Forum Index
»
Private & Independent Schools
If schools made last year's admissions data widely available, would this be helpful to you?
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
No, I would not agree that detailed info on admission statistics is particularly helpful. Once you know generally that the odds of admission to any competitive schools are relatively slim (1-in-5?, 1-in-10?, 1-in-20?), you should know that your child faces steep odds no matter where she applies, and thus should apply to a few different places to increase your chances of admission. I don't think that learning that School A admitted 14% of K applicants in 2008, while School B admitted 22%, is necessary or helpful to parents. However, since you seem to want admission statistics, I tried to help you out by suggesting a few resources for you to investigate. I'm glad you started to do some of your research, and I'm sorry you are not satisfied with what you found. Perhaps you should keep searching, and then start a blog to publicize your findings since you're not finding the data easily available and you're bothered that the data is not pre-packaged for you. I'm sure some other parents who view these statistics the same way as you would find that useful.
I'm 21:44, not 21:39/8:12. I don't think I'm defensive. I'm just pointing out that the info you seek is available if you're willing to put some effort into gathering it, and also offering you some leads for finding it. I went through the school admissions process not too long ago, and I recall that it can be stressful, so I am trying to offer useful advice and research leads for those who may go through it in the future. Good luck. As for your sock-puppet accusation and other insults, it's probably a good thing that 21:39/8:12 responded first and struck a reasonable attitude, which calmed me down. If I'd been the first to respond, you probably would have gotten a simple "screw you" -- How's that for a difference in "tone and style"? |
Anonymous
| People need to chill out and get a life. In DC, the top private schools don't have to do anything they don't want to do. It's in their interest to maintain a certain "mystique" about the admissions process so that lots of people will apply and they'll look even more selective. If you don't like it, vote with your feet. But please stop insisting that more stats is going to get people to be realistic; it'll probably make it worse. |
Anonymous
| This is what bugs me! I guess we should all learn to live with it. And yes, I do have a kid at a top school, it's just my innate sense of justice. |
Anonymous
|
Quo vadis? Trickle down affirmative action ((to secondary and primary school from college and university): Affirmative action is not new. It has been around since the birth of colleges and universities in the US hundreds of years ago (Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Amherst, UPenn etc). Those schools were populated by rich white males from Grottlesex (Phillips Exeter Academy, Phillips Andover Academy, Groton, Middlesex, St, Marks, St Pauls, Milton, Roxbury Latin etc) If you review the placement rosters from these private boarding schools over the last few hundred years ...and well into the 1960s... some classes had over 85 percent or higher attending one of these "elite" schools (eg. our super intelligent and brainy 43rd US President -- GW Bush--who rode affirmative action all the way from Andover to Yale and to Harvard Business School with low SATs, or test scores, and a C average). Of course, many of these stalwart boys feed the crew, squash, fives, water polo, lacrosse and tennis teams of these esteemed colleges and universities for decades and/or were the sons of alumni (affirmative action for legacies) or sons of alumnae at the various sister collegiate counterparts (Wellesley, Smith, Mount Holyoke, etc). The data is available for those interested in data or evidence driven assessments. Simply review the graduating classes from these schools in the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries (where did the white males come from..what schools?...where did the graduating white males go to?) When women were permitted to attend these schools in the latter 20th century ... followed by students from other racial and ethnic groups...the white male re-invented the term affirmative action. |
Anonymous
|
Basically right, but a little too glib.
In a purely meritocratic system that started early, it wouldn't be surprising if the best colleges were filled with the alumns of the best high schools. Also the Grottlesex phenomenon didn't really exist in the 18th c. (and Harvard, at least, used their network of clergymen to identify talented middle class white boys for admission). Also in the 19th and 20th c. Harvard, Princeton, and Yale all had different conceptions of what sort of (white male) elite they were training/recruiting, so admissions decisions were made somewhat differently. But, yeah, admissions decisions based on race, gender, religion, and economic status have been with us since the beginning. Yet the outrage only emerged once they started being used to benefit women of all races, as well as African American, Native American, and Latino men. Before that, we had a form of racial protectionism that ensured that Jews and Asian Americans wouldn't displace too many WASPs. |
Anonymous
| Ooops, shouldn't have said "before that" (true of Jews, not of Asian Americans). The point I was trying to make is that various forms of racial protectionism don't generate nearly the outrage among non-elite whites as do race conscious admissions designed to produce more diverse schools. |
Anonymous
Hmmm, is it really only non-elite whites expressing the outrage? There are a fair number of elite whites on DCUM expressing dismay that their DC did not gain admission to a top private.... |
Anonymous
|
It's the whites who fear they've lost/are losing their grip on elite status (i.e. didn't get in) who object most vociferously. The whites that survived whatever cut is being used to define the elite are more likely to be appreciative of the benefits of a more diverse learning environment.
Similar phenomenon to the way many middle class people oppose soak the rich taxes. If the "losers" identify with the winners, they're less likely to question the legitimacy of the system. Thanks for asking for clarification. |
Anonymous
13:38 & 14:01 just about covered it. College admissions offices began in the early 20th century to keep Jews out. Not bc those were the only people they were trying to keep out, but just bc they were suddenly faced with Jews trying to get in. That was the origin of "geographic diversity" (didn't want too many New Yorkers=Jews). As a nation, we are probably closer to a real meritocracy for a more diverse group of people than any other nation. (Some countries may claim greater egalitarianism, but they usually have far more homogeneous populations.) Clearly we have a long way go (just look at Professor Gates' arrest). Private schools are more accessible to more folks than ever, there are people at many of them who genuinely want real diversity.... and there are people that don't. The schools can do what they do, in part, based on the funds they raise. And admissions choices will continue to consider that. That keeps many of us off the top of the list. I don't like it, but I know it is unlikely to change significantly in the near future.... but then, as someone mentioned earlier, there are going to be demographic shifts in the next couple of decades.
|
Anonymous
| 14:35 again. Agree with 14:26 too. |
Anonymous
| 13:38 - 14:36, are you all posting to the correct thread? Are you multiple people? This thread was not really about affirmative action. Did I miss the connection, or were your posts a total shift in topic? |
Anonymous
|
"I think that schools owe us a lot more openness about what they do. "
Why? If you're a parent or board member, fine. If you're just an applicant (or worse, potential applicant) they owe you nothing other than fair consideration in exchange for your application fee. You compete, they choose. This is how supply and demand works, and they don't owe the masses a thing. And if I were an admissions officer, I'd put a big black mark next to anyone who indicated otherwise - the last thing these people want in their schools are pushy, entitled parents. |
Anonymous
|
15:27 You may have missed the point
What data do you want from admission officers that you don't already get? i net worth of student families ii zip code of student families iii religious affiliation (s) iv finger print / buccal smear v complete student DNA analysis and signature vi percent racial and ethnic mix vii Caucasoid purity viii student's social security number 13:38 |
Anonymous
It wasn't obvious to me at first either, but I think the request for stats of [i[/b]]all[/i][b] kinds became focused on the stats for affirmative action in particular. It concerns me that a link is being made between affirmative action for the George W. Bush's of the world, and the denial of admission to jews -- and affirmative action as we know it today. We know the first two things were bad, but I do worry this line of argument could go in bad ways. |
Anonymous
There are at least three of us! And there's been cross-pollination with another thread that spun off from this one (AA mom's question), questioning people's assumptions about the relationship between race, academic ability, and private school admissions. I assumed (but I'm just guessing) that 13:38's post was an attempt to bring the discussion full circle, but yeah, it reads like something of a non-sequitor if you haven't been following both threads. |