For those that used connections, were they used at more than one school?

[Anonymous]

I've been reading along here, incredulous, and then something dawned on me: we're all talking about only 4-5 schools, aren't we? Sidwell, StA/NCS/B., GDS, and ... Maret?

Just to confirm, nobody is asserting that "life will pass you by" if you don't "work" your "connection" at, say, WIS. Or Sheridan, or NPS or Burke or Field or Green Acres or the River School.

[Anonymous]

15:43, depending on the year, great DCs can also get shut out at NPS/River/Sheridan etc. Depending on the applicant pool, an unconnected kid may be competing against a surplus of faculty kids, legacies and sibs at this other tier of schools. That phenomenon is not limited to the first set of schools you cited. I don't think a child's life is doomed by not attending any of these schools. But I do think that admissions are fairly competitive at nearly all the inner Beltway schools, especially those in the District (not to say that independent schools outside the Beltway are less academically rigorous - they are just pulling from a smaller pool of candidates).

[Anonymous]

My sister, who has a kid at a well-known school, and is very well connected, had parents who never bothered to talk to her before suddenly chatting her up and asking her to put in a good word for their kid once they found out she had connections. She thought it was totally obnoxious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My sister, who has a kid at a well-known school, and is very well connected, had parents who never bothered to talk to her before suddenly chatting her up and asking her to put in a good word for their kid once they found out she had connections. She thought it was totally obnoxious.

That's right. And those of you who got accepted to top schools, I'm sure you will have new found friends and old ones magically renewed, just prior to admissions time.

[Anonymous]

Does anybody else find the tone of this whole thread kind of slimy? From the smug and clubby -- "connections can tell admissions staffers how you're the right kind of family" -- to the cynical -- "this is the way the world works, sister, wake up and smell the coffee" -- to the desperate -- "no pride of process", it's just sad. No sour grapes here -- we got lucky in the admissions lottery. And, in full disclosure, when each of our kids applied (to two separate schools) we asked a current parent to write a letter or recommendation. But I'll note that in each case the current parent knew our child well (one was our child's piano teacher and the other was the mom of our child's close friend and had known him since he was a newborn). It just makes me sick when I hear of folks who are so hurt that their kids didn't get into a school, while other kids get in based on connections who know only the parents, not the kid, or, even worse, based on family wealth. When I hear this about my own children's schools, I just feel like this institution that we really care about is tainted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Does anybody else find the tone of this whole thread kind of slimy? From the smug and clubby -- "connections can tell admissions staffers how you're the right kind of family" -- to the cynical -- "this is the way the world works, sister, wake up and smell the coffee" -- to the desperate -- "no pride of process", it's just sad. No sour grapes here -- we got lucky in the admissions lottery. And, in full disclosure, when each of our kids applied (to two separate schools) we asked a current parent to write a letter or recommendation. But I'll note that in each case the current parent knew our child well (one was our child's piano teacher and the other was the mom of our child's close friend and had known him since he was a newborn). It just makes me sick when I hear of folks who are so hurt that their kids didn't get into a school, while other kids get in based on connections who know only the parents, not the kid, or, even worse, based on family wealth. When I hear this about my own children's schools, I just feel like this institution that we really care about is tainted.

So, your way is the high road? Thanks for your own version of holier-than-thou input.

[Anonymous]

May I say that our experience was rather the opposite. No connections at all, Insignificant wealth, no stroking of the ADs, no letters, no thank you notes. Thinnest feasible application file. Accepted at 3 out of the top 4 schools applied to (including each of the the big 3).

[Anonymous]

In other words, your child is so outstanding that you didn't need any other angles?

[Anonymous]

We used our connection at one school; it didn't work out.
After that, we asked another connection to help us with a wait list situation. That did work out, thank goodness.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anybody else find the tone of this whole thread kind of slimy? From the smug and clubby -- "connections can tell admissions staffers how you're the right kind of family" -- to the cynical -- "this is the way the world works, sister, wake up and smell the coffee" -- to the desperate -- "no pride of process", it's just sad. No sour grapes here -- we got lucky in the admissions lottery. And, in full disclosure, when each of our kids applied (to two separate schools) we asked a current parent to write a letter or recommendation. But I'll note that in each case the current parent knew our child well (one was our child's piano teacher and the other was the mom of our child's close friend and had known him since he was a newborn). It just makes me sick when I hear of folks who are so hurt that their kids didn't get into a school, while other kids get in based on connections who know only the parents, not the kid, or, even worse, based on family wealth. When I hear this about my own children's schools, I just feel like this institution that we really care about is tainted.

So, your way is the high road? Thanks for your own version of holier-than-thou input.

Not holier-than-thou; fundamentally-different-than-thou. We didn't have a golf buddy or senior partner call the AD to say "Oh, these folks will fit right in and you can count on them at the auction." We asked people who know our children well and who could tell the admissions stafff something new about our kids that wasn't covered elsewhere in the application. Not the same thing at all.

[Anonymous]

I think the point here is that there are multiple approaches, tactics, and processes that can be followed to help get a kid into school. People are trying to learn what some of the best practices are to help their cause. What we don't need are people judging one versus the other - and self actualizing that their way is the higher ground.

[Anonymous]

I don't see how having someone who knows the school and knows your child, such as a current or prior parent, write a letter is "working connections." ADs must try to determine which kids would be a good fit. They meet them for 30 minutes - these other people may have known the kids for years. When I am trying to choose potential doctoral students or new faculty in my university, a letter from a known colleague at another institution is always helpful. It doesn't assure someone an offer and in fact the letter might lead to a denial decision, but information from a credible known source is always useful in the decision making process.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think the point here is that there are multiple approaches, tactics, and processes that can be followed to help get a kid into school. People are trying to learn what some of the best practices are to help their cause. What we don't need are people judging one versus the other - and self actualizing that their way is the higher ground.

Because some "best practices" (are you a consultant?) are unethical, and some parents can't see beyond their desperation to see that, for example, bribing the AD is wrong. The issue here isn't one of "we shouldn't judge," but rather what is good judgment?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the point here is that there are multiple approaches, tactics, and processes that can be followed to help get a kid into school. People are trying to learn what some of the best practices are to help their cause. What we don't need are people judging one versus the other - and self actualizing that their way is the higher ground.

Because some "best practices" (are you a consultant?) are unethical, and some parents can't see beyond their desperation to see that, for example, bribing the AD is wrong. The issue here isn't one of "we shouldn't judge," but rather what is good judgment?

I strongly doubt the poster who discussed multiple approaches is including bribery. Some folks will bribe (see separate thread on someone willing to donate a substantial sum to get DC off wait list), but I don't quite get the difference between "Johnny's parents are very active in his preschool and chaired its auction last year" and "We've known Johnny for 3 1/2 years and he is one of the brightest boys we've known in the 17 years that we've been of majority age." As per the university official above, if I were an AD and someone came to me and said "Johnny's dad works with me. He is a great team player and always seems to be able to manage his work in order to get to Johnny's preschool plays. I just get the sense he would bring that same sense of community membership to our school," I would think "Oh, Johnny's parents may not be PITAs and, moreover, may be great to have as a family at our school." Many of these kids have comparable WPPSI scores, teacher recs, and playdate evaluations - a lot are probably only distinguishable by surname. I just don't buy that someone speaking on your DC's behalf translates to "child was admitted, but not because of merit."

[Anonymous]

As a teacher, I have gotten students that were accepted because the parents were connected. And obviously the community member that they know is important enough for the school to want to try to accept their child. Doesn't happen a million times a year but it happens a lot. Depending on the connection, it can be just as effective as being a sib, faculty kid or legacy.