Told we are waitlisted for our top choice school

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This process can become overly transactional. Between PSDs and consultants, families are sometimes pulled into strategies and signaling that feel disconnected from what really matters, the child. And families end up spending enormous amounts of money for guidance that doesn’t serve them well.

Agree with this. It definitely seems to not really be about the child and where they fit, but more about the transaction and where people (unrelated to the family) want the pieces to fall.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For OP - it seems kind of weird and unprofessional that your PSD would tell people that they recommended a specific child over yours.

Our PSD didn’t as that, I found out from someone else. But also not great to hear that.

I doubt this happened in the way you’re worried it did. These schools don’t operate on slots per preschool, just on overall slots.

You should keep your preschool director on your team and see if there’s a way to get into your second choice while pushing for a waitlist spot at the first choice without blowing up anyone’s relationships.

OP here:

I do not plan on blowing up any relationship or kicking my PSD off "my team." Not even in the slightest. I have talked to two sources about the situation we are in and it truly is the PSD and the admissions director in the other end. It all checks out. BUT myself and my husband made it very clear we plan on staying on the waitlist and we expect that our PSD will push to get our child a space at our favored school.

There are definitely many scenario that can happen. We do not even know for sure that our second choice is going to offer our child a spot, or do we know if our third choice will. We may have all waitlists.

We were just told from the beginning that our PSD was pushing for our child for this school and that our child was the number one choice up until yesterday, so we are trying to match up what happened with the sudden change.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"Game is played" it's private kindergarten, get over yourself; this is about whether or not your precious darling gets to do Artisanal Phonics and Hand-Pulled Arithmetic, it's nowhere near the stakes of an actual game.

WOW! You seem VERY bitter when it comes to private school admissions. Did you your precious darling not get accepted in to any schools? I just do not know why you are replying to a post that you obviously have many anger issues towards. But I guess some people are just bored with their lives and need someone to take it out on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For OP - it seems kind of weird and unprofessional that your PSD would tell people that they recommended a specific child over yours.

Our PSD didn’t as that, I found out from someone else. But also not great to hear that.

I doubt this happened in the way you’re worried it did. These schools don’t operate on slots per preschool, just on overall slots.

You should keep your preschool director on your team and see if there’s a way to get into your second choice while pushing for a waitlist spot at the first choice without blowing up anyone’s relationships.

OP here:

I do not plan on blowing up any relationship or kicking my PSD off "my team." Not even in the slightest. I have talked to two sources about the situation we are in and it truly is the PSD and the admissions director in the other end. It all checks out. BUT myself and my husband made it very clear we plan on staying on the waitlist and we expect that our PSD will push to get our child a space at our favored school.

There are definitely many scenario that can happen. We do not even know for sure that our second choice is going to offer our child a spot, or do we know if our third choice will. We may have all waitlists.

We were just told from the beginning that our PSD was pushing for our child for this school and that our child was the number one choice up until yesterday, so we are trying to match up what happened with the sudden change.

The word that comes to mind here is "entitlement". For some reason you think your child is entitled to a spot where you want them to go and that is just never true anywhere for anything. The top schools are all applied to by a LOT of families. They all are extremely selective. I know your kid is probably amazing. I know you probably put them in a specific nursury school so there would be a connection to help get them in. In the end there are a million reasons schools curate the classes they do. The admissions team is not your enemy. The PSD is not your enemy. By all means push. We should all fight for our kids, and I'm saying this thinking about my own expectations for tomorrow's results. I think its important that we fight for our children and the opportunities we want for them, AND operate from a place of gratitude and open mindedness instead of entitlement. All the best in your fight. I'm sure it is very frustrating.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This process can become overly transactional. Between PSDs and consultants, families are sometimes pulled into strategies and signaling that feel disconnected from what really matters, the child. And families end up spending enormous amounts of money for guidance that doesn’t serve them well.

Honestly, watching people go through this has made me cynical about the whole system: the culture of a school is defined to a large extent by the families who've been there since kindergarten, and that group is selected through a bunch of backchannel relationships and general skullduggery rather than an earnest desire to find a smart, kind, interesting set of kids to carry a school's traditions forward.

At least the IQ-test-based places like Hunter are going by *something* tangible about the kid, not "your daughter did a good job sorting those blocks and also her PSD was classmates with our admissions director at Bryn Mawr" or whatever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This process can become overly transactional. Between PSDs and consultants, families are sometimes pulled into strategies and signaling that feel disconnected from what really matters, the child. And families end up spending enormous amounts of money for guidance that doesn’t serve them well.

Honestly, watching people go through this has made me cynical about the whole system: the culture of a school is defined to a large extent by the families who've been there since kindergarten, and that group is selected through a bunch of backchannel relationships and general skullduggery rather than an earnest desire to find a smart, kind, interesting set of kids to carry a school's traditions forward.

At least the IQ-test-based places like Hunter are going by *something* tangible about the kid, not "your daughter did a good job sorting those blocks and also her PSD was classmates with our admissions director at Bryn Mawr" or whatever.

Fundraising requires legacy advantage otherwise no one going to donate money if their child has no chance of being admitted. In a way, it is paying it forwards. The core of a community is also dependent on how deep the relationships go (multiple generations).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This process can become overly transactional. Between PSDs and consultants, families are sometimes pulled into strategies and signaling that feel disconnected from what really matters, the child. And families end up spending enormous amounts of money for guidance that doesn’t serve them well.

Honestly, watching people go through this has made me cynical about the whole system: the culture of a school is defined to a large extent by the families who've been there since kindergarten, and that group is selected through a bunch of backchannel relationships and general skullduggery rather than an earnest desire to find a smart, kind, interesting set of kids to carry a school's traditions forward.

At least the IQ-test-based places like Hunter are going by *something* tangible about the kid, not "your daughter did a good job sorting those blocks and also her PSD was classmates with our admissions director at Bryn Mawr" or whatever.

If you think Hunter K is just IQ… I think you didn’t go through process at Hunter. They curate. 1000% I’m so sorry to all it’s frustrating! Should prepare everyone well for when college is equally enraging.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For OP - it seems kind of weird and unprofessional that your PSD would tell people that they recommended a specific child over yours.

Our PSD didn’t as that, I found out from someone else. But also not great to hear that.

I doubt this happened in the way you’re worried it did. These schools don’t operate on slots per preschool, just on overall slots.

You should keep your preschool director on your team and see if there’s a way to get into your second choice while pushing for a waitlist spot at the first choice without blowing up anyone’s relationships.

OP here:

I do not plan on blowing up any relationship or kicking my PSD off "my team." Not even in the slightest. I have talked to two sources about the situation we are in and it truly is the PSD and the admissions director in the other end. It all checks out. BUT myself and my husband made it very clear we plan on staying on the waitlist and we expect that our PSD will push to get our child a space at our favored school.

There are definitely many scenario that can happen. We do not even know for sure that our second choice is going to offer our child a spot, or do we know if our third choice will. We may have all waitlists.

We were just told from the beginning that our PSD was pushing for our child for this school and that our child was the number one choice up until yesterday, so we are trying to match up what happened with the sudden change.

The word that comes to mind here is "entitlement". For some reason you think your child is entitled to a spot where you want them to go and that is just never true anywhere for anything. The top schools are all applied to by a LOT of families. They all are extremely selective. I know your kid is probably amazing. I know you probably put them in a specific nursury school so there would be a connection to help get them in. In the end there are a million reasons schools curate the classes they do. The admissions team is not your enemy. The PSD is not your enemy. By all means push. We should all fight for our kids, and I'm saying this thinking about my own expectations for tomorrow's results. I think its important that we fight for our children and the opportunities we want for them, AND operate from a place of gratitude and open mindedness instead of entitlement. All the best in your fight. I'm sure it is very frustrating.

I don’t believe wanting a fair, transparent process equals entitlement. No one is saying a child is owed a spot. What’s hard is being encouraged to invest emotionally, follow specific guidance, and signal commitment and then being told that questioning the outcome or the process itself reflects a lack of gratitude or resilience. Families can respect how selective schools are and still feel disappointed, confused, or frustrated by how opaque and transactional the system has become. I agree that the admissions team and PSD aren’t enemies. But that doesn’t mean the process is beyond critique. Gratitude shouldn’t require silence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Fundraising requires legacy advantage otherwise no one going to donate money if their child has no chance of being admitted. In a way, it is paying it forwards. The core of a community is also dependent on how deep the relationships go (multiple generations).

Most colleges are eliminating legacy preferences and they seem to be doing OK; if your school can only pay its bills by giving guaranteed spots to middling alumni kids then I don't know what sort of future you imagine for it.

Anonymous wrote:If you think Hunter K is just IQ… I think you didn’t go through process at Hunter. They curate. 1000% I’m so sorry to all it’s frustrating! Should prepare everyone well for when college is equally enraging.

Sorry, I'm aware there's a second round that consists of observation too, but I don't get the impression that either round places much stock in connections / relationships / donor potential / etc; it legitimately is focused on the kid and their potential to thrive at - and contribute positively to - the school community.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This process can become overly transactional. Between PSDs and consultants, families are sometimes pulled into strategies and signaling that feel disconnected from what really matters, the child. And families end up spending enormous amounts of money for guidance that doesn’t serve them well.

Honestly, watching people go through this has made me cynical about the whole system: the culture of a school is defined to a large extent by the families who've been there since kindergarten, and that group is selected through a bunch of backchannel relationships and general skullduggery rather than an earnest desire to find a smart, kind, interesting set of kids to carry a school's traditions forward.

At least the IQ-test-based places like Hunter are going by *something* tangible about the kid, not "your daughter did a good job sorting those blocks and also her PSD was classmates with our admissions director at Bryn Mawr" or whatever.

Fundraising requires legacy advantage otherwise no one going to donate money if their child has no chance of being admitted. In a way, it is paying it forwards. The core of a community is also dependent on how deep the relationships go (multiple generations).

I agree that strong communities are built on long-term relationships. But for kids without legacy ties, the challenge is that those relationships can’t form unless there is meaningful access in the first place. Otherwise the system just reinforces itself rather than renewing itself. You see regression to the mean over time. Even if high school outcomes later prop things up, it’s hard to imagine how vibrant a school can be if it’s built generation after generation on the same relationships.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fundraising requires legacy advantage otherwise no one going to donate money if their child has no chance of being admitted. In a way, it is paying it forwards. The core of a community is also dependent on how deep the relationships go (multiple generations).

Most colleges are eliminating legacy preferences and they seem to be doing OK; if your school can only pay its bills by giving guaranteed spots to middling alumni kids then I don't know what sort of future you imagine for it.

Anonymous wrote:If you think Hunter K is just IQ… I think you didn’t go through process at Hunter. They curate. 1000% I’m so sorry to all it’s frustrating! Should prepare everyone well for when college is equally enraging.

Sorry, I'm aware there's a second round that consists of observation too, but I don't get the impression that either round places much stock in connections / relationships / donor potential / etc; it legitimately is focused on the kid and their potential to thrive at - and contribute positively to - the school community.

No one questions the value of Ivy League or other top colleges. A lot of rich people question the value of private K-8 at 65k a year. Treating legacies well is much more important in that case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This process can become overly transactional. Between PSDs and consultants, families are sometimes pulled into strategies and signaling that feel disconnected from what really matters, the child. And families end up spending enormous amounts of money for guidance that doesn’t serve them well.

Honestly, watching people go through this has made me cynical about the whole system: the culture of a school is defined to a large extent by the families who've been there since kindergarten, and that group is selected through a bunch of backchannel relationships and general skullduggery rather than an earnest desire to find a smart, kind, interesting set of kids to carry a school's traditions forward.

At least the IQ-test-based places like Hunter are going by *something* tangible about the kid, not "your daughter did a good job sorting those blocks and also her PSD was classmates with our admissions director at Bryn Mawr" or whatever.

Fundraising requires legacy advantage otherwise no one going to donate money if their child has no chance of being admitted. In a way, it is paying it forwards. The core of a community is also dependent on how deep the relationships go (multiple generations).

I agree that strong communities are built on long-term relationships. But for kids without legacy ties, the challenge is that those relationships can’t form unless there is meaningful access in the first place. Otherwise the system just reinforces itself rather than renewing itself. You see regression to the mean over time. Even if high school outcomes later prop things up, it’s hard to imagine how vibrant a school can be if it’s built generation after generation on the same relationships.

Because the gatekeeping around the TT schools is about social standing and maintaining the same relationships, not vibrancy and renewal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fundraising requires legacy advantage otherwise no one going to donate money if their child has no chance of being admitted. In a way, it is paying it forwards. The core of a community is also dependent on how deep the relationships go (multiple generations).

Most colleges are eliminating legacy preferences and they seem to be doing OK; if your school can only pay its bills by giving guaranteed spots to middling alumni kids then I don't know what sort of future you imagine for it.

Anonymous wrote:If you think Hunter K is just IQ… I think you didn’t go through process at Hunter. They curate. 1000% I’m so sorry to all it’s frustrating! Should prepare everyone well for when college is equally enraging.

Sorry, I'm aware there's a second round that consists of observation too, but I don't get the impression that either round places much stock in connections / relationships / donor potential / etc; it legitimately is focused on the kid and their potential to thrive at - and contribute positively to - the school community.

No one questions the value of Ivy League or other top colleges. A lot of rich people question the value of private K-8 at 65k a year. Treating legacies well is much more important in that case.

I don’t know enough about K–8 schools to generalize, but if a school prioritizes family wealth over a child’s potential, that says something about its culture. Most applicant families are already able to pay tuition and contribute in meaningful ways.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This process can become overly transactional. Between PSDs and consultants, families are sometimes pulled into strategies and signaling that feel disconnected from what really matters, the child. And families end up spending enormous amounts of money for guidance that doesn’t serve them well.

Honestly, watching people go through this has made me cynical about the whole system: the culture of a school is defined to a large extent by the families who've been there since kindergarten, and that group is selected through a bunch of backchannel relationships and general skullduggery rather than an earnest desire to find a smart, kind, interesting set of kids to carry a school's traditions forward.

At least the IQ-test-based places like Hunter are going by *something* tangible about the kid, not "your daughter did a good job sorting those blocks and also her PSD was classmates with our admissions director at Bryn Mawr" or whatever.

Fundraising requires legacy advantage otherwise no one going to donate money if their child has no chance of being admitted. In a way, it is paying it forwards. The core of a community is also dependent on how deep the relationships go (multiple generations).

I agree that strong communities are built on long-term relationships. But for kids without legacy ties, the challenge is that those relationships can’t form unless there is meaningful access in the first place. Otherwise the system just reinforces itself rather than renewing itself. You see regression to the mean over time. Even if high school outcomes later prop things up, it’s hard to imagine how vibrant a school can be if it’s built generation after generation on the same relationships.

Because the gatekeeping around the TT schools is about social standing and maintaining the same relationships, not vibrancy and renewal.

That may be part of the picture, but I hope this changes in an ever-changing world. We question global hiring for top tech, yet whether TT schools consistently select the most promising kids for the best education seems less clear.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fundraising requires legacy advantage otherwise no one going to donate money if their child has no chance of being admitted. In a way, it is paying it forwards. The core of a community is also dependent on how deep the relationships go (multiple generations).

Most colleges are eliminating legacy preferences and they seem to be doing OK; if your school can only pay its bills by giving guaranteed spots to middling alumni kids then I don't know what sort of future you imagine for it.

Anonymous wrote:If you think Hunter K is just IQ… I think you didn’t go through process at Hunter. They curate. 1000% I’m so sorry to all it’s frustrating! Should prepare everyone well for when college is equally enraging.

Sorry, I'm aware there's a second round that consists of observation too, but I don't get the impression that either round places much stock in connections / relationships / donor potential / etc; it legitimately is focused on the kid and their potential to thrive at - and contribute positively to - the school community.

No one questions the value of Ivy League or other top colleges. A lot of rich people question the value of private K-8 at 65k a year. Treating legacies well is much more important in that case.

I’m here to say - yes some people question the value of an Ivy League education! Check grade inflation by major, the job prospect by major. It’s definitely not always worth it!