College Acceptance/Matriculation Stats: NCS/STA, Holton/Landon

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:But as a RULE, for example, my firm will not even look at an associate applicant that is not from a tier 1 school. This is the norm.

Isn't that law school rather than undergrad, though? That's certainly the case at DH's law firm.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I agree with 14:36 - law school name and prestige is extremely important for certain legal careers.

I have an Ivy degree and, as a rule, tend not to hire recent college grads from Ivies. My general experience in NYC and WDC has been that grads from state universities and small liberal arts colleges outside the "chosen" list tend to be harder workers and good team players. If someone is going to be in an entry position for only a year or so, I want them giving their best, not biding time for a more prestigious assignment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are these numbers a surprise? You are looking at some of the top high schools in the country. They should be sending 75%+ of the graduates to top schools. Each of these High Schools is highly selective [note: pedigree may be the selected factor for some students - and this same factor may be used for college admission]

If these schools were not sending a high percentage of every class to the top schools I would wonder what was wrong - especially after spending ~$28K a year on tuition.

OP here. For what it's worth (and I've seen the matriculation lists for each of these four schools): If you extend the acceptances to the top 60 schools (both US News lists: National Universities and Liberal Arts Colleges), then the entire 2008 class (2009 class for Landon) for each school (save for a handful of kids) goes to these 120 top schools. That would include, for example, GW, UMD, and Syracuse, but not include SMU, Virginia Tech, and American University. If there are 2400 4-year colleges, the top 120 is the top 5%. Getting 90%+ of your graduating class into schools that rank in the top 5% is impressive, but you're misguided if you think pedigree is a factor. These are smart, driven kids, most with terrific GPAs and high SAT scores, although a lot of the credit should go to these schools and their extraordinary teachers. While the class composition at these schools is to some degree self-selective, parents are enrolling their kids there for good reason. This is not to say that you cannot get a great education at other private or public schools, but rather that if you attend one of these four, odds are good that you will matriculate at a top-ranked college or university.

I'm sorry, but yes, "pedigree is a factor." This is not to say that these aren't smart kids with great teachers-- not in any way knocking these schools. But all things being equal-- smart kid, great teachers held constant-- the kid whose mom or dad went to Harvard has a substantially higer chance of getting into Harvard than the kid whose folks went to NOVA. And a higher percentage of NCS/STA parents went to Harvard (or Yale, or Stanford, etc) than parents at most other schools.

How much of an edge does being a legacy give a child? One Princeton study suggested that the advantage is equal to an SAT score boost of 160 points, on average, in terms of admissions impact. Or read this 2003 WSJ piece to get a flavor (it's about Groton, but same deal). http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/Polk_Groton_Grads.htm

Again, this isn't to knock the schools OP mentions. But if you're choosing schools based on exmissions, factor this in: your child, if a double or triple legacy, has an advantage over kids who aren;t legacies; and your child, if not a legacy, may not fare so well at these top schools as legacy kids.

[Anonymous]

I have an Ivy degree and, as a rule, tend not to hire recent college grads from Ivies. My general experience in NYC and WDC has been that grads from state universities and small liberal arts colleges outside the "chosen" list tend to be harder workers and good team players. If someone is going to be in an entry position for only a year or so, I want them giving their best, not biding time for a more prestigious assignment.

ITA, in my experience too. I used to be at the Justice Dept., not a BigLaw firm, but the principle is the same. Whew, it felt good to finally say that for the first time on an anonymous forum.

Back on the topic at hand, for these stats to really, really mean something to me, I'd need to see a third column showing the correlation of legacies to the accepted candidates for each school.

[Anonymous]

Legacies are no longer valid when it comes to the top colleges swimming in money. Lots of studies out there and a really good article by Ben Stein about a year or so ago as to this change. Used to be that the formula alum+money=child acceptance. No longer!

Can't tell you how many parents I know from Ivy schools with kids in top schools here who also contribute mega-bucks are now angry that their children didn't get in to their schools. Huge uproar at Dartmouth about 3 years ago with almost no legacies getting in. Jokes at reunions at several Ivies about how if it were to be done again, none of the grads would get in.

Dartmouth's former admissions director did an interview in their alum magazine and says that parent pedigrees really no longer count for much. When it comes to college, it's all about the kid.

My own brother, who graduated top of his class at Yale and Yale Law and gave lots of money, managing partner of a major law firm here could not get his son into Yale. Son was #2 at Landon academically, almost perfect SATs and won several sports and academic awards. Yale didn't care.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Class of 2008 Stats:

National Cathedral School: 24% of graduating class attending Ivy League schools; 68% of class (51 out of 75) attending "Top 25 Colleges."
St. Albans: 24% to Ivy League; 59% (45 out of 76) to Top 25 Colleges.
Holton-Arms: 22% to Ivy League; 49% (38 out of 78) to Top 25 Colleges.
Landon: 10% to Ivy League; 26% (21 out of 81) to Top 25 Colleges.

"Top 25 Colleges" refers to 2010 US News College Guide, and includes both "Top 25 National Universities" and "Top 25 Liberal Arts Colleges."

I found the data from a friend's NCS and St. Albans alumni magazines; and from the Holton and Landon websites. These four single-sex schools have impressive exmission records!

Sorry, Landon stats were for the 2009 class

These numbers can be deceptive based on legacies and athletics. If an athlete gets through these 4 schools with decent grades plus other EC's then it is likely the student will be able to perform in both venues in college. The college isn't going to lose the athletic recruit due to academic difficulties down the road.

[Anonymous]

I don't understand. Here is a question for all the people who are questioning these stats (pointing out individual exceptions, possible reasons for a slight skew in some stats, flaws in data, etc): Are you ...

(1) just poking at the particular numbers cited by OP,
(2) trying to argue that these schools were not really very successful at placing students at top colleges,
(3) trying to argue that these schools aren't good schools, or
(4) something else?

I see a lot of picking and prodding, but hardly anyone suggesting any conclusions.

[Anonymous]

PP, why do you think your nephew didn't get into Yale? What does your brother think? Where did he wind up going?

[Anonymous]

PP here with nephew turned down by Yale. Had nothing to do with academics, etc. Thought was that diversity is really big now with schools needing to fill quotas. He ended up going to Duke (multiple acceptances) and loving it.

Brother furious and slammed his checkbook shut.

Even bigger problems at Dartmouth. Hubbie is alum and hearing all kinds of stories from classmates with their kids all being turned down. One friend was 3-generation legacy and his daughter was turned down with impeccable credentials. Huge firestorm over the Big Green admission policies with lots of alums cutting ties and pulling money.

Nothing is a sure bet anymore with a great increase in applications and more kids off to college than in earlier years. Plus, when you consider the Ivies, most of them don't have to worry about money. This means that many kids from less affluent backgrounds are applying and getting in because they are receiving the financial aid they need. Harvard has a new financial aid policy which other Ivies will follow - means even fewer kids from legacies will get in.

[Anonymous]

PP thanks, glad your nephew is happy and you sound very informed. What is considered "diverse" now? What will be diverse in 10, 20 years from now?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PP here with nephew turned down by Yale. Had nothing to do with academics, etc. Thought was that diversity is really big now with schools needing to fill quotas. He ended up going to Duke (multiple acceptances) and loving it.

Brother furious and slammed his checkbook shut.

Even bigger problems at Dartmouth. Hubbie is alum and hearing all kinds of stories from classmates with their kids all being turned down. One friend was 3-generation legacy and his daughter was turned down with impeccable credentials. Huge firestorm over the Big Green admission policies with lots of alums cutting ties and pulling money.

Nothing is a sure bet anymore with a great increase in applications and more kids off to college than in earlier years. Plus, when you consider the Ivies, most of them don't have to worry about money. This means that many kids from less affluent backgrounds are applying and getting in because they are receiving the financial aid they need. Harvard has a new financial aid policy which other Ivies will follow - means even fewer kids from legacies will get in.

OMG, kids from less affluent backgrounds are being admitted? Ghastly.

[Anonymous]

These are just the trends. Much as years ago, the Ivies were full of WASP types. Schools are going much more international now - they want a variety of people from a variety of backgrounds who will bring something to the table and enhance the learning experience for all.

Who knows what the future will bring? SATs are on their way out - just a matter of a couple years where they won't be included anymore given their direct tie to higher socio-economic backgrounds and not indicative of how well someone will do at their college.

Essentially, if the college has real money, they have the freedom to do whatever they want and pick from a larger pool. Schools that have to count their dollars will have a smaller pool of applicants.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Class of 2008 Stats:

National Cathedral School: 24% of graduating class attending Ivy League schools; 68% of class (51 out of 75) attending "Top 25 Colleges."
St. Albans: 24% to Ivy League; 59% (45 out of 76) to Top 25 Colleges.
Holton-Arms: 22% to Ivy League; 49% (38 out of 78) to Top 25 Colleges.
Landon: 10% to Ivy League; 26% (21 out of 81) to Top 25 Colleges.

"Top 25 Colleges" refers to 2010 US News College Guide, and includes both "Top 25 National Universities" and "Top 25 Liberal Arts Colleges."

I found the data from a friend's NCS and St. Albans alumni magazines; and from the Holton and Landon websites. These four single-sex schools have impressive exmission records!

These are rather impressive percentages. My question is how many children going to Ivies do you think have parents who are alumnae? I don't ask to be skeptical but are seriously trying to gauge the chances for a child like mine where neither parent is an Ivy alum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP here with nephew turned down by Yale. Had nothing to do with academics, etc. Thought was that diversity is really big now with schools needing to fill quotas. He ended up going to Duke (multiple acceptances) and loving it.

Brother furious and slammed his checkbook shut.

Even bigger problems at Dartmouth. Hubbie is alum and hearing all kinds of stories from classmates with their kids all being turned down. One friend was 3-generation legacy and his daughter was turned down with impeccable credentials. Huge firestorm over the Big Green admission policies with lots of alums cutting ties and pulling money.

Nothing is a sure bet anymore with a great increase in applications and more kids off to college than in earlier years. Plus, when you consider the Ivies, most of them don't have to worry about money. This means that many kids from less affluent backgrounds are applying and getting in because they are receiving the financial aid they need. Harvard has a new financial aid policy which other Ivies will follow - means even fewer kids from legacies will get in.

OMG, kids from less affluent backgrounds are being admitted? Ghastly.

My kids believe there is no chance for an Ivy unless legacy, do nothing but study and plan every action to get a resume [no participation in demanding sports or EC's unless WILL do it in college], well-rounded athletic recruit . Why do you all think crew is popular? monotonous conditioning and sport - mental vacation like running. no slams since it comes from participants ..... would not do it but for college admissions.

[Anonymous]

The Ivies don't give sports scholarships. Other than football, there are handful of prestigious sports in which they like to have talented students. Those would be crew, fencing and squash. Also equestian, lacrosse and polo to a certain degree. Very few play these sports and it's a way to get noticed and to differentiate yourself from the other applicants.

As for kids of non-legacy and their chances of getting in - the percentages are much better now than in previous years. The prestigious colleges used to list how many legacies they admitted but no longer. It doesn't make them look good or competitive.