Regretting private high school investment because of colleges want more public school graduates

[Anonymous]

Per capita is completely irrelevant in the context of this discussion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Per capita is completely irrelevant in the context of this discussion.

Completely relevant.
Every private schools discussion is based on per capita to prove this or that school is better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We were never at private for admission to college.

It was about laying the groundwork for success in college and life.

Public education is a shambles. It’s terrible what has happened.

What's the point to get a "good" high school education if you end up at a not-so-good college?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We were never at private for admission to college.

It was about laying the groundwork for success in college and life.

Public education is a shambles. It’s terrible what has happened.

What's the point to get a "good" high school education if you end up at a not-so-good college?

This! + 1
The times I have brought this up on DCUM, I have been attacked and labeled entitled and elitist!
Everyone says they are not sending their kids to private schools for better college matriculations but they are doing it because it is "the best fit for the kid".

OK. Let's assume this is true. So then what exactly does "best fit" mean?

I am assuming "best fit" means an environment where your kid can flourish, be happy, develop a love of learning and do well academically. So if the school is truly a good fit, then it should achieve these goals. And if those goals are achieved, then your kid should be a good candidate for a good college. If he isn't then something went off along the way and the private school was not a good fit. Unfortunately most people who spend over $500K on a private school education don't want to admit that and then they'll say they were never in it for good college outcomes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We were never at private for admission to college.

It was about laying the groundwork for success in college and life.

Public education is a shambles. It’s terrible what has happened.

What's the point to get a "good" high school education if you end up at a not-so-good college?

This! + 1
The times I have brought this up on DCUM, I have been attacked and labeled entitled and elitist!
Everyone says they are not sending their kids to private schools for better college matriculations but they are doing it because it is "the best fit for the kid".

OK. Let's assume this is true. So then what exactly does "best fit" mean?

I am assuming "best fit" means an environment where your kid can flourish, be happy, develop a love of learning and do well academically. So if the school is truly a good fit, then it should achieve these goals. And if those goals are achieved, then your kid should be a good candidate for a good college. If he isn't then something went off along the way and the private school was not a good fit. Unfortunately most people who spend over $500K on a private school education don't want to admit that and then they'll say they were never in it for good college outcomes.

What is there to admit? Most of the students in private schools are there for the HS or K-12 experience and they do move on to good colleges.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Per capita is completely irrelevant in the context of this discussion.

Completely relevant.
Every private schools discussion is based on per capita to prove this or that school is better.

Applicant X (private school) and Applicant Y (public school) are both legacies at the same HYP school. Their stats, extracurriculars, socioeconomic profiles, etc. are exactly the same.

How is any "per capita" difference relevant to whether X or Y has a better chance of being admitted?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Been told by our college counselor that this year colleges are turning away from selecting most private high school kids because of their privileged education. That you now have a better chance coming from a public high school with good grades and top scores and activities. There’s no advantage anymore paying more money for private. None at all.

So for those of you looking to go private, don’t waste your money. Your private school kid, despite top gpa and test scores, will probably will be bumped in favor of someone from a good public school.

Regrets, regrets, regrets…

Maybe you need this reminder (I did): it’s not where they go to college it’s what they do when they get there that matters. Look around you, haven’t you noticed that many of the state school kids are doing just as well if not better than the Ivie kids? It’s not where you go to school that matters. It’s who you are. It’s how hard you’re willing to work.

We sent our kids to private because we had a disappointing experience at public school, especially during COVID. Once in private, our kids blossomed and have continued to grow in ways we never thought possible. They may not go to T20 colleges, but it has still been the best investment I’ve made as a parent. They are kind and thoughtful, confident and hard working - I owe so much to the private school that helped us raise them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Been told by our college counselor that this year colleges are turning away from selecting most private high school kids because of their privileged education. That you now have a better chance coming from a public high school with good grades and top scores and activities. There’s no advantage anymore paying more money for private. None at all.

So for those of you looking to go private, don’t waste your money. Your private school kid, despite top gpa and test scores, will probably will be bumped in favor of someone from a good public school.

Regrets, regrets, regrets…

Not true in our case. The Cathedral school graduates this year did phenomenal in college admissions. Sounds like many other privates in the area did as well.

I don’t think this is true. College matriculation at most of the privates I know are incredible this year. Better than in the past few years, actually.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am assuming "best fit" means an environment where your kid can flourish, be happy, develop a love of learning and do well academically. So if the school is truly a good fit, then it should achieve these goals. And if those goals are achieved, then your kid should be a good candidate for a good college. If he isn't then something went off along the way and the private school was not a good fit.

So many logical holes here.

[Anonymous]

Entire forum is obnoxious. There is a college out there for everyone who wants to go regardless of where you spent your K-12 years. Even homeschool kids get into colleges they choose. As such, check your privilege and obnoxious worries. There are more important things going on in the world.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is a college out there for everyone who wants to go regardless of where you spent your K-12 years.

But what about ROI?!??? Our kids are investments!!!!11!1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Per capita is completely irrelevant in the context of this discussion.

Completely relevant.
Every private schools discussion is based on per capita to prove this or that school is better.

Applicant X (private school) and Applicant Y (public school) are both legacies at the same HYP school. Their stats, extracurriculars, socioeconomic profiles, etc. are exactly the same.

How is any "per capita" difference relevant to whether X or Y has a better chance of being admitted?

The small private school will have a de facto ceiling on HYP admits, legacy and non-legacy alike. The small private will both per capita and, likely in real terms, have more legacies. The small private will have both per capita, and possibly in real terms (certainly for the rich kid sports), more recruitable athletes. And the small private will have, both per capita and in real terms, more VIPs.

What does this mean? Being a top stats legacy (non-VIP, non-athlete) from the public is much more desirable than having that status from the private, and the kid is more likely to get in. There is far less competition for the, say, maximum of 4 Harvard slots — one of which will go to an athlete, one to a VIP, one to a first-gen type, and 1 to the top stats legacy (or none, if the VIP type is a legacy to begin with, or if a recruited athlete is also first gen). The public school will have far less likelihood of VIPs, far less likelihood of fencing recruits etc.

Per capita makes a difference for legacy — no question.

Of course, legacy is such a minor hook these days (without big money or VIP status), that the kid is not getting in either way — so what if the kid would have a 15% chance from the public but only 5-10% from the private.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Per capita is completely irrelevant in the context of this discussion.

Completely relevant.
Every private schools discussion is based on per capita to prove this or that school is better.

Applicant X (private school) and Applicant Y (public school) are both legacies at the same HYP school. Their stats, extracurriculars, socioeconomic profiles, etc. are exactly the same.

How is any "per capita" difference relevant to whether X or Y has a better chance of being admitted?

The small private school will have a de facto ceiling on HYP admits, legacy and non-legacy alike. The small private will both per capita and, likely in real terms, have more legacies. The small private will have both per capita, and possibly in real terms (certainly for the rich kid sports), more recruitable athletes. And the small private will have, both per capita and in real terms, more VIPs.

What does this mean? Being a top stats legacy (non-VIP, non-athlete) from the public is much more desirable than having that status from the private, and the kid is more likely to get in. There is far less competition for the, say, maximum of 4 Harvard slots — one of which will go to an athlete, one to a VIP, one to a first-gen type, and 1 to the top stats legacy (or none, if the VIP type is a legacy to begin with, or if a recruited athlete is also first gen). The public school will have far less likelihood of VIPs, far less likelihood of fencing recruits etc.

Per capita makes a difference for legacy — no question.

Of course, legacy is such a minor hook these days (without big money or VIP status), that the kid is not getting in either way — so what if the kid would have a 15% chance from the public but only 5-10% from the private.

Blah Blah Blah Obnoxious.

Happy Mother's Day to all the Mom's impacted by the federal layoffs. To all Mom's living in fear from ICE or living abroad in Palestine...I stand in solidarity with you!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Per capita is completely irrelevant in the context of this discussion.

Completely relevant.
Every private schools discussion is based on per capita to prove this or that school is better.

Applicant X (private school) and Applicant Y (public school) are both legacies at the same HYP school. Their stats, extracurriculars, socioeconomic profiles, etc. are exactly the same.

How is any "per capita" difference relevant to whether X or Y has a better chance of being admitted?

The small private school will have a de facto ceiling on HYP admits, legacy and non-legacy alike. The small private will both per capita and, likely in real terms, have more legacies. The small private will have both per capita, and possibly in real terms (certainly for the rich kid sports), more recruitable athletes. And the small private will have, both per capita and in real terms, more VIPs.

What does this mean? Being a top stats legacy (non-VIP, non-athlete) from the public is much more desirable than having that status from the private, and the kid is more likely to get in. There is far less competition for the, say, maximum of 4 Harvard slots — one of which will go to an athlete, one to a VIP, one to a first-gen type, and 1 to the top stats legacy (or none, if the VIP type is a legacy to begin with, or if a recruited athlete is also first gen). The public school will have far less likelihood of VIPs, far less likelihood of fencing recruits etc.

Per capita makes a difference for legacy — no question.

Of course, legacy is such a minor hook these days (without big money or VIP status), that the kid is not getting in either way — so what if the kid would have a 15% chance from the public but only 5-10% from the private.

Blah Blah Blah Obnoxious.

Happy Mother's Day to all the Mom's impacted by the federal layoffs. To all Mom's living in fear from ICE or living abroad in Palestine...I stand in solidarity with you!

I suppose one way to hide from ICE is by posting in the wrong thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Been told by our college counselor that this year colleges are turning away from selecting most private high school kids because of their privileged education. That you now have a better chance coming from a public high school with good grades and top scores and activities. There’s no advantage anymore paying more money for private. None at all.

So for those of you looking to go private, don’t waste your money. Your private school kid, despite top gpa and test scores, will probably will be bumped in favor of someone from a good public school.

Regrets, regrets, regrets…

Get a better counselor. This is not true int he least for this year or next year. It was for three years ago. World has changed.