't know if you are new to college admissions, but AOs, especially the regional ones, know the schools, know the curriculums, etc. Colleges are not accepting kids just because their HS CCOs said they were "fab." It just doesn't work that way.

And they all get to justify taking kids based on the reputation of the school rather than on the kids’ merits, especially compared to kids at schools without rep. Perpetuates the privilege.

[Anonymous]

Kids are not being accepted based just on their schools' reps. They have documented, proven musical and athletic accomplishments, national level awards, test scores, etc.

[Anonymous]

These kids are going to be just fine, it’s not like they’re suffering. I don’t know why we ever accepted that certain groups should be exclusively entitled to some predetermined destiny of success.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Kids are not being accepted based just on their schools' reps. They have documented, proven musical and athletic accomplishments, national level awards, test scores, etc.

As do kids from other schools who also have rank/GPA/APs.

Why would the privates not provide this info as well? To avoid comparison and just tely on their rep.