Admission process transparency

[Anonymous]

The horse trading in private school and college admissions is well documented. It continues. Don’t lose sleep over it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's pretty well accepted that admissions rate to the most competitive schools are between 5% and 20% depending on the entry year. Maret has in their school profile that theirs is 12% across the school - likely higher in the lower school and lower in the upper school.

It's reasonable to extrapolate that St. Albans, GDS, NCS, Potomac and Sidwell are roughly roughly roughly in the same general ballpark.

Now that you know that, has it changed your strategy on applying?

Unfortunately data such as “roughly roughly in the same ballpark” of what is “widely known” is not helpful and is literally just made up guesses

It's worse than that.

The 5% or 10% or 20% are Averages.

That might be useful if all the applicants were equal. But they are not. Some are advantaged and the rates of admission for these applicants is higher than the average. Which means that the rates of admission for those who are not advantaged is lower than the mean percent.

Examples of advantage include siblings, legacies, faculty kids, athletes, academic stars, graduates of "feeder" schools, full pay, kids of the rich and famous, and URMs. The more of these boxes you DC checks, the higher the probability they will be admitted. Admission of these kids isn't automatic, but as a group their rates of admission are higher than average.

The good news for applicants without even one of these advantages is that the number of applicants is:

1. Reported by the Admissions Office which is incented to make the number as high as possible.
2. The result of an energetic campaign to drive up the number of applications through Open Houses, Admissions presentations at feeder schools, and the efforts of alumni, current parents, coaches, and other boosters of the school.

This effort isn't targeted at highly-qualified applicants. The idea is to get as many applications as possible.

Got it. So you’re looking to rationalize why your normal kid didn’t get in to whatever they were rejected from. It must be that kids like him/her (however and whomever he/she is) didn’t stand a chance because of all of the other preferred kids that got in base on connections, race, athleticism, intellectualism or anything else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's pretty well accepted that admissions rate to the most competitive schools are between 5% and 20% depending on the entry year. Maret has in their school profile that theirs is 12% across the school - likely higher in the lower school and lower in the upper school.

It's reasonable to extrapolate that St. Albans, GDS, NCS, Potomac and Sidwell are roughly roughly roughly in the same general ballpark.

Now that you know that, has it changed your strategy on applying?

Unfortunately data such as “roughly roughly in the same ballpark” of what is “widely known” is not helpful and is literally just made up guesses

It's worse than that.

The 5% or 10% or 20% are Averages.

That might be useful if all the applicants were equal. But they are not. Some are advantaged and the rates of admission for these applicants is higher than the average. Which means that the rates of admission for those who are not advantaged is lower than the mean percent.

Examples of advantage include siblings, legacies, faculty kids, athletes, academic stars, graduates of "feeder" schools, full pay, kids of the rich and famous, and URMs. The more of these boxes you DC checks, the higher the probability they will be admitted. Admission of these kids isn't automatic, but as a group their rates of admission are higher than average.

The good news for applicants without even one of these advantages is that the number of applicants is:

1. Reported by the Admissions Office which is incented to make the number as high as possible.
2. The result of an energetic campaign to drive up the number of applications through Open Houses, Admissions presentations at feeder schools, and the efforts of alumni, current parents, coaches, and other boosters of the school.

This effort isn't targeted at highly-qualified applicants. The idea is to get as many applications as possible.

Got it. So you’re looking to rationalize why your normal kid didn’t get in to whatever they were rejected from. It must be that kids like him/her (however and whomever he/she is) didn’t stand a chance because of all of the other preferred kids that got in base on connections, race, athleticism, intellectualism or anything else.

Not PP, but I don’t see how anonymized data points on the features that were determinant for the kids admission would be something bad for the school (assuming that admissions were done fairly). Of course if there is an outright bribe or “donation” for admission I can see why a school might prefer to keep things secret.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's pretty well accepted that admissions rate to the most competitive schools are between 5% and 20% depending on the entry year. Maret has in their school profile that theirs is 12% across the school - likely higher in the lower school and lower in the upper school.

It's reasonable to extrapolate that St. Albans, GDS, NCS, Potomac and Sidwell are roughly roughly roughly in the same general ballpark.

Now that you know that, has it changed your strategy on applying?

Unfortunately data such as “roughly roughly in the same ballpark” of what is “widely known” is not helpful and is literally just made up guesses

It's worse than that.

The 5% or 10% or 20% are Averages.

That might be useful if all the applicants were equal. But they are not. Some are advantaged and the rates of admission for these applicants is higher than the average. Which means that the rates of admission for those who are not advantaged is lower than the mean percent.

Examples of advantage include siblings, legacies, faculty kids, athletes, academic stars, graduates of "feeder" schools, full pay, kids of the rich and famous, and URMs. The more of these boxes you DC checks, the higher the probability they will be admitted. Admission of these kids isn't automatic, but as a group their rates of admission are higher than average.

The good news for applicants without even one of these advantages is that the number of applicants is:

1. Reported by the Admissions Office which is incented to make the number as high as possible.
2. The result of an energetic campaign to drive up the number of applications through Open Houses, Admissions presentations at feeder schools, and the efforts of alumni, current parents, coaches, and other boosters of the school.

This effort isn't targeted at highly-qualified applicants. The idea is to get as many applications as possible.

Got it. So you’re looking to rationalize why your normal kid didn’t get in to whatever they were rejected from. It must be that kids like him/her (however and whomever he/she is) didn’t stand a chance because of all of the other preferred kids that got in base on connections, race, athleticism, intellectualism or anything else.

I'm not trying to rationalize anything.

Instead, I am trying to explain why Average Admission Rate is a ridiculous statistic. And also give people considering applying to these schools how things actually work.

If you are interested in what the odds are, you have to understand the priorities of the school and then assess how many of these boxes you check. Some kids are shoo-ins. As soon as Admissions considers their application, their file goes in the "Accept" pile.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's pretty well accepted that admissions rate to the most competitive schools are between 5% and 20% depending on the entry year. Maret has in their school profile that theirs is 12% across the school - likely higher in the lower school and lower in the upper school.

It's reasonable to extrapolate that St. Albans, GDS, NCS, Potomac and Sidwell are roughly roughly roughly in the same general ballpark.

Now that you know that, has it changed your strategy on applying?

Unfortunately data such as “roughly roughly in the same ballpark” of what is “widely known” is not helpful and is literally just made up guesses

It's worse than that.

The 5% or 10% or 20% are Averages.

That might be useful if all the applicants were equal. But they are not. Some are advantaged and the rates of admission for these applicants is higher than the average. Which means that the rates of admission for those who are not advantaged is lower than the mean percent.

Examples of advantage include siblings, legacies, faculty kids, athletes, academic stars, graduates of "feeder" schools, full pay, kids of the rich and famous, and URMs. The more of these boxes you DC checks, the higher the probability they will be admitted. Admission of these kids isn't automatic, but as a group their rates of admission are higher than average.

The good news for applicants without even one of these advantages is that the number of applicants is:

1. Reported by the Admissions Office which is incented to make the number as high as possible.
2. The result of an energetic campaign to drive up the number of applications through Open Houses, Admissions presentations at feeder schools, and the efforts of alumni, current parents, coaches, and other boosters of the school.

This effort isn't targeted at highly-qualified applicants. The idea is to get as many applications as possible.

Got it. So you’re looking to rationalize why your normal kid didn’t get in to whatever they were rejected from. It must be that kids like him/her (however and whomever he/she is) didn’t stand a chance because of all of the other preferred kids that got in base on connections, race, athleticism, intellectualism or anything else.

I'm not trying to rationalize anything.

Instead, I am trying to explain why Average Admission Rate is a ridiculous statistic. And also give people considering applying to these schools how things actually work.

If you are interested in what the odds are, you have to understand the priorities of the school and then assess how many of these boxes you check. Some kids are shoo-ins. As soon as Admissions considers their application, their file goes in the "Accept" pile.

I think it is fairly easy to infer the admission process. For the most competitive school, 70% is going to rich donors, VIPs, Legacies, siblings, faculty kids, parents who are double ivy legacies, 15% for URMS, or any diversity groups and these are also competitive, the rest 15% goes to talented students who stood out, top athletes, very eloquent children. So for 20 spots, if you aren't hooked, maybe you are competing for 4-5 spots. And if there are less than 20, say 10, there might be 1 spot, for 5 spots, there are really 0. Of course these percentages vary by year. But i think the most elite the school, the more likely they assign less spots for the unhooked. After all, if the parents are VIPS, their children are very likely to be one. And the school do need that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's pretty well accepted that admissions rate to the most competitive schools are between 5% and 20% depending on the entry year. Maret has in their school profile that theirs is 12% across the school - likely higher in the lower school and lower in the upper school.

It's reasonable to extrapolate that St. Albans, GDS, NCS, Potomac and Sidwell are roughly roughly roughly in the same general ballpark.

Now that you know that, has it changed your strategy on applying?

Unfortunately data such as “roughly roughly in the same ballpark” of what is “widely known” is not helpful and is literally just made up guesses

It's worse than that.

The 5% or 10% or 20% are Averages.

That might be useful if all the applicants were equal. But they are not. Some are advantaged and the rates of admission for these applicants is higher than the average. Which means that the rates of admission for those who are not advantaged is lower than the mean percent.

Examples of advantage include siblings, legacies, faculty kids, athletes, academic stars, graduates of "feeder" schools, full pay, kids of the rich and famous, and URMs. The more of these boxes you DC checks, the higher the probability they will be admitted. Admission of these kids isn't automatic, but as a group their rates of admission are higher than average.

The good news for applicants without even one of these advantages is that the number of applicants is:

1. Reported by the Admissions Office which is incented to make the number as high as possible.
2. The result of an energetic campaign to drive up the number of applications through Open Houses, Admissions presentations at feeder schools, and the efforts of alumni, current parents, coaches, and other boosters of the school.

This effort isn't targeted at highly-qualified applicants. The idea is to get as many applications as possible.

Got it. So you’re looking to rationalize why your normal kid didn’t get in to whatever they were rejected from. It must be that kids like him/her (however and whomever he/she is) didn’t stand a chance because of all of the other preferred kids that got in base on connections, race, athleticism, intellectualism or anything else.

I'm not trying to rationalize anything.

Instead, I am trying to explain why Average Admission Rate is a ridiculous statistic. And also give people considering applying to these schools how things actually work.

If you are interested in what the odds are, you have to understand the priorities of the school and then assess how many of these boxes you check. Some kids are shoo-ins. As soon as Admissions considers their application, their file goes in the "Accept" pile.

I think it is fairly easy to infer the admission process. For the most competitive school, 70% is going to rich donors, VIPs, Legacies, siblings, faculty kids, parents who are double ivy legacies, 15% for URMS, or any diversity groups and these are also competitive, the rest 15% goes to talented students who stood out, top athletes, very eloquent children. So for 20 spots, if you aren't hooked, maybe you are competing for 4-5 spots. And if there are less than 20, say 10, there might be 1 spot, for 5 spots, there are really 0. Of course these percentages vary by year. But i think the most elite the school, the more likely they assign less spots for the unhooked. After all, if the parents are VIPS, their children are very likely to be one. And the school do need that.

How is this different from the facecontrol practice in many nightclubs. It’s a private business, and they are allowed to choose anyone they want to get in. They can even pick people by the skin color.

Very nice progressive and inclusive schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's pretty well accepted that admissions rate to the most competitive schools are between 5% and 20% depending on the entry year. Maret has in their school profile that theirs is 12% across the school - likely higher in the lower school and lower in the upper school.

It's reasonable to extrapolate that St. Albans, GDS, NCS, Potomac and Sidwell are roughly roughly roughly in the same general ballpark.

Now that you know that, has it changed your strategy on applying?

Unfortunately data such as “roughly roughly in the same ballpark” of what is “widely known” is not helpful and is literally just made up guesses

It's worse than that.

The 5% or 10% or 20% are Averages.

That might be useful if all the applicants were equal. But they are not. Some are advantaged and the rates of admission for these applicants is higher than the average. Which means that the rates of admission for those who are not advantaged is lower than the mean percent.

Examples of advantage include siblings, legacies, faculty kids, athletes, academic stars, graduates of "feeder" schools, full pay, kids of the rich and famous, and URMs. The more of these boxes you DC checks, the higher the probability they will be admitted. Admission of these kids isn't automatic, but as a group their rates of admission are higher than average.

The good news for applicants without even one of these advantages is that the number of applicants is:

1. Reported by the Admissions Office which is incented to make the number as high as possible.
2. The result of an energetic campaign to drive up the number of applications through Open Houses, Admissions presentations at feeder schools, and the efforts of alumni, current parents, coaches, and other boosters of the school.

This effort isn't targeted at highly-qualified applicants. The idea is to get as many applications as possible.

Got it. So you’re looking to rationalize why your normal kid didn’t get in to whatever they were rejected from. It must be that kids like him/her (however and whomever he/she is) didn’t stand a chance because of all of the other preferred kids that got in base on connections, race, athleticism, intellectualism or anything else.

I'm not trying to rationalize anything.

Instead, I am trying to explain why Average Admission Rate is a ridiculous statistic. And also give people considering applying to these schools how things actually work.

If you are interested in what the odds are, you have to understand the priorities of the school and then assess how many of these boxes you check. Some kids are shoo-ins. As soon as Admissions considers their application, their file goes in the "Accept" pile.

I think it is fairly easy to infer the admission process. For the most competitive school, 70% is going to rich donors, VIPs, Legacies, siblings, faculty kids, parents who are double ivy legacies, 15% for URMS, or any diversity groups and these are also competitive, the rest 15% goes to talented students who stood out, top athletes, very eloquent children. So for 20 spots, if you aren't hooked, maybe you are competing for 4-5 spots. And if there are less than 20, say 10, there might be 1 spot, for 5 spots, there are really 0. Of course these percentages vary by year. But i think the most elite the school, the more likely they assign less spots for the unhooked. After all, if the parents are VIPS, their children are very likely to be one. And the school do need that.

How is this different from the facecontrol practice in many nightclubs. It’s a private business, and they are allowed to choose anyone they want to get in. They can even pick people by the skin color.

Very nice progressive and inclusive schools.

Not progressive or inclusive enough for you?

Maybe you are being influenced by the sales puffery in the brochures and on the website.

These schools have internal constituencies and external customer bases they have to satisfy. And they aren’t going to stray too far from what they know works based on experience.

If you approach this with the idea of “Here’s what I think they ought to be doing” then you are almost certainly going to be disappointed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I worked in admissions for years, mostly at one that was grades 6-12 (not in this area but just as competitive and crazy) and the reality is when you have more qualified applicants than spots, you have the luxury of weeding out high drama families. OP should consider that fact carefully.

Are you implying that most admissions offices have a way to identify anonymous internet posters and match them to applicants?

Of course not. I'm just saying that it's a red flag and you should assume all your interactions "count", not just official transcripts and letters of recommendation. We have to assume you're putting your best foot foward so if you seem like a problem, then things could potentially get even worse. We're about to enter a long-term relationship so obvioulsy we want families who don't make our lives more difficult. A PP was right, the other departments will come right back to us if we miss flagging a crazy family.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's pretty well accepted that admissions rate to the most competitive schools are between 5% and 20% depending on the entry year. Maret has in their school profile that theirs is 12% across the school - likely higher in the lower school and lower in the upper school.

It's reasonable to extrapolate that St. Albans, GDS, NCS, Potomac and Sidwell are roughly roughly roughly in the same general ballpark.

Now that you know that, has it changed your strategy on applying?

Unfortunately data such as “roughly roughly in the same ballpark” of what is “widely known” is not helpful and is literally just made up guesses

It's worse than that.

The 5% or 10% or 20% are Averages.

That might be useful if all the applicants were equal. But they are not. Some are advantaged and the rates of admission for these applicants is higher than the average. Which means that the rates of admission for those who are not advantaged is lower than the mean percent.

Examples of advantage include siblings, legacies, faculty kids, athletes, academic stars, graduates of "feeder" schools, full pay, kids of the rich and famous, and URMs. The more of these boxes you DC checks, the higher the probability they will be admitted. Admission of these kids isn't automatic, but as a group their rates of admission are higher than average.

The good news for applicants without even one of these advantages is that the number of applicants is:

1. Reported by the Admissions Office which is incented to make the number as high as possible.
2. The result of an energetic campaign to drive up the number of applications through Open Houses, Admissions presentations at feeder schools, and the efforts of alumni, current parents, coaches, and other boosters of the school.

This effort isn't targeted at highly-qualified applicants. The idea is to get as many applications as possible.

Got it. So you’re looking to rationalize why your normal kid didn’t get in to whatever they were rejected from. It must be that kids like him/her (however and whomever he/she is) didn’t stand a chance because of all of the other preferred kids that got in base on connections, race, athleticism, intellectualism or anything else.

I'm not trying to rationalize anything.

Instead, I am trying to explain why Average Admission Rate is a ridiculous statistic. And also give people considering applying to these schools how things actually work.

If you are interested in what the odds are, you have to understand the priorities of the school and then assess how many of these boxes you check. Some kids are shoo-ins. As soon as Admissions considers their application, their file goes in the "Accept" pile.

I think it is fairly easy to infer the admission process. For the most competitive school, 70% is going to rich donors, VIPs, Legacies, siblings, faculty kids, parents who are double ivy legacies, 15% for URMS, or any diversity groups and these are also competitive, the rest 15% goes to talented students who stood out, top athletes, very eloquent children. So for 20 spots, if you aren't hooked, maybe you are competing for 4-5 spots. And if there are less than 20, say 10, there might be 1 spot, for 5 spots, there are really 0. Of course these percentages vary by year. But i think the most elite the school, the more likely they assign less spots for the unhooked. After all, if the parents are VIPS, their children are very likely to be one. And the school do need that.

How is this different from the facecontrol practice in many nightclubs. It’s a private business, and they are allowed to choose anyone they want to get in. They can even pick people by the skin color.

Very nice progressive and inclusive schools.

It is really not these school's fault. it just reflects the society.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's pretty well accepted that admissions rate to the most competitive schools are between 5% and 20% depending on the entry year. Maret has in their school profile that theirs is 12% across the school - likely higher in the lower school and lower in the upper school.

It's reasonable to extrapolate that St. Albans, GDS, NCS, Potomac and Sidwell are roughly roughly roughly in the same general ballpark.

Now that you know that, has it changed your strategy on applying?

Unfortunately data such as “roughly roughly in the same ballpark” of what is “widely known” is not helpful and is literally just made up guesses

It's worse than that.

The 5% or 10% or 20% are Averages.

That might be useful if all the applicants were equal. But they are not. Some are advantaged and the rates of admission for these applicants is higher than the average. Which means that the rates of admission for those who are not advantaged is lower than the mean percent.

Examples of advantage include siblings, legacies, faculty kids, athletes, academic stars, graduates of "feeder" schools, full pay, kids of the rich and famous, and URMs. The more of these boxes you DC checks, the higher the probability they will be admitted. Admission of these kids isn't automatic, but as a group their rates of admission are higher than average.

The good news for applicants without even one of these advantages is that the number of applicants is:

1. Reported by the Admissions Office which is incented to make the number as high as possible.
2. The result of an energetic campaign to drive up the number of applications through Open Houses, Admissions presentations at feeder schools, and the efforts of alumni, current parents, coaches, and other boosters of the school.

This effort isn't targeted at highly-qualified applicants. The idea is to get as many applications as possible.

Got it. So you’re looking to rationalize why your normal kid didn’t get in to whatever they were rejected from. It must be that kids like him/her (however and whomever he/she is) didn’t stand a chance because of all of the other preferred kids that got in base on connections, race, athleticism, intellectualism or anything else.

I'm not trying to rationalize anything.

Instead, I am trying to explain why Average Admission Rate is a ridiculous statistic. And also give people considering applying to these schools how things actually work.

If you are interested in what the odds are, you have to understand the priorities of the school and then assess how many of these boxes you check. Some kids are shoo-ins. As soon as Admissions considers their application, their file goes in the "Accept" pile.

I think it is fairly easy to infer the admission process. For the most competitive school, 70% is going to rich donors, VIPs, Legacies, siblings, faculty kids, parents who are double ivy legacies, 15% for URMS, or any diversity groups and these are also competitive, the rest 15% goes to talented students who stood out, top athletes, very eloquent children. So for 20 spots, if you aren't hooked, maybe you are competing for 4-5 spots. And if there are less than 20, say 10, there might be 1 spot, for 5 spots, there are really 0. Of course these percentages vary by year. But i think the most elite the school, the more likely they assign less spots for the unhooked. After all, if the parents are VIPS, their children are very likely to be one. And the school do need that.

How is this different from the facecontrol practice in many nightclubs. It’s a private business, and they are allowed to choose anyone they want to get in. They can even pick people by the skin color.

Very nice progressive and inclusive schools.

no difference. I am just saying it is not that hard to know what the process is. no need for transparency. it is already clear. It is just like any competitive offerings here. Rich and privileged people have a huge edge. What can you do? With the funding for public education tighten, it will be worse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's pretty well accepted that admissions rate to the most competitive schools are between 5% and 20% depending on the entry year. Maret has in their school profile that theirs is 12% across the school - likely higher in the lower school and lower in the upper school.

It's reasonable to extrapolate that St. Albans, GDS, NCS, Potomac and Sidwell are roughly roughly roughly in the same general ballpark.

Now that you know that, has it changed your strategy on applying?

Unfortunately data such as “roughly roughly in the same ballpark” of what is “widely known” is not helpful and is literally just made up guesses

It's worse than that.

The 5% or 10% or 20% are Averages.

That might be useful if all the applicants were equal. But they are not. Some are advantaged and the rates of admission for these applicants is higher than the average. Which means that the rates of admission for those who are not advantaged is lower than the mean percent.

Examples of advantage include siblings, legacies, faculty kids, athletes, academic stars, graduates of "feeder" schools, full pay, kids of the rich and famous, and URMs. The more of these boxes you DC checks, the higher the probability they will be admitted. Admission of these kids isn't automatic, but as a group their rates of admission are higher than average.

The good news for applicants without even one of these advantages is that the number of applicants is:

1. Reported by the Admissions Office which is incented to make the number as high as possible.
2. The result of an energetic campaign to drive up the number of applications through Open Houses, Admissions presentations at feeder schools, and the efforts of alumni, current parents, coaches, and other boosters of the school.

This effort isn't targeted at highly-qualified applicants. The idea is to get as many applications as possible.

Got it. So you’re looking to rationalize why your normal kid didn’t get in to whatever they were rejected from. It must be that kids like him/her (however and whomever he/she is) didn’t stand a chance because of all of the other preferred kids that got in base on connections, race, athleticism, intellectualism or anything else.

I'm not trying to rationalize anything.

Instead, I am trying to explain why Average Admission Rate is a ridiculous statistic. And also give people considering applying to these schools how things actually work.

If you are interested in what the odds are, you have to understand the priorities of the school and then assess how many of these boxes you check. Some kids are shoo-ins. As soon as Admissions considers their application, their file goes in the "Accept" pile.

I think it is fairly easy to infer the admission process. For the most competitive school, 70% is going to rich donors, VIPs, Legacies, siblings, faculty kids, parents who are double ivy legacies, 15% for URMS, or any diversity groups and these are also competitive, the rest 15% goes to talented students who stood out, top athletes, very eloquent children. So for 20 spots, if you aren't hooked, maybe you are competing for 4-5 spots. And if there are less than 20, say 10, there might be 1 spot, for 5 spots, there are really 0. Of course these percentages vary by year. But i think the most elite the school, the more likely they assign less spots for the unhooked. After all, if the parents are VIPS, their children are very likely to be one. And the school do need that.

How is this different from the facecontrol practice in many nightclubs. It’s a private business, and they are allowed to choose anyone they want to get in. They can even pick people by the skin color.

Very nice progressive and inclusive schools.

It is really not these school's fault. it just reflects the society.

I agree, exclusion at schools reflect a broader problem in the US society.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's pretty well accepted that admissions rate to the most competitive schools are between 5% and 20% depending on the entry year. Maret has in their school profile that theirs is 12% across the school - likely higher in the lower school and lower in the upper school.

It's reasonable to extrapolate that St. Albans, GDS, NCS, Potomac and Sidwell are roughly roughly roughly in the same general ballpark.

Now that you know that, has it changed your strategy on applying?

Unfortunately data such as “roughly roughly in the same ballpark” of what is “widely known” is not helpful and is literally just made up guesses

It's worse than that.

The 5% or 10% or 20% are Averages.

That might be useful if all the applicants were equal. But they are not. Some are advantaged and the rates of admission for these applicants is higher than the average. Which means that the rates of admission for those who are not advantaged is lower than the mean percent.

Examples of advantage include siblings, legacies, faculty kids, athletes, academic stars, graduates of "feeder" schools, full pay, kids of the rich and famous, and URMs. The more of these boxes you DC checks, the higher the probability they will be admitted. Admission of these kids isn't automatic, but as a group their rates of admission are higher than average.

The good news for applicants without even one of these advantages is that the number of applicants is:

1. Reported by the Admissions Office which is incented to make the number as high as possible.
2. The result of an energetic campaign to drive up the number of applications through Open Houses, Admissions presentations at feeder schools, and the efforts of alumni, current parents, coaches, and other boosters of the school.

This effort isn't targeted at highly-qualified applicants. The idea is to get as many applications as possible.

Got it. So you’re looking to rationalize why your normal kid didn’t get in to whatever they were rejected from. It must be that kids like him/her (however and whomever he/she is) didn’t stand a chance because of all of the other preferred kids that got in base on connections, race, athleticism, intellectualism or anything else.

I'm not trying to rationalize anything.

Instead, I am trying to explain why Average Admission Rate is a ridiculous statistic. And also give people considering applying to these schools how things actually work.

If you are interested in what the odds are, you have to understand the priorities of the school and then assess how many of these boxes you check. Some kids are shoo-ins. As soon as Admissions considers their application, their file goes in the "Accept" pile.

I think it is fairly easy to infer the admission process. For the most competitive school, 70% is going to rich donors, VIPs, Legacies, siblings, faculty kids, parents who are double ivy legacies, 15% for URMS, or any diversity groups and these are also competitive, the rest 15% goes to talented students who stood out, top athletes, very eloquent children. So for 20 spots, if you aren't hooked, maybe you are competing for 4-5 spots. And if there are less than 20, say 10, there might be 1 spot, for 5 spots, there are really 0. Of course these percentages vary by year. But i think the most elite the school, the more likely they assign less spots for the unhooked. After all, if the parents are VIPS, their children are very likely to be one. And the school do need that.

How is this different from the facecontrol practice in many nightclubs. It’s a private business, and they are allowed to choose anyone they want to get in. They can even pick people by the skin color.

Very nice progressive and inclusive schools.

It is really not these school's fault. it just reflects the society.

I agree, exclusion at schools reflect a broader problem in the US society.

Think about it, many people won't afford health care. This makes not getting into big whatever school a first world problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's pretty well accepted that admissions rate to the most competitive schools are between 5% and 20% depending on the entry year. Maret has in their school profile that theirs is 12% across the school - likely higher in the lower school and lower in the upper school.

It's reasonable to extrapolate that St. Albans, GDS, NCS, Potomac and Sidwell are roughly roughly roughly in the same general ballpark.

Now that you know that, has it changed your strategy on applying?

Unfortunately data such as “roughly roughly in the same ballpark” of what is “widely known” is not helpful and is literally just made up guesses

It's worse than that.

The 5% or 10% or 20% are Averages.

That might be useful if all the applicants were equal. But they are not. Some are advantaged and the rates of admission for these applicants is higher than the average. Which means that the rates of admission for those who are not advantaged is lower than the mean percent.

Examples of advantage include siblings, legacies, faculty kids, athletes, academic stars, graduates of "feeder" schools, full pay, kids of the rich and famous, and URMs. The more of these boxes you DC checks, the higher the probability they will be admitted. Admission of these kids isn't automatic, but as a group their rates of admission are higher than average.

The good news for applicants without even one of these advantages is that the number of applicants is:

1. Reported by the Admissions Office which is incented to make the number as high as possible.
2. The result of an energetic campaign to drive up the number of applications through Open Houses, Admissions presentations at feeder schools, and the efforts of alumni, current parents, coaches, and other boosters of the school.

This effort isn't targeted at highly-qualified applicants. The idea is to get as many applications as possible.

Got it. So you’re looking to rationalize why your normal kid didn’t get in to whatever they were rejected from. It must be that kids like him/her (however and whomever he/she is) didn’t stand a chance because of all of the other preferred kids that got in base on connections, race, athleticism, intellectualism or anything else.

I'm not trying to rationalize anything.

Instead, I am trying to explain why Average Admission Rate is a ridiculous statistic. And also give people considering applying to these schools how things actually work.

If you are interested in what the odds are, you have to understand the priorities of the school and then assess how many of these boxes you check. Some kids are shoo-ins. As soon as Admissions considers their application, their file goes in the "Accept" pile.

I think it is fairly easy to infer the admission process. For the most competitive school, 70% is going to rich donors, VIPs, Legacies, siblings, faculty kids, parents who are double ivy legacies, 15% for URMS, or any diversity groups and these are also competitive, the rest 15% goes to talented students who stood out, top athletes, very eloquent children. So for 20 spots, if you aren't hooked, maybe you are competing for 4-5 spots. And if there are less than 20, say 10, there might be 1 spot, for 5 spots, there are really 0. Of course these percentages vary by year. But i think the most elite the school, the more likely they assign less spots for the unhooked. After all, if the parents are VIPS, their children are very likely to be one. And the school do need that.

How is this different from the facecontrol practice in many nightclubs. It’s a private business, and they are allowed to choose anyone they want to get in. They can even pick people by the skin color.

Very nice progressive and inclusive schools.

It is really not these school's fault. it just reflects the society.

I agree, exclusion at schools reflect a broader problem in the US society.

Think about it, many people won't afford health care. This makes not getting into big whatever school a first world problem.

In fact, it looks a lot like elite schools in third world countries. Where the elite does not want to mix with middle and lower classes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's pretty well accepted that admissions rate to the most competitive schools are between 5% and 20% depending on the entry year. Maret has in their school profile that theirs is 12% across the school - likely higher in the lower school and lower in the upper school.

It's reasonable to extrapolate that St. Albans, GDS, NCS, Potomac and Sidwell are roughly roughly roughly in the same general ballpark.

Now that you know that, has it changed your strategy on applying?

Unfortunately data such as “roughly roughly in the same ballpark” of what is “widely known” is not helpful and is literally just made up guesses

It's worse than that.

The 5% or 10% or 20% are Averages.

That might be useful if all the applicants were equal. But they are not. Some are advantaged and the rates of admission for these applicants is higher than the average. Which means that the rates of admission for those who are not advantaged is lower than the mean percent.

Examples of advantage include siblings, legacies, faculty kids, athletes, academic stars, graduates of "feeder" schools, full pay, kids of the rich and famous, and URMs. The more of these boxes you DC checks, the higher the probability they will be admitted. Admission of these kids isn't automatic, but as a group their rates of admission are higher than average.

The good news for applicants without even one of these advantages is that the number of applicants is:

1. Reported by the Admissions Office which is incented to make the number as high as possible.
2. The result of an energetic campaign to drive up the number of applications through Open Houses, Admissions presentations at feeder schools, and the efforts of alumni, current parents, coaches, and other boosters of the school.

This effort isn't targeted at highly-qualified applicants. The idea is to get as many applications as possible.

Got it. So you’re looking to rationalize why your normal kid didn’t get in to whatever they were rejected from. It must be that kids like him/her (however and whomever he/she is) didn’t stand a chance because of all of the other preferred kids that got in base on connections, race, athleticism, intellectualism or anything else.

Not PP, but I don’t see how anonymized data points on the features that were determinant for the kids admission would be something bad for the school (assuming that admissions were done fairly). Of course if there is an outright bribe or “donation” for admission I can see why a school might prefer to keep things secret.

Are you saying full transparency is the only way to show admissions were done fairly? Can you define “fairly”?Do you think you know enough about running a school to know what is good/bad for the school? What is your experience running a school?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's pretty well accepted that admissions rate to the most competitive schools are between 5% and 20% depending on the entry year. Maret has in their school profile that theirs is 12% across the school - likely higher in the lower school and lower in the upper school.

It's reasonable to extrapolate that St. Albans, GDS, NCS, Potomac and Sidwell are roughly roughly roughly in the same general ballpark.

Now that you know that, has it changed your strategy on applying?

Unfortunately data such as “roughly roughly in the same ballpark” of what is “widely known” is not helpful and is literally just made up guesses

It's worse than that.

The 5% or 10% or 20% are Averages.

That might be useful if all the applicants were equal. But they are not. Some are advantaged and the rates of admission for these applicants is higher than the average. Which means that the rates of admission for those who are not advantaged is lower than the mean percent.

Examples of advantage include siblings, legacies, faculty kids, athletes, academic stars, graduates of "feeder" schools, full pay, kids of the rich and famous, and URMs. The more of these boxes you DC checks, the higher the probability they will be admitted. Admission of these kids isn't automatic, but as a group their rates of admission are higher than average.

The good news for applicants without even one of these advantages is that the number of applicants is:

1. Reported by the Admissions Office which is incented to make the number as high as possible.
2. The result of an energetic campaign to drive up the number of applications through Open Houses, Admissions presentations at feeder schools, and the efforts of alumni, current parents, coaches, and other boosters of the school.

This effort isn't targeted at highly-qualified applicants. The idea is to get as many applications as possible.

Got it. So you’re looking to rationalize why your normal kid didn’t get in to whatever they were rejected from. It must be that kids like him/her (however and whomever he/she is) didn’t stand a chance because of all of the other preferred kids that got in base on connections, race, athleticism, intellectualism or anything else.

Not PP, but I don’t see how anonymized data points on the features that were determinant for the kids admission would be something bad for the school (assuming that admissions were done fairly). Of course if there is an outright bribe or “donation” for admission I can see why a school might prefer to keep things secret.

Are you saying full transparency is the only way to show admissions were done fairly? Can you define “fairly”?Do you think you know enough about running a school to know what is good/bad for the school? What is your experience running a school?

This is what I said : “I don’t see how anonymized data points on the features that were determinant for the kids admission would be something bad for the school”

No need for enhanced interrogation techniques.