How many dc with high WPPSI scores (98-99) did not get into Top 3 for Pre-K?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:98th percentile - applied for K to Maret, GDS, Beauvoir ended up on a neverending wait list. DC attends WIS and is quite happy there. BTW, many of DC's classmates had excellent scores as well and also did not get in to their top 3 (for some they applied to 5 and got into the last choice only).

IMHO, the parents determine who will get in to the most competetive schools. Kindergarten is a tougher year, in general, than other years. If you (the parents) don't stand out in some way from the hundreds of other applicants, then you should save the application fee.

When it comes to admissions, it really won't matter if your child has a 99th or 92nd score at the top schools.

I always find it strange when I read stuff like this on the admission process. I know a few families in the "top" private schools. One is a classmate of mine from law school and aside from the degree is pretty unremarkable. The others are lawyers and world bank/IMF people who are also unremarkable aside from their jobs.

[Anonymous]

There are always some unremarkable families. After all, there are only so many remarkable ones. But I think the view that you quote reflects the fact that however you slice it, the odds of admission for a bright child from a non-priority, unremarkable family are very low. Let's say there are 200 well-qualified applicants for 20 spots and that 30 are siblings or children or alumni and of the remaining 170, 3 are from remarkable families and 167 are from unremarkable ones. Let's say the school reserves half its spaces for sibling/alumni candidates, which means that 2/3 of those are admitted (which seems low). Similarly, let's say 2 of the 3 applicants from remarkable families are accepted. That leaves 8 slots for the 167 remaining applicants, giving each a less than 1 in 20 shot.

The resulting class will be made up largely of kids from unremarkable families, especially if you ignore sibling/alumni status, leading people to conclude that it's not so hard for such kids to get in, which seems to be your point.

[Anonymous]

Let's redo the math here... Let's say the school reserves half its spaces for sibling/alumni candidates, which means that 1/3 of those are admitted--which seems extremely low.

Anyway, I think you get the idea.

[Anonymous]

One is a classmate of mine from law school and aside from the degree is pretty unremarkable. The others are lawyers and world bank/IMF people who are also unremarkable aside from their jobs.

Your example indicates that your friend does stand out in some way. Where the parents went to college matters. Every top school asks for that information on the child's application. Where the parents work also matters - IMF families used to get a huge stipend to compensate for private school tuition costs. I believe that program is now phased out. But, before it was, there were A LOT of families admitted from world bank/imf, in part, becuase of that benefit. It made economic sense to get a world bank employee's kid instead of a DOJ employee's kid because you could expect to get more in annual fund donations, etc. from the family that didn't have to pay the full tuition out of pocket.

[Anonymous]

IMF families still get the benefit, but on a long thread earlier in the year it was suggested that Bank/Fund families are a dime-a-dozen, meaning that they're not terribly interesting to many schools.

[Anonymous]

I tend to doubt a degree from a well-known college/grad school would really make you stand out. So many people around here have those!

[Anonymous]

Where the parents went to college matters. Every top school asks for that information on the child's application

Isn't GDS considered 'top'? I'm pretty sure it doesn't ask for alma mater.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I tend to doubt a degree from a well-known college/grad school would really make you stand out. So many people around here have those!

There's been some discussion here about how it does make your family stand out. If you went to an Ivy then your kid is a legacy, which gives them a slight edge getting into the same Ivy. No guarantees, obviously, but it might just help your kid out. From the school's point of view, this may improve their exmissions record.

The schools must be asking for parents' education for some reason, other wise why would all three waste space on their forms for this info. The other possible reason is some sort of measure of socio-economic status. Maybe both? But the concensus here has been that it's the legacy benefits that are conferred on your kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:IMF families still get the benefit, but on a long thread earlier in the year it was suggested that Bank/Fund families are a dime-a-dozen, meaning that they're not terribly interesting to many schools.

I think they are in the same boat as lawyers. Tons of applicants, with some smallish percentage getting in. In the case of the Bank/Fund families, maybe they also add diversity.

But the end result is that most of us seem to know a few families from the Bank/Fund at these schools. Well, actually I don't, instead I know a few Bank/Fund families that have tried and failed to get in to the top schools. But others here seem to know them, so they must be getting in. Which might or might not be more anecdotal proof of what others are saying here, that the odds for not-so-special families are lower than for other categories of families.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

One is a classmate of mine from law school and aside from the degree is pretty unremarkable. The others are lawyers and world bank/IMF people who are also unremarkable aside from their jobs.

Your example indicates that your friend does stand out in some way. Where the parents went to college matters. Every top school asks for that information on the child's application. Where the parents work also matters - IMF families used to get a huge stipend to compensate for private school tuition costs. I believe that program is now phased out. But, before it was, there were A LOT of families admitted from world bank/imf, in part, becuase of that benefit. It made economic sense to get a world bank employee's kid instead of a DOJ employee's kid because you could expect to get more in annual fund donations, etc. from the family that didn't have to pay the full tuition out of pocket.

IMF families still get the benefit and World bank families also get a mobility premium which is quite substantial and can be used towards fees. Nothing has changed there. You need to get your facts right when arguing so forcefully. For the record I worked at the World bank until 6 months ago and now work at the IMF.

[Anonymous]

But I believe that the IMF only gives the benefit to non-Americans -- I know you'll correct me if I'm wrong (I'm not 9:13 though). Which means that admitting an IMF family automatically brings diversity as well as the tuition benefit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are always some unremarkable families. After all, there are only so many remarkable ones. But I think the view that you quote reflects the fact that however you slice it, the odds of admission for a bright child from a non-priority, unremarkable family are very low. Let's say there are 200 well-qualified applicants for 20 spots and that 30 are siblings or children or alumni and of the remaining 170, 3 are from remarkable families and 167 are from unremarkable ones. Let's say the school reserves half its spaces for sibling/alumni candidates, which means that 2/3 of those are admitted (which seems low). Similarly, let's say 2 of the 3 applicants from remarkable families are accepted. That leaves 8 slots for the 167 remaining applicants, giving each a less than 1 in 20 shot.

The resulting class will be made up largely of kids from unremarkable families, especially if you ignore sibling/alumni status, leading people to conclude that it's not so hard for such kids to get in, which seems to be your point.

By your numbers the chance of unremarkable family non-sibling being accepted if everyone it treated equally is just under 6% (=10/170). If remarkable families are given priority the rejection rate is just under 5% (=8/167). Another way of saying that is that one out of about eighty unremarkable family kids is going to lose out a spot to a remarkable family kid (whose scores etc may be about the same and whose presence might actually be valued by the other parents) because of your assumed preference. Is this really a big deal? What is keeping the unremarkable family kids out of the popular schools is the large number of unremarkable family kids --- not the "remarkable families."

[Anonymous]

All this discussion is pretty weird and uncomfortable.

There are lots of great schools in the area - private, public, parochial etc. Everyone should take a breath and look for right fit. My son is in pre-K at Beauvoir and I think the class is full of bright and engaging children with a pretty broad range of family circumstances. Some very wealthy, alums, siblings etc.

I think this discussion puts too much emphasis on rationalization and finger pointing. Scores matter but not to the degree that you think. The ADs are looking for balanced and well-rounded childrens with a broad range of interests and personalities. Family wealth matters but again not to the extent that you think.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:By your numbers the chance of unremarkable family non-sibling being accepted if everyone it treated equally is just under 6% (=10/170). If remarkable families are given priority the rejection rate is just under 5% (=8/167). Another way of saying that is that one out of about eighty unremarkable family kids is going to lose out a spot to a remarkable family kid (whose scores etc may be about the same and whose presence might actually be valued by the other parents) because of your assumed preference. Is this really a big deal? What is keeping the unremarkable family kids out of the popular schools is the large number of unremarkable family kids --- not the "remarkable families."

I"m not saying it's a big deal. I'm just saying that the numbers suggest why many people feel that it is nearly impossible for ordinary (qualified) candidates to get in while others others feel that they know lots of ordinary kids at these schools. The two observations are not incompatible.

(And before anyone asks, I obviously just made up the numbers. Maybe there are more siblings, maybe fewer; maybe there are 140 applicants or 160; maybe there is a larger pool of remarkable families; etc.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

By your numbers the chance of unremarkable family non-sibling being accepted if everyone it treated equally is just under 6% (=10/170). If remarkable families are given priority the rejection rate is just under 5% (=8/167). Another way of saying that is that one out of about eighty unremarkable family kids is going to lose out a spot to a remarkable family kid (whose scores etc may be about the same and whose presence might actually be valued by the other parents) because of your assumed preference. Is this really a big deal? What is keeping the unremarkable family kids out of the popular schools is the large number of unremarkable family kids --- not the "remarkable families."

I do take your point that, at least in this made-up example, the "remarkable" kids/families only drop the odds by 1 percentage point, from 6% to 5%, for the unremarkable families/kids.

But with all due respect to the PP who made up this example (and whose central point I agree with), it seems very unlikely that just 3 out of 170 kids/families would be "remarkable" for wealth, connections or a really cool parental job. These schools are crammed with political appointees, for example. Then there's diversity. I think siblings may have been the only group whose preferential treatment was accurately represented in this made-up example.

I think PP's point may have also been about level playing fields, and I wouldn't want to lose that point. Both of you say that the odds are about 1 in 20 for unremarkable families (PP said 1/20, you said 5%). But for remarkable families/kids the chances were 67%. So there's a perception of an unequal playing field.