Which DC area private school have the highest acceptances to Harvard?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The eight wealthiest people who attended Harvard all dropped out of Harvard. Unless a kid needs the preferred route back to DC to suffocate in a law firm for 35 years the best thing for a kid may be to just break the mold and get off the beaten path. In the financial industry all the Harvard guys are the brokers who take people like me to dinner.

Well, you have to get into Harvard first to be able to drop out. You can always argue for "the road less traveled" but you get more choice of roads if you get into Harvard or Yale or....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The eight wealthiest people who attended Harvard all dropped out of Harvard. Unless a kid needs the preferred route back to DC to suffocate in a law firm for 35 years the best thing for a kid may be to just break the mold and get off the beaten path. In the financial industry all the Harvard guys are the brokers who take people like me to dinner.

Well, you have to get into Harvard first to be able to drop out. You can always argue for "the road less traveled" but you get more choice of roads if you get into Harvard or Yale or....

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My neighbors kid was admitted early to Harvard a few days ago. Very sweet couldn't be happier for them. I do find it interesting that this kid just had straight up great grades in the hardest classes and great SAT Scores. They had no extracurriculars, played no sports or musical instruments, belonged to no clubs and just took Jihns Hopkins classes in the summer...just school and that's it. I guess it worked for them.

Sorry poster, but this doesn't sound legit.

OK, except it really is. I was surprised myself. It really does go to show that grades and test scores are more important than anything else for non-athletic kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My neighbors kid was admitted early to Harvard a few days ago. Very sweet couldn't be happier for them. I do find it interesting that this kid just had straight up great grades in the hardest classes and great SAT Scores. They had no extracurriculars, played no sports or musical instruments, belonged to no clubs and just took Jihns Hopkins classes in the summer...just school and that's it. I guess it worked for them.

Sorry poster, but this doesn't sound legit.

OK, except it really is. I was surprised myself. It really does go to show that grades and test scores are more important than anything else for non-athletic kids.

He must have done very well at Hopkins CTY.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Two fallacies being perpetuated in this most recent set of posts. With 10 pct legacy, 15 pct URM (less than demo representation in U.S.) and 7 pct athletic recruits in a typical Harvard class - and some overlap between these groups - the significant majority of admits in any year are "unhooked". So if junior doesn't get in, the main reason is because he/she was rejected in favor of someone looking a whole lot like himself. Further, closer inspection of the admits from places like Sidwell to Yale and Harvard and Stanford is that there are a whole lot of white, upper middle class non-legacy kids, with acceptance at a higher admit rate than from any of the local publics.

PP, your stats for those categories are very low. Regarding legacies, see the earlier post in this thread with quote from the Crimson -- 16% legacies. And NYT reports 13% recruited athletes (almost double your figure) -- http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/25/sports/before-athletic-recruiting-in-the-ivy-league-some-math.html?_r=0. As to URM's, Harvard's 2013-2014 Common Data Set indicates that about 25% of the freshman class was in one of these categories: Hispanic, Black, "two or more races (non-Hispanic), Native American, or Pacific Islander.

and at top area privates, you also find -- among the hooked and "unhooked" -- children of the rich and powerful. Even if they're white non-legacies, they stand a much better chance of admission than a MIDDLE CLASS or UPPER MIDDLE CLASS unhooked white kid. looks like some earlier posters were correct to advise that an unhooked middle class kid is better off, from a college admissions standpoint, attending a strong public school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Two fallacies being perpetuated in this most recent set of posts. With 10 pct legacy, 15 pct URM (less than demo representation in U.S.) and 7 pct athletic recruits in a typical Harvard class - and some overlap between these groups - the significant majority of admits in any year are "unhooked". So if junior doesn't get in, the main reason is because he/she was rejected in favor of someone looking a whole lot like himself. Further, closer inspection of the admits from places like Sidwell to Yale and Harvard and Stanford is that there are a whole lot of white, upper middle class non-legacy kids, with acceptance at a higher admit rate than from any of the local publics.

PP, your stats for those categories are very low. Regarding legacies, see the earlier post in this thread with quote from the Crimson -- 16% legacies. And NYT reports 13% recruited athletes (almost double your figure) -- http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/25/sports/before-athletic-recruiting-in-the-ivy-league-some-math.html?_r=0. As to URM's, Harvard's 2013-2014 Common Data Set indicates that about 25% of the freshman class was in one of these categories: Hispanic, Black, "two or more races (non-Hispanic), Native American, or Pacific Islander.

and at top area privates, you also find -- among the hooked and "unhooked" -- children of the rich and powerful. Even if they're white non-legacies, they stand a much better chance of admission than a MIDDLE CLASS or UPPER MIDDLE CLASS unhooked white kid. looks like some earlier posters were correct to advise that an unhooked middle class kid is better off, from a college admissions standpoint, attending a strong public school.

just checked, and that same data set shows 11+% international and 18+% Asian.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Two fallacies being perpetuated in this most recent set of posts. With 10 pct legacy, 15 pct URM (less than demo representation in U.S.) and 7 pct athletic recruits in a typical Harvard class - and some overlap between these groups - the significant majority of admits in any year are "unhooked". So if junior doesn't get in, the main reason is because he/she was rejected in favor of someone looking a whole lot like himself. Further, closer inspection of the admits from places like Sidwell to Yale and Harvard and Stanford is that there are a whole lot of white, upper middle class non-legacy kids, with acceptance at a higher admit rate than from any of the local publics.

PP, your stats for those categories are very low. Regarding legacies, see the earlier post in this thread with quote from the Crimson -- 16% legacies. And NYT reports 13% recruited athletes (almost double your figure) -- http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/25/sports/before-athletic-recruiting-in-the-ivy-league-some-math.html?_r=0. As to URM's, Harvard's 2013-2014 Common Data Set indicates that about 25% of the freshman class was in one of these categories: Hispanic, Black, "two or more races (non-Hispanic), Native American, or Pacific Islander.

and at top area privates, you also find -- among the hooked and "unhooked" -- children of the rich and powerful. Even if they're white non-legacies, they stand a much better chance of admission than a MIDDLE CLASS or UPPER MIDDLE CLASS unhooked white kid. looks like some earlier posters were correct to advise that an unhooked middle class kid is better off, from a college admissions standpoint, attending a strong public school.


You people are bat shit .