Unhooked kids - Why is private HS worth the diminished chances for top college admissions?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We have kids in middle school and are beginning to explore private high school options. Is it really true that kids from private schools do worse in college acceptances than similar kids from public school? We are in a county that has subpar schools and do not see many great matriculations from our high school. I can't imagine doing worse.

There's a lot to consider and perhaps one of the those considerations for you is college admissions. We put one of our kids in private and honestly I do think it is more likely to hurt than help but not significantly so and he's been happy and successful at his private school. But in the end college admissions may not matter much either. Only a very small percentage of kids going to elite schools and the rest go to all of the rest of the many, many colleges and universities in this country. I recommend this book: https://www.amazon.com/Where-You-Not-Who-Youll/dp/1455532681 Remember there are lots of reasons that students may be matriculating to the colleges they are and may have more to do with cost than abilities. Some kids are restricted to in state options due to cost and others need merit aid or significant student loans to attend any school at all. There is just no one single answer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Harvard-Westlake in Los Angeles published its college matriculation information with all hooked people removed! I wish the local DMV schools would do this as well.

https://students.hw.com/Portals/44/completehandbook2023.pdf

Those are impressive numbers for unhooked.

This is really interesting. They have higher GPAs than some of the DC privates. Very few GPAs under 3.5.

How do you know that? Full GPAs aren’t listed.

There are very few kids with GPAs under 3.4 applying to colleges. Just a trickle compared to the mass applying with GPAs above 3.6 and even above 3.8

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Harvard-Westlake in Los Angeles published its college matriculation information with all hooked people removed! I wish the local DMV schools would do this as well.

https://students.hw.com/Portals/44/completehandbook2023.pdf

Those are impressive numbers for unhooked.

This is really interesting. They have higher GPAs than some of the DC privates. Very few GPAs under 3.5.

How do you know that? Full GPAs aren’t listed.

There are very few kids with GPAs under 3.4 applying to colleges. Just a trickle compared to the mass applying with GPAs above 3.6 and even above 3.8

Did you mean to say top colleges? Surely you don’t think those with a GPA under 3.4 rarely apply to college at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Harvard-Westlake in Los Angeles published its college matriculation information with all hooked people removed! I wish the local DMV schools would do this as well.

https://students.hw.com/Portals/44/completehandbook2023.pdf

Those are impressive numbers for unhooked.

This is really interesting. They have higher GPAs than some of the DC privates. Very few GPAs under 3.5.

How do you know that? Full GPAs aren’t listed.

There are very few kids with GPAs under 3.4 applying to colleges. Just a trickle compared to the mass applying with GPAs above 3.6 and even above 3.8

Did you mean to say top colleges? Surely you don’t think those with a GPA under 3.4 rarely apply to college at all.

what are you talking about? If you look at the Harvard Westlake acceptance schema, there are very few kids applying to colleges with a GPA under 3.4 and a large applying to colleges with a GPA over 3.8.
This would indicated (in a rough way) that there are far more kids with higher GPAs than lower GPAs.
In comparison at NCS (where my kid attends) there are quite a few kids with GPAs under 3.4 and often only a small handful above 3.8.

[Anonymous]

Same- a 3.4 is not unusual at our private.

[Anonymous]

Everyone needs to be aware, if they already aren't, that admissions to the elite colleges is far more political than it was 20 years ago. It's going to be unfair to measure schools by their ability to maintain a pipeline to the elite colleges. For example, it's no secret that the percent of Jewish students at most of the Ivies have fallen noticeably in the last decade. It's not because of declining caliber of applicants, but because the adcomms are seeking out a very specific balance of students in the name of equity and diversity while keeping all their other prioritized demographics like sports or legacy or geographical diversity. That's why when you have two students with identical grades and scores but from different identity backgrounds, the chances of admissions varies hugely solely on the background. Not the grades or accomplishments. The schools cannot control for that.

At this point I doubt if there's a disadvantage to elite college admissions going to a private school because it's the same student facing the same admissions standards coming out of a good public school too. So it's a wash.

The main benefit of a good private over a public, even a good public, when it comes to college admissions is probably the middling students. Getting that extra attention and support from smaller classes and stronger faculty-student relationships and peer support can very well make a difference in fostering the academic skills to get into a better college than they might have had they stayed in the public school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Everyone needs to be aware, if they already aren't, that admissions to the elite colleges is far more political than it was 20 years ago. It's going to be unfair to measure schools by their ability to maintain a pipeline to the elite colleges. For example, it's no secret that the percent of Jewish students at most of the Ivies have fallen noticeably in the last decade. It's not because of declining caliber of applicants, but because the adcomms are seeking out a very specific balance of students in the name of equity and diversity while keeping all their other prioritized demographics like sports or legacy or geographical diversity. That's why when you have two students with identical grades and scores but from different identity backgrounds, the chances of admissions varies hugely solely on the background. Not the grades or accomplishments. The schools cannot control for that.

At this point I doubt if there's a disadvantage to elite college admissions going to a private school because it's the same student facing the same admissions standards coming out of a good public school too. So it's a wash.

The main benefit of a good private over a public, even a good public, when it comes to college admissions is probably the middling students. Getting that extra attention and support from smaller classes and stronger faculty-student relationships and peer support can very well make a difference in fostering the academic skills to get into a better college than they might have had they stayed in the public school.

It’s always been political. Let’s not pretend this is something new simply because the winners and losers have changed. Not to mention that some of the winners have never changed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone needs to be aware, if they already aren't, that admissions to the elite colleges is far more political than it was 20 years ago. It's going to be unfair to measure schools by their ability to maintain a pipeline to the elite colleges. For example, it's no secret that the percent of Jewish students at most of the Ivies have fallen noticeably in the last decade. It's not because of declining caliber of applicants, but because the adcomms are seeking out a very specific balance of students in the name of equity and diversity while keeping all their other prioritized demographics like sports or legacy or geographical diversity. That's why when you have two students with identical grades and scores but from different identity backgrounds, the chances of admissions varies hugely solely on the background. Not the grades or accomplishments. The schools cannot control for that.

At this point I doubt if there's a disadvantage to elite college admissions going to a private school because it's the same student facing the same admissions standards coming out of a good public school too. So it's a wash.

The main benefit of a good private over a public, even a good public, when it comes to college admissions is probably the middling students. Getting that extra attention and support from smaller classes and stronger faculty-student relationships and peer support can very well make a difference in fostering the academic skills to get into a better college than they might have had they stayed in the public school.

It’s always been political. Let’s not pretend this is something new simply because the winners and losers have changed. Not to mention that some of the winners have never changed.

Ehh. It's far more political now for sure. Saying it's "always" been political is sidestepping the issue and avoiding the reality elite college admissions is much more contradictory with ideals that had long been the gold standards - meritocracy. The Ivies moved away from the waspocracy starting in the late 1950s to openly embrace a more meritocratic admissions standards, but ironically they're now regressing to a different, but distinctly non meritocratic approach to admissions and one based heavily on identities (remember the waspocracy was an identity once before it was rejected as illiberal)

I do wonder how long it'll last, however. A key factor in the elite colleges stratospheric growth in the 1960s-2000 era was that they did focus on accepting the best and brightest. Now that is no longer really the case (conversations with long term faculty about changing student quality can be a real eye opener) and the best and brightest are scattered across many more colleges, which, actually, is not too different from what it was like when the Ivies were waspocracies and so many of the best and brightest were going to state universities and lesser known colleges closer to home.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Harvard-Westlake in Los Angeles published its college matriculation information with all hooked people removed! I wish the local DMV schools would do this as well.

https://students.hw.com/Portals/44/completehandbook2023.pdf

Those are impressive numbers for unhooked.

This is really interesting. They have higher GPAs than some of the DC privates. Very few GPAs under 3.5.

How do you know that? Full GPAs aren’t listed.

There are very few kids with GPAs under 3.4 applying to colleges. Just a trickle compared to the mass applying with GPAs above 3.6 and even above 3.8

Right, but these are only the unhooked kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
-Privates also have a much higher URM ratio than most publics. At the top ones it's almost 50-50. These kids are gold for college admissions.

This is not true.

It's definitely true. Sidwell will graduate 40 kids this year who are URMs and very strong students. Will BCC? Whitman? Langley?
No.
This is tricky territory to talk about but it's true.

LOL....Each of those schools kill Sidwell in regard to URM. None of the top privates have a significant URM population. Clearly you know nothing about Public Schools.

pp, you are so dead wrong.

[Anonymous]

Without reading all the replies.

& we are not in the DC area….

We chose private for high schools bc:

1) my husband was impressed with outcomes from a colleague who sent kids to same schools

2) we thought schools would offer more support for DC who tends tends towards anxiety.

We are both grads of large public high schools ourselves.

We have been less than impressed by what the private has offered. Yes, smaller class size. But our public high school has so many more innovative options. Plus, I fear the curated private experience doesn’t provide a flavor of the real word. I think we made a mistake but switching back now is too late.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Harvard-Westlake in Los Angeles published its college matriculation information with all hooked people removed! I wish the local DMV schools would do this as well.

https://students.hw.com/Portals/44/completehandbook2023.pdf

Those are impressive numbers for unhooked.

This is really interesting. They have higher GPAs than some of the DC privates. Very few GPAs under 3.5.

How do you know that? Full GPAs aren’t listed.

There are very few kids with GPAs under 3.4 applying to colleges. Just a trickle compared to the mass applying with GPAs above 3.6 and even above 3.8

Okay, this is outright insane. You can’t actually believe this nonsense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Harvard-Westlake in Los Angeles published its college matriculation information with all hooked people removed! I wish the local DMV schools would do this as well.

https://students.hw.com/Portals/44/completehandbook2023.pdf

Those are impressive numbers for unhooked.

This is really interesting. They have higher GPAs than some of the DC privates. Very few GPAs under 3.5.

How do you know that? Full GPAs aren’t listed.

There are very few kids with GPAs under 3.4 applying to colleges. Just a trickle compared to the mass applying with GPAs above 3.6 and even above 3.8

Okay, this is outright insane. You can’t actually believe this nonsense.

Sorry never mind. I thought you meant in general, not just in the report. Sorry.

The report isn’t complete because it’s only the unhooked.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone needs to be aware, if they already aren't, that admissions to the elite colleges is far more political than it was 20 years ago. It's going to be unfair to measure schools by their ability to maintain a pipeline to the elite colleges. For example, it's no secret that the percent of Jewish students at most of the Ivies have fallen noticeably in the last decade. It's not because of declining caliber of applicants, but because the adcomms are seeking out a very specific balance of students in the name of equity and diversity while keeping all their other prioritized demographics like sports or legacy or geographical diversity. That's why when you have two students with identical grades and scores but from different identity backgrounds, the chances of admissions varies hugely solely on the background. Not the grades or accomplishments. The schools cannot control for that.

At this point I doubt if there's a disadvantage to elite college admissions going to a private school because it's the same student facing the same admissions standards coming out of a good public school too. So it's a wash.

The main benefit of a good private over a public, even a good public, when it comes to college admissions is probably the middling students. Getting that extra attention and support from smaller classes and stronger faculty-student relationships and peer support can very well make a difference in fostering the academic skills to get into a better college than they might have had they stayed in the public school.

It’s always been political. Let’s not pretend this is something new simply because the winners and losers have changed. Not to mention that some of the winners have never changed.

Ehh. It's far more political now for sure. Saying it's "always" been political is sidestepping the issue and avoiding the reality elite college admissions is much more contradictory with ideals that had long been the gold standards - meritocracy. The Ivies moved away from the waspocracy starting in the late 1950s to openly embrace a more meritocratic admissions standards, but ironically they're now regressing to a different, but distinctly non meritocratic approach to admissions and one based heavily on identities (remember the waspocracy was an identity once before it was rejected as illiberal)

I do wonder how long it'll last, however. A key factor in the elite colleges stratospheric growth in the 1960s-2000 era was that they did focus on accepting the best and brightest. Now that is no longer really the case (conversations with long term faculty about changing student quality can be a real eye opener) and the best and brightest are scattered across many more colleges, which, actually, is not too different from what it was like when the Ivies were waspocracies and so many of the best and brightest were going to state universities and lesser known colleges closer to home.

No it didn’t. Asians were being discriminated against all throughout your golden age. Poor students were severely disfavored in the 1960s-2000 era. Private school kids had an outsized advantage. So did legacies. Athletic recruits are a constant. It just looked more meritocratic because what came before was so skewed. Your actual problem seems to be URM admissions because nothing else has increased.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Harvard-Westlake in Los Angeles published its college matriculation information with all hooked people removed! I wish the local DMV schools would do this as well.

https://students.hw.com/Portals/44/completehandbook2023.pdf

Did they consider being a minority a hook?