Class of '26 Instagram College Decisions

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Elementary school G&T was a joke. I'm glad they got rid of it, particularly in neighborhoods that had good Gen Ed programs. One can make a better case for it at middle school, at which point it is easier to distinguish the truly "gifted."

My child who is now in HS was accepted to top G&T programs but we turned them down several times to stay at our excellent neighborhood public school. We are very glad we did that.

great that it turned out to be a smart decision for your family.

very few of the kids were "gifted" - they were for the most part very smart or above average, with parents that generally cared about the school.

we were extremely happy with our citywide G&T school - until they made the changes. we were very involved with both our time and $$ - and so we really liked the program and disappointed they got rid of it.

our kids transitioned to private schools easily - one at a TT and one at a 2T and they both are doing very well. The public school prepared them very well.

I found that most G&T kids were not particularly gifted but many of the kids and the parents thought their kids were extra special because they were in G&T programs. My kids did various activities with kids in G&T programs and the kids and parents couldn't go 30 seconds without advertising where their kids went to school. I have no problem with the city eliminating these programs, and if they are kept, they should be populated by kids for whom zoned schools are not good - kids zoned for PS 6 or 87 or 9 or 199 shouldn't be taking up G&T seats when they have a great alternative.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Elementary school G&T was a joke. I'm glad they got rid of it, particularly in neighborhoods that had good Gen Ed programs. One can make a better case for it at middle school, at which point it is easier to distinguish the truly "gifted."

My child who is now in HS was accepted to top G&T programs but we turned them down several times to stay at our excellent neighborhood public school. We are very glad we did that.

great that it turned out to be a smart decision for your family.

very few of the kids were "gifted" - they were for the most part very smart or above average, with parents that generally cared about the school.

we were extremely happy with our citywide G&T school - until they made the changes. we were very involved with both our time and $$ - and so we really liked the program and disappointed they got rid of it.

our kids transitioned to private schools easily - one at a TT and one at a 2T and they both are doing very well. The public school prepared them very well.

I found that most G&T kids were not particularly gifted but many of the kids and the parents thought their kids were extra special because they were in G&T programs. My kids did various activities with kids in G&T programs and the kids and parents couldn't go 30 seconds without advertising where their kids went to school. I have no problem with the city eliminating these programs, and if they are kept, they should be populated by kids for whom zoned schools are not good - kids zoned for PS 6 or 87 or 9 or 199 shouldn't be taking up G&T seats when they have a great alternative.

there is definitely some of the parents who thought their kids were special because they aced a test at 4 years old. i found that more among parents at LL versus Nest/Anderson. but it's definitely the case.

That being said, in my experience the teaching was generally excellent at the citywide school our kids attended. The test scores were among the best in the city as well - so the learning was broad based. the extras the PTA paid for helped for enrichment as well.

The city has moved to remove these types of schools - it's unfortunate in our mind but thankfully we are able to afford private school and don't have to deal with it anymore. I am just in general a fan of the specialized schools and G&T in some form I think
it helps educate kids and also keeps families in nyc versus leaving for the burbs.

are your kids still in public school now? how has the experience been if so? would you consider private school?

[Anonymous]

I love the posts about how it’s not a meritocracy. I do some work with admissions. There are so many people applying. A bunch of kids have no business applying, sure. But many are incredibly talented in many areas. I love how some parents bemoan that their little Suzie is in the top of her class but surely one of her less talented classmates will take her spot at Yale. Give me a break. Parents need to get a grip. Being a successful student also means being good in many dimensions including athletics and other extracurriculars. Once you meet a bar of academic success then it’s about the rest of what you’ve done and how you work with other people. Very rarely are any of these schools admitting people who should not be there or stole someone else’s spot.

For the record I was not a legacy at my HYP nor was I a recruited athlete. However I’ve seen many former athletes be very successful in what they chose to pursue because the skills athletics teach are valuable in the real world. Many of the kids who came from NYC TT schools in my class were incredibly bright and found college super easy relative to their high school. And legacies I saw were by and large incredibly smart and hustled HARD in different ways. Characterizing athletes as idiots and legacies as lazy is just a way people make themselves feel better that their kid just didn’t get lucky or was good enough.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I love the posts about how it’s not a meritocracy. I do some work with admissions. There are so many people applying. A bunch of kids have no business applying, sure. But many are incredibly talented in many areas. I love how some parents bemoan that their little Suzie is in the top of her class but surely one of her less talented classmates will take her spot at Yale. Give me a break. Parents need to get a grip. Being a successful student also means being good in many dimensions including athletics and other extracurriculars. Once you meet a bar of academic success then it’s about the rest of what you’ve done and how you work with other people. Very rarely are any of these schools admitting people who should not be there or stole someone else’s spot.

For the record I was not a legacy at my HYP nor was I a recruited athlete. However I’ve seen many former athletes be very successful in what they chose to pursue because the skills athletics teach are valuable in the real world. Many of the kids who came from NYC TT schools in my class were incredibly bright and found college super easy relative to their high school. And legacies I saw were by and large incredibly smart and hustled HARD in different ways. Characterizing athletes as idiots and legacies as lazy is just a way people make themselves feel better that their kid just didn’t get lucky or was good enough.

I’m a trin/harvard grad w/ legacy at both schools. I worked my butt off all through high school nearly to the point of nervous breakdown to try and ensure that I’d get into a good college. At Harvard, some friends and I compared admissions files, and I got to read the notes they put on them and the scores they give. The alum bump doesn’t work the way I think most people assume it does.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I love the posts about how it’s not a meritocracy. I do some work with admissions. There are so many people applying. A bunch of kids have no business applying, sure. But many are incredibly talented in many areas. I love how some parents bemoan that their little Suzie is in the top of her class but surely one of her less talented classmates will take her spot at Yale. Give me a break. Parents need to get a grip. Being a successful student also means being good in many dimensions including athletics and other extracurriculars. Once you meet a bar of academic success then it’s about the rest of what you’ve done and how you work with other people. Very rarely are any of these schools admitting people who should not be there or stole someone else’s spot.

For the record I was not a legacy at my HYP nor was I a recruited athlete. However I’ve seen many former athletes be very successful in what they chose to pursue because the skills athletics teach are valuable in the real world. Many of the kids who came from NYC TT schools in my class were incredibly bright and found college super easy relative to their high school. And legacies I saw were by and large incredibly smart and hustled HARD in different ways. Characterizing athletes as idiots and legacies as lazy is just a way people make themselves feel better that their kid just didn’t get lucky or was good enough.

The reason why I provided the link to Yale report is to illustrate that the point about lack of meritocracy doesn't just come from disgruntled parents. The report has been produced by Yale professors mandated by the Yale University. If they concluded that "...the current system of preferences for certain groups of applicants (including varsity athletes, legacies, and children of faculty, staff, and donors) distorts the admissions process by reducing the number of slots available to high-achieving applicants who do not fit into one of the favored categories...", I have no reason not to trust their judgment.

FWIW, HYP admission process from 15-20 years ago was very different from what it is now. I previously included some relevant stats. Admission rates went down, %s of legacies, donors and athletes went up. Unhooked college applicants these days face a much harder challenge than their unhooked parents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love the posts about how it’s not a meritocracy. I do some work with admissions. There are so many people applying. A bunch of kids have no business applying, sure. But many are incredibly talented in many areas. I love how some parents bemoan that their little Suzie is in the top of her class but surely one of her less talented classmates will take her spot at Yale. Give me a break. Parents need to get a grip. Being a successful student also means being good in many dimensions including athletics and other extracurriculars. Once you meet a bar of academic success then it’s about the rest of what you’ve done and how you work with other people. Very rarely are any of these schools admitting people who should not be there or stole someone else’s spot.

For the record I was not a legacy at my HYP nor was I a recruited athlete. However I’ve seen many former athletes be very successful in what they chose to pursue because the skills athletics teach are valuable in the real world. Many of the kids who came from NYC TT schools in my class were incredibly bright and found college super easy relative to their high school. And legacies I saw were by and large incredibly smart and hustled HARD in different ways. Characterizing athletes as idiots and legacies as lazy is just a way people make themselves feel better that their kid just didn’t get lucky or was good enough.

The reason why I provided the link to Yale report is to illustrate that the point about lack of meritocracy doesn't just come from disgruntled parents. The report has been produced by Yale professors mandated by the Yale University. If they concluded that "...the current system of preferences for certain groups of applicants (including varsity athletes, legacies, and children of faculty, staff, and donors) distorts the admissions process by reducing the number of slots available to high-achieving applicants who do not fit into one of the favored categories...", I have no reason not to trust their judgment.

FWIW, HYP admission process from 15-20 years ago was very different from what it is now. I previously included some relevant stats. Admission rates went down, %s of legacies, donors and athletes went up. Unhooked college applicants these days face a much harder challenge than their unhooked parents.

Yep. And the people who care if you can twirl a lax stick has gone down in the last 20 years outside of an admissions office. Boneheads who were recruited athletes with sub 1500 scores don’t have fixed income sales roles to fall back on, the jobs they could be mediocre in and get by have dried up. So no, don’t tell me that athletes have grit or character or other super special skills that academic admits lack.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love the posts about how it’s not a meritocracy. I do some work with admissions. There are so many people applying. A bunch of kids have no business applying, sure. But many are incredibly talented in many areas. I love how some parents bemoan that their little Suzie is in the top of her class but surely one of her less talented classmates will take her spot at Yale. Give me a break. Parents need to get a grip. Being a successful student also means being good in many dimensions including athletics and other extracurriculars. Once you meet a bar of academic success then it’s about the rest of what you’ve done and how you work with other people. Very rarely are any of these schools admitting people who should not be there or stole someone else’s spot.

For the record I was not a legacy at my HYP nor was I a recruited athlete. However I’ve seen many former athletes be very successful in what they chose to pursue because the skills athletics teach are valuable in the real world. Many of the kids who came from NYC TT schools in my class were incredibly bright and found college super easy relative to their high school. And legacies I saw were by and large incredibly smart and hustled HARD in different ways. Characterizing athletes as idiots and legacies as lazy is just a way people make themselves feel better that their kid just didn’t get lucky or was good enough.

The reason why I provided the link to Yale report is to illustrate that the point about lack of meritocracy doesn't just come from disgruntled parents. The report has been produced by Yale professors mandated by the Yale University. If they concluded that "...the current system of preferences for certain groups of applicants (including varsity athletes, legacies, and children of faculty, staff, and donors) distorts the admissions process by reducing the number of slots available to high-achieving applicants who do not fit into one of the favored categories...", I have no reason not to trust their judgment.

FWIW, HYP admission process from 15-20 years ago was very different from what it is now. I previously included some relevant stats. Admission rates went down, %s of legacies, donors and athletes went up. Unhooked college applicants these days face a much harder challenge than their unhooked parents.

Yep. And the people who care if you can twirl a lax stick has gone down in the last 20 years outside of an admissions office. Boneheads who were recruited athletes with sub 1500 scores don’t have fixed income sales roles to fall back on, the jobs they could be mediocre in and get by have dried up. So no, don’t tell me that athletes have grit or character or other super special skills that academic admits lack.

Agree. Athletic recruitment to the Ivy League is one of the dumbest concepts known to man. If we’re talking revenue sports in D1 programs, that makes sense in order to bring the university money. But that’s not the Ivy League, and certainly not applicable for almost every sport.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love the posts about how it’s not a meritocracy. I do some work with admissions. There are so many people applying. A bunch of kids have no business applying, sure. But many are incredibly talented in many areas. I love how some parents bemoan that their little Suzie is in the top of her class but surely one of her less talented classmates will take her spot at Yale. Give me a break. Parents need to get a grip. Being a successful student also means being good in many dimensions including athletics and other extracurriculars. Once you meet a bar of academic success then it’s about the rest of what you’ve done and how you work with other people. Very rarely are any of these schools admitting people who should not be there or stole someone else’s spot.

For the record I was not a legacy at my HYP nor was I a recruited athlete. However I’ve seen many former athletes be very successful in what they chose to pursue because the skills athletics teach are valuable in the real world. Many of the kids who came from NYC TT schools in my class were incredibly bright and found college super easy relative to their high school. And legacies I saw were by and large incredibly smart and hustled HARD in different ways. Characterizing athletes as idiots and legacies as lazy is just a way people make themselves feel better that their kid just didn’t get lucky or was good enough.

The reason why I provided the link to Yale report is to illustrate that the point about lack of meritocracy doesn't just come from disgruntled parents. The report has been produced by Yale professors mandated by the Yale University. If they concluded that "...the current system of preferences for certain groups of applicants (including varsity athletes, legacies, and children of faculty, staff, and donors) distorts the admissions process by reducing the number of slots available to high-achieving applicants who do not fit into one of the favored categories...", I have no reason not to trust their judgment.

FWIW, HYP admission process from 15-20 years ago was very different from what it is now. I previously included some relevant stats. Admission rates went down, %s of legacies, donors and athletes went up. Unhooked college applicants these days face a much harder challenge than their unhooked parents.

Yep. And the people who care if you can twirl a lax stick has gone down in the last 20 years outside of an admissions office. Boneheads who were recruited athletes with sub 1500 scores don’t have fixed income sales roles to fall back on, the jobs they could be mediocre in and get by have dried up. So no, don’t tell me that athletes have grit or character or other super special skills that academic admits lack.

Are you ok? Did a Princeton lax player hurt you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love the posts about how it’s not a meritocracy. I do some work with admissions. There are so many people applying. A bunch of kids have no business applying, sure. But many are incredibly talented in many areas. I love how some parents bemoan that their little Suzie is in the top of her class but surely one of her less talented classmates will take her spot at Yale. Give me a break. Parents need to get a grip. Being a successful student also means being good in many dimensions including athletics and other extracurriculars. Once you meet a bar of academic success then it’s about the rest of what you’ve done and how you work with other people. Very rarely are any of these schools admitting people who should not be there or stole someone else’s spot.

For the record I was not a legacy at my HYP nor was I a recruited athlete. However I’ve seen many former athletes be very successful in what they chose to pursue because the skills athletics teach are valuable in the real world. Many of the kids who came from NYC TT schools in my class were incredibly bright and found college super easy relative to their high school. And legacies I saw were by and large incredibly smart and hustled HARD in different ways. Characterizing athletes as idiots and legacies as lazy is just a way people make themselves feel better that their kid just didn’t get lucky or was good enough.

The reason why I provided the link to Yale report is to illustrate that the point about lack of meritocracy doesn't just come from disgruntled parents. The report has been produced by Yale professors mandated by the Yale University. If they concluded that "...the current system of preferences for certain groups of applicants (including varsity athletes, legacies, and children of faculty, staff, and donors) distorts the admissions process by reducing the number of slots available to high-achieving applicants who do not fit into one of the favored categories...", I have no reason not to trust their judgment.

FWIW, HYP admission process from 15-20 years ago was very different from what it is now. I previously included some relevant stats. Admission rates went down, %s of legacies, donors and athletes went up. Unhooked college applicants these days face a much harder challenge than their unhooked parents.

Yep. And the people who care if you can twirl a lax stick has gone down in the last 20 years outside of an admissions office. Boneheads who were recruited athletes with sub 1500 scores don’t have fixed income sales roles to fall back on, the jobs they could be mediocre in and get by have dried up. So no, don’t tell me that athletes have grit or character or other super special skills that academic admits lack.

Are you ok? Did a Princeton lax player hurt you?

No. I’d never let them detract from my P&L

[Anonymous]

I think Horace Mann had at least 17 U Chicago kids this year. Pretty impressive!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think Horace Mann had at least 17 U Chicago kids this year. Pretty impressive!

HM’s average for Chicago is about 20 kids per year (per their website - 61 over 2023-2025) so this year seems consistent. The next most popular destination is Cornell (33 for 2023-2025, or 11 per year).

[Anonymous]

We are so incredibly grateful for our TT private’s relationship with Chicago. After a HYP deferral, ED2 saved the day. DC couldn’t be more excited.

[Anonymous]

Brearley still killin' it. Don't want to go in circles with this discussion, but it's indeed performing remarkably wrt HYP and the rest of the ivies. I am sure it leans extremely wealthy and legacy-heavy, but it's just hard to imagine that that's the only factor that distinguishes it among other TTs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We are so incredibly grateful for our TT private’s relationship with Chicago. After a HYP deferral, ED2 saved the day. DC couldn’t be more excited.

Congratulations!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We are so incredibly grateful for our TT private’s relationship with Chicago. After a HYP deferral, ED2 saved the day. DC couldn’t be more excited.

Congratulations! Is she/he at HM? Do you know what they plan to major in?