Big College Admissions Year at St. Albans

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:STA early admits so far: 4 to Harvard, 4 to Yale. One of the 8 a recruited athlete (Lacrosse player).

Impressive. What's the word on non H/Y/P early admits this year?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My BFF was a legacy admit to Harvard, graduated summa cum laude who interviews for Harvard in a huge east coast city and even she says if you are a legacy, that's probably what got you admitted.

But if you are a legacy who is in the top 1-2% of your class at a great school, have all 5s on your APs, and are a National Merit Scholarship Semifinalist, and if non-legacy kids who have that profile also get in to the Ivies, and if you get into great schools at which you are not a legacy as well as the school at which you are a legacy, it's fair to conclude that the legacy status may not have been the determinative factor.

I get that legacy status is important -- the research is indisputable -- but at the same time, it's also reasonable to conclude that (a) you can't assume for any single student that legacy status was determinative if they have the objective qualifications of other successful non-legacy admits; and (b) the legacy pool appears to be, on the average, quite strong academically (we all know smart folks that married other smart folks and have academically gifted kids).

All I'm trying to say is that at the individual level, not the aggregate level, when we're talking the independent schools in this area, the "legacy" applicant might be one of the 4-5 students with the strongest objective academic credentials in the class. My point is emphasizing this is both to not devalue a nice accomplishment from a hard-working high achieving kid, but also to not have people think that the legacy status is a golden ticket, at least in this very competitive area. (Now sports. . . That's kind of a golden ticket! :wink

[Anonymous]

Any word on how the non-genius kids did on early admits? Genius kids will do well whether at STA or anywhere else. The real test is how the non-genius kids place . . .

[Anonymous]

What would be really helpful is for some STA person to post a full list of college choices from last year's class. That way, we can get a sense of how the whole class did. No names of course, just colleges. TIA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
But if you are a legacy who is in the top 1-2% of your class at a great school, have all 5s on your APs, and are a National Merit Scholarship Semifinalist, and if non-legacy kids who have that profile also get in to the Ivies, and if you get into great schools at which you are not a legacy as well as the school at which you are a legacy, it's fair to conclude that the legacy status may not have been the determinative factor.

I get that legacy status is important -- the research is indisputable -- but at the same time, it's also reasonable to conclude that (a) you can't assume for any single student that legacy status was determinative if they have the objective qualifications of other successful non-legacy admits; and (b) the legacy pool appears to be, on the average, quite strong academically (we all know smart folks that married other smart folks and have academically gifted kids).

All I'm trying to say is that at the individual level, not the aggregate level, when we're talking the independent schools in this area, the "legacy" applicant might be one of the 4-5 students with the strongest objective academic credentials in the class. My point is emphasizing this is both to not devalue a nice accomplishment from a hard-working high achieving kid, but also to not have people think that the legacy status is a golden ticket, at least in this very competitive area. (Now sports. . . That's kind of a golden ticket! :wink

You are assuming that legacy admits are somehow "lesser" than the non-legacy admits which for the Ivies simply isn't true. Legacy admits in general are on par with the general admits which looking at their background, parent went to ivy, should be expected. It's simply a matter of numbers: the legacies admit rates are 1 in 3 while non legacies are 1 in 10. Huge difference. Lots of equally qualified students are rejected so generally, the legacy status is probably what got you in. This does not take away from their achievements. Legacies also tend to do very well while in college.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
But if you are a legacy who is in the top 1-2% of your class at a great school, have all 5s on your APs, and are a National Merit Scholarship Semifinalist, and if non-legacy kids who have that profile also get in to the Ivies, and if you get into great schools at which you are not a legacy as well as the school at which you are a legacy, it's fair to conclude that the legacy status may not have been the determinative factor.

I get that legacy status is important -- the research is indisputable -- but at the same time, it's also reasonable to conclude that (a) you can't assume for any single student that legacy status was determinative if they have the objective qualifications of other successful non-legacy admits; and (b) the legacy pool appears to be, on the average, quite strong academically (we all know smart folks that married other smart folks and have academically gifted kids).

All I'm trying to say is that at the individual level, not the aggregate level, when we're talking the independent schools in this area, the "legacy" applicant might be one of the 4-5 students with the strongest objective academic credentials in the class. My point is emphasizing this is both to not devalue a nice accomplishment from a hard-working high achieving kid, but also to not have people think that the legacy status is a golden ticket, at least in this very competitive area. (Now sports. . . That's kind of a golden ticket! :wink

You are assuming that legacy admits are somehow "lesser" than the non-legacy admits which for the Ivies simply isn't true. Legacy admits in general are on par with the general admits which looking at their background, parent went to ivy, should be expected. It's simply a matter of numbers: the legacies admit rates are 1 in 3 while non legacies are 1 in 10. Huge difference. Lots of equally qualified students are rejected so generally, the legacy status is probably what got you in. This does not take away from their achievements. Legacies also tend to do very well while in college.

Yes, I understand your point. I am still trying to say that, having seen "legacy" admits who get into their Ivy legacy school and then Stanford and a bunch of other Ivies, I actually don't think your conclusion of "probably what got you in" is fully justified -- it seems a bit overstated. The 10% vs. 33% acceptance rate is obviously highly significant, but to have a better sense at a macro level on the "just numbers" approach, wouldn't we need to see the profile of the legacy applicant pool vs. the non-legacy applicant pool?

Anyway, my bottom line point is aimed at those who do seem to suggest that those who got in early but have legacy status are lesser.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What would be really helpful is for some STA person to post a full list of college choices from last year's class. That way, we can get a sense of how the whole class did. No names of course, just colleges. TIA.

Do a search, someone did post that last year. I think in this very thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What would be really helpful is for some STA person to post a full list of college choices from last year's class. That way, we can get a sense of how the whole class did. No names of course, just colleges. TIA.

Do a search, someone did post that last year. I think in this very thread.

Page 14 of this thread. That was an exceptional year even for STA which does well in general in college admissions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
But if you are a legacy who is in the top 1-2% of your class at a great school, have all 5s on your APs, and are a National Merit Scholarship Semifinalist, and if non-legacy kids who have that profile also get in to the Ivies, and if you get into great schools at which you are not a legacy as well as the school at which you are a legacy, it's fair to conclude that the legacy status may not have been the determinative factor.

I get that legacy status is important -- the research is indisputable -- but at the same time, it's also reasonable to conclude that (a) you can't assume for any single student that legacy status was determinative if they have the objective qualifications of other successful non-legacy admits; and (b) the legacy pool appears to be, on the average, quite strong academically (we all know smart folks that married other smart folks and have academically gifted kids).

All I'm trying to say is that at the individual level, not the aggregate level, when we're talking the independent schools in this area, the "legacy" applicant might be one of the 4-5 students with the strongest objective academic credentials in the class. My point is emphasizing this is both to not devalue a nice accomplishment from a hard-working high achieving kid, but also to not have people think that the legacy status is a golden ticket, at least in this very competitive area. (Now sports. . . That's kind of a golden ticket! :wink

You are assuming that legacy admits are somehow "lesser" than the non-legacy admits which for the Ivies simply isn't true. Legacy admits in general are on par with the general admits which looking at their background, parent went to ivy, should be expected. It's simply a matter of numbers: the legacies admit rates are 1 in 3 while non legacies are 1 in 10. Huge difference. Lots of equally qualified students are rejected so generally, the legacy status is probably what got you in. This does not take away from their achievements. Legacies also tend to do very well while in college.

Yes, I understand your point. I am still trying to say that, having seen "legacy" admits who get into their Ivy legacy school and then Stanford and a bunch of other Ivies, I actually don't think your conclusion of "probably what got you in" is fully justified -- it seems a bit overstated. The 10% vs. 33% acceptance rate is obviously highly significant, but to have a better sense at a macro level on the "just numbers" approach, wouldn't we need to see the profile of the legacy applicant pool vs. the non-legacy applicant pool?

Anyway, my bottom line point is aimed at those who do seem to suggest that those who got in early but have legacy status are lesser.

"Assume it's the legacy status that got them in" is what I've been told by my BFF who does know the applicant pool in her very large east coast city. This does not take away anything. All admitted students are very impressive, legacy and not

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What would be really helpful is for some STA person to post a full list of college choices from last year's class. That way, we can get a sense of how the whole class did. No names of course, just colleges. TIA.

Do a search, someone did post that last year. I think in this very thread.

Page 14 of this thread. That was an exceptional year even for STA which does well in general in college admissions.

Many thanks. Good find.

[Anonymous]

How did Sidwell do this year? I know that STA's senior class is considerably smaller than Sidwell's, so I'd imagine that Sidwell has even more kids admitted to top schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Any word on how the non-genius kids did on early admits? Genius kids will do well whether at STA or anywhere else. The real test is how the non-genius kids place . . .

You can only apply Early Decision to one school, although you can apply Early Action to several schools (Yale is an EA school for example). ED tends to be a sort of Hail Mary pass for schools you really, really want but have low chances of getting into. EA is good for lining up some safety schools by December, unless of course that EA is Yale.... So lots of kids who didn't get in their first choice via the EA or ED cut may have been accepted EA by a safety school by now, but they're probably not running through the halls screaming about it, instead they're waiting for Regular Decisions in March or April to see how well they do in that round.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Any word on how the non-genius kids did on early admits? Genius kids will do well whether at STA or anywhere else. The real test is how the non-genius kids place . . .

You can only apply Early Decision to one school, although you can apply Early Action to several schools (Yale is an EA school for example). ED tends to be a sort of Hail Mary pass for schools you really, really want but have low chances of getting into. EA is good for lining up some safety schools by December, unless of course that EA is Yale.... So lots of kids who didn't get in their first choice via the EA or ED cut may have been accepted EA by a safety school by now, but they're probably not running through the halls screaming about it, instead they're waiting for Regular Decisions in March or April to see how well they do in that round.

Actually, a few schools such as Harvard and Yale are SCEA: Single-Choice Early Action. They do not allow you to apply to another school early-action.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How did Sidwell do this year? I know that STA's senior class is considerably smaller than Sidwell's, so I'd imagine that Sidwell has even more kids admitted to top schools.

They had a great year for National Merit Semifinalists -- something like 16-17? -- so I'd imagine they did quite well, but Sidwell doesn't post matriculation lists and the ethos seems to be to not make a big deal publicly (and kudos to them, although it throws a wrench in the old DCUM gears).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How did Sidwell do this year? I know that STA's senior class is considerably smaller than Sidwell's, so I'd imagine that Sidwell has even more kids admitted to top schools.

They had a great year for National Merit Semifinalists -- something like 16-17? -- so I'd imagine they did quite well, but Sidwell doesn't post matriculation lists and the ethos seems to be to not make a big deal publicly (and kudos to them, although it throws a wrench in the old DCUM gears).

I don't believe StA makes early admits public either, they wait until late Spring, so the info here on StA is by word of mouth. I'm aware of a few early Sidwell results, good and not so much, but I'm in the camp of not wanting to post identifying info on students.