"Not a Meritocracy"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Last week, the Head of School for our Big3 DC private reminded parents that college admissions is "not a meritocracy." He was not glib about this but seemed to be acknowledging it. He also said that the "college admissions system is broken.'

In the senior class this year, the kids of families with considerable money, privelege, and notoriety (as in nationally-known companies and public figures as well as 'old money') are doing really well in admissions. Really well. It's eye-opening and rather disgusting, considering what I know about the relative achievements of the kids (admittedly, I don't know all). But the overall results for the school is not good -- but for these kids, it's starkly good.

Are many schools seeing similar results -- along Wisconsin Avenue?

Ugh - I think this is our school - I missed two online lunches this week due to work commitments. I'm disappointed to hear this was a narrative.

This school cares far too much for the rich and is shockingly disinterested in others. It amazed me how few of us feel that anything we'd have to say would matter to them.

Why would you expect a school that costs so much that only rich people can afford it to be interested in not-rich people?

This is like saying "Armani New York Fifth Avenue is shockingly disinterested in people who shop at Kohl's".

Because it’s a SCHOOL and I’d like their priority to be the well being of the students. But sadly, it’s really just their own profile they seem to care about. They want to be desired by all, especially the rich… for prestige but do little of substance for the HS kids.

It is an expensive private school for rich kids ffs, it is absurd to expect them to have an altruistic attitude.

every school should have the "altruistic" attitude of caring about the students

[Anonymous]

Reading these forums is eye-opening to me. More money, more problems…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“College athlete” is a broad term. For D2, many of the schools are weak academically & athletically, with small teams and student bodies. MANY D3 colleges which are generally small liberal arts colleges, openly use sports as a way to keep their doors open nowadays. Their selling point for kids is the opportunity to keep playing for another four years, athletic or academic ability be damned. They use “sports recruiting” as a way to bring in warm bodies so the school can have enough students to keep its doors open. Obviously, this doesn’t apply to NESCAC schools, but absolutely applies to one’s below T40 ish in the LAC rankings.

Who cares? Athletes make up under 10% of all college students. The only people complaining are the ones in the bottom 10% of the class. If they did away with all the college athletes you are still not getting in.

32% at Amherst, with nearly all of them being rich white kids.

Which the school needs to subsidize everyone else.

Amherst has a $3.75 billion endowment, $1.9 million per student. They would be fine if every student was on financial aid

You are very generous with other people's money.

It's an endowment. It's entire purpose is to educate other people's children.

Not for free.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Last week, the Head of School for our Big3 DC private reminded parents that college admissions is "not a meritocracy." He was not glib about this but seemed to be acknowledging it. He also said that the "college admissions system is broken.'

In the senior class this year, the kids of families with considerable money, privelege, and notoriety (as in nationally-known companies and public figures as well as 'old money') are doing really well in admissions. Really well. It's eye-opening and rather disgusting, considering what I know about the relative achievements of the kids (admittedly, I don't know all). But the overall results for the school is not good -- but for these kids, it's starkly good.

Are many schools seeing similar results -- along Wisconsin Avenue?

Any idea what HOS specifically meant when he said the "college admissions system is broken"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Last week, the Head of School for our Big3 DC private reminded parents that college admissions is "not a meritocracy." He was not glib about this but seemed to be acknowledging it. He also said that the "college admissions system is broken.'

In the senior class this year, the kids of families with considerable money, privelege, and notoriety (as in nationally-known companies and public figures as well as 'old money') are doing really well in admissions. Really well. It's eye-opening and rather disgusting, considering what I know about the relative achievements of the kids (admittedly, I don't know all). But the overall results for the school is not good -- but for these kids, it's starkly good.

Are many schools seeing similar results -- along Wisconsin Avenue?

Any idea what HOS specifically meant when he said the "college admissions system is broken"?

He can no longer place kids whose parents are paying 200k for a diploma at schools they find acceptable

[Anonymous]

I feel for the staff & faculty at the “big 3.” The parents must be brutal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Reading these forums is eye-opening to me. More money, more problems…

"rich people's problems"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“College athlete” is a broad term. For D2, many of the schools are weak academically & athletically, with small teams and student bodies. MANY D3 colleges which are generally small liberal arts colleges, openly use sports as a way to keep their doors open nowadays. Their selling point for kids is the opportunity to keep playing for another four years, athletic or academic ability be damned. They use “sports recruiting” as a way to bring in warm bodies so the school can have enough students to keep its doors open. Obviously, this doesn’t apply to NESCAC schools, but absolutely applies to one’s below T40 ish in the LAC rankings.

Who cares? Athletes make up under 10% of all college students. The only people complaining are the ones in the bottom 10% of the class. If they did away with all the college athletes you are still not getting in.

32% at Amherst, with nearly all of them being rich white kids.

Which the school needs to subsidize everyone else.

Amherst has a $3.75 billion endowment, $1.9 million per student. They would be fine if every student was on financial aid

They eliminated legacy admissions, so they seem to be doing fine.

That's what a study found.. that eliminating legacy didn't hurt the fund raising much. People who argue for legacy so that fundraising can pay for the poor are lying to themselves. It's like the super rich who have charity balls for the starving children in Africa. It's not about the children; it's about the parties, the who's who and going to be seen. Sort of disgusting, IMO.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Last week, the Head of School for our Big3 DC private reminded parents that college admissions is "not a meritocracy." He was not glib about this but seemed to be acknowledging it. He also said that the "college admissions system is broken.'

In the senior class this year, the kids of families with considerable money, privelege, and notoriety (as in nationally-known companies and public figures as well as 'old money') are doing really well in admissions. Really well. It's eye-opening and rather disgusting, considering what I know about the relative achievements of the kids (admittedly, I don't know all). But the overall results for the school is not good -- but for these kids, it's starkly good.

Are many schools seeing similar results -- along Wisconsin Avenue?

Any idea what HOS specifically meant when he said the "college admissions system is broken"?

College admissions has been shifting a lot over the last 3 years - and the shift continued this year - so you can't look back and expect to put yourself in another person's shoes even if it seemed like "they wore the same sized shoe". This is happening at all schools in DMV among well off, high achievers.

But it is also typical of this school to never truly reflect on how they might be failing. There are so many ways in which it could improve and CCO is a big one. So is the lack of emphasis by the school to be a community and have teachers be active mentors for the kids (this does not have to be either/or proposition of expecting kids to self advocate).

Instead, the school likes to put most blame on unrealistic expectations of parents. The school doesn't even realize that the kids don't trust anything the admin has to say when it comes to being concerned with their well being. The message we hear from the kids is the school doesn't walk the walk and the teachers don't follow through with what admin describes.

I personally think the HOS statement is using "broken" to describe "changes in college admissions". But that deflects from the genuine gaps at the school. Because even though other schools are facing the same changes in college admissions, the way in which those schools' CCOs relate/work with the students has been very different than the "hands off" approach at this school. They are using a "throw our hands in the air, we can we possibly do" approach without admitting they haven't spent much time actually doing anything (including reaching out to students one-on-one at certain key touch points for each given student).

[Anonymous]

This is how admissions really works at a highly selective school that is need-blind. First, athletes who committed as Sophomores / Juniors are taken. For those saying "not at Ivies", Ivy schools are D1. 15% of Harvard's undergrads are athletes. So 210 slots are now taken. Those coaches recruit! Next, ED gets a big bump. This is a little less than half the admits, but athletes have to be subtracted... so that's, say, another 700 admits. They now have a 900 person class. There are only 500 slots to go, now. Of those EDs, you're going to see almost all of the large-donor legacies apply in that tranche, so assume they're out of the way. Those are going to be kids of parents who have (1) consistently given >$2500 per year, and kids who are 1500+ SAT and 4.1+ GPA. There are also going to be a lot minority filling quotas in there for Af-Am and Hispanic. Those kids are going to need 1420+ / 3.9+ GPA. What's missing at this point? The super high achieving Asian kids, some of whom may have gotten in early... but not many. Now you have 40K kids competing for 1000 slots (yielding another 500). This is where the unfairness really hits; it's basically impossible to get in now unless you're so special it hurts to look at you. So yes--college admissions is absurd. But knowing all this--in all honesty--why would you want to send your kid to a place that is this screwed up?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is how admissions really works at a highly selective school that is need-blind. First, athletes who committed as Sophomores / Juniors are taken. For those saying "not at Ivies", Ivy schools are D1. 15% of Harvard's undergrads are athletes. So 210 slots are now taken. Those coaches recruit! Next, ED gets a big bump. This is a little less than half the admits, but athletes have to be subtracted... so that's, say, another 700 admits. They now have a 900 person class. There are only 500 slots to go, now. Of those EDs, you're going to see almost all of the large-donor legacies apply in that tranche, so assume they're out of the way. Those are going to be kids of parents who have (1) consistently given >$2500 per year, and kids who are 1500+ SAT and 4.1+ GPA. There are also going to be a lot minority filling quotas in there for Af-Am and Hispanic. Those kids are going to need 1420+ / 3.9+ GPA. What's missing at this point? The super high achieving Asian kids, some of whom may have gotten in early... but not many. Now you have 40K kids competing for 1000 slots (yielding another 500). This is where the unfairness really hits; it's basically impossible to get in now unless you're so special it hurts to look at you. So yes--college admissions is absurd. But knowing all this--in all honesty--why would you want to send your kid to a place that is this screwed up?

I think you may not understand what's been happening. The above scenario has always been there and that isn't what has changed.

What has changed is a noticeable increase in unhooked, high achievers from affluent areas (private and public) being rejected/deferred in ED/EA where they were accepted before. This isn't just people hoping to win a Ivy-T20 lottery - it covers a much wider range of schools. Nobody knows yet whether the deferrals is just a switch in school's tactics to accept these students as part of RD or not. The next month will tell.

[Anonymous]

So who are we talking about here, without actually mentioning them, especially if this is all publicly disclosed info now? Sidwell, STA, NCA, GDay???

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is how admissions really works at a highly selective school that is need-blind. First, athletes who committed as Sophomores / Juniors are taken. For those saying "not at Ivies", Ivy schools are D1. 15% of Harvard's undergrads are athletes. So 210 slots are now taken. Those coaches recruit! Next, ED gets a big bump. This is a little less than half the admits, but athletes have to be subtracted... so that's, say, another 700 admits. They now have a 900 person class. There are only 500 slots to go, now. Of those EDs, you're going to see almost all of the large-donor legacies apply in that tranche, so assume they're out of the way. Those are going to be kids of parents who have (1) consistently given >$2500 per year, and kids who are 1500+ SAT and 4.1+ GPA. There are also going to be a lot minority filling quotas in there for Af-Am and Hispanic. Those kids are going to need 1420+ / 3.9+ GPA. What's missing at this point? The super high achieving Asian kids, some of whom may have gotten in early... but not many. Now you have 40K kids competing for 1000 slots (yielding another 500). This is where the unfairness really hits; it's basically impossible to get in now unless you're so special it hurts to look at you. So yes--college admissions is absurd. But knowing all this--in all honesty--why would you want to send your kid to a place that is this screwed up?

What is unfair about letting in the most outstanding applicants after they are done with athletes and legacy, etc. That is who they are supposed to choose.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
College admissions has been shifting a lot over the last 3 years - and the shift continued this year - so you can't look back and expect to put yourself in another person's shoes even if it seemed like "they wore the same sized shoe". This is happening at all schools in DMV among well off, high achievers.

But it is also typical of this school to never truly reflect on how they might be failing. There are so many ways in which it could improve and CCO is a big one. So is the lack of emphasis by the school to be a community and have teachers be active mentors for the kids (this does not have to be either/or proposition of expecting kids to self advocate).

Instead, the school likes to put most blame on unrealistic expectations of parents. The school doesn't even realize that the kids don't trust anything the admin has to say when it comes to being concerned with their well being. The message we hear from the kids is the school doesn't walk the walk and the teachers don't follow through with what admin describes.

I personally think the HOS statement is using "broken" to describe "changes in college admissions". But that deflects from the genuine gaps at the school. Because even though other schools are facing the same changes in college admissions, the way in which those schools' CCOs relate/work with the students has been very different than the "hands off" approach at this school. They are using a "throw our hands in the air, we can we possibly do" approach without admitting they haven't spent much time actually doing anything (including reaching out to students one-on-one at certain key touch points for each given student).

My kids are there. In the Upper School. These observations are spot on, IMO.

[Anonymous]

And to add to those 'spot on' observations, most parents are afraid to say anything to the administration. Or choose not to, because the administration always seems to know "better."