Which private school gets the most kids into top 20 colleges?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have high school kids at two Big3 schools and have spent way too much time thinking about this.
The Ivy admits are 90% legacy or athletes or URMs or generally 2 of the 3. Actually you can probably say 95%.
I.e. if you're not 2 of the 3 you're not getting into an Ivy from a Big3. Period.
Might as well cross it off. Your odds are attending an Ivy are higher from a public.

Now the rest of the top 20 college spots go in part to the top academic achievers. Some also go to legacy/athletes/URM.
but many if not most are available to the top "smart kids" (i.e the top 10-20% of the class academically).

The next problem is, how to have one of the "smart kids". It's easier said than done. The work is hard, grade deflation is real and most
of the kids at the school are smart. It's not easy to be at the top of the class.

If it easier for URM to be admitted than for non-URM, soon enough there wouldn’t be URM anymore, right? This reasoning doesn’t sound right.

URM is a bit of a misnomer. It means certain preferred groups, regardless of whether the groups are actually under represented. Proponents of preferential admissions for URMs will never say "okay, the problem is solved, so we now can have race blind admissions."

Well just think of the hundreds of years race has mattered in admissions and URMS couldn’t even be considered. Now because you think there has been a push for URM’s, you want everything to be race blind? Interesting.

No, that is not quite what I said. I said that even when representation of minorities in elite schools is proportionate (or even ahead) of their numbers in society generally, proponents of preferential admissions will want preferential admissions to continue indefinitely; in other words, there is no end point. In your opinion, am I right about that or am I wrong? On this one, I would be happy to be wrong.

You do realize that the vast majority of students at top schools are white and Asian? Look it up. We are far from having URMs “ahead of their numbers in society” as you put it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have high school kids at two Big3 schools and have spent way too much time thinking about this.
The Ivy admits are 90% legacy or athletes or URMs or generally 2 of the 3. Actually you can probably say 95%.
I.e. if you're not 2 of the 3 you're not getting into an Ivy from a Big3. Period.
Might as well cross it off. Your odds are attending an Ivy are higher from a public.

Now the rest of the top 20 college spots go in part to the top academic achievers. Some also go to legacy/athletes/URM.
but many if not most are available to the top "smart kids" (i.e the top 10-20% of the class academically).

The next problem is, how to have one of the "smart kids". It's easier said than done. The work is hard, grade deflation is real and most
of the kids at the school are smart. It's not easy to be at the top of the class.

If it easier for URM to be admitted than for non-URM, soon enough there wouldn’t be URM anymore, right? This reasoning doesn’t sound right.

URM is a bit of a misnomer. It means certain preferred groups, regardless of whether the groups are actually under represented. Proponents of preferential admissions for URMs will never say "okay, the problem is solved, so we now can have race blind admissions."

Well just think of the hundreds of years race has mattered in admissions and URMS couldn’t even be considered. Now because you think there has been a push for URM’s, you want everything to be race blind? Interesting.

No, that is not quite what I said. I said that even when representation of minorities in elite schools is proportionate (or even ahead) of their numbers in society generally, proponents of preferential admissions will want preferential admissions to continue indefinitely; in other words, there is no end point. In your opinion, am I right about that or am I wrong? On this one, I would be happy to be wrong.

You do realize that the vast majority of students at top schools are white and Asian? Look it up. We are far from having URMs “ahead of their numbers in society” as you put it.

What is the appropriate end point for URM preferential admissions? I am not asking if we have reached that point, but just asking what that point would be.

[Anonymous]

There are more Ivy League legacies in public schools, and folks who whine about legacy admissions never mention that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have high school kids at two Big3 schools and have spent way too much time thinking about this.
The Ivy admits are 90% legacy or athletes or URMs or generally 2 of the 3. Actually you can probably say 95%.
I.e. if you're not 2 of the 3 you're not getting into an Ivy from a Big3. Period.
Might as well cross it off. Your odds are attending an Ivy are higher from a public.

Now the rest of the top 20 college spots go in part to the top academic achievers. Some also go to legacy/athletes/URM.
but many if not most are available to the top "smart kids" (i.e the top 10-20% of the class academically).

The next problem is, how to have one of the "smart kids". It's easier said than done. The work is hard, grade deflation is real and most
of the kids at the school are smart. It's not easy to be at the top of the class.

If it easier for URM to be admitted than for non-URM, soon enough there wouldn’t be URM anymore, right? This reasoning doesn’t sound right.

URM is a bit of a misnomer. It means certain preferred groups, regardless of whether the groups are actually under represented. Proponents of preferential admissions for URMs will never say "okay, the problem is solved, so we now can have race blind admissions."

Well just think of the hundreds of years race has mattered in admissions and URMS couldn’t even be considered. Now because you think there has been a push for URM’s, you want everything to be race blind? Interesting.

No, that is not quite what I said. I said that even when representation of minorities in elite schools is proportionate (or even ahead) of their numbers in society generally, proponents of preferential admissions will want preferential admissions to continue indefinitely; in other words, there is no end point. In your opinion, am I right about that or am I wrong? On this one, I would be happy to be wrong.

You do realize that the vast majority of students at top schools are white and Asian? Look it up. We are far from having URMs “ahead of their numbers in society” as you put it.

What is the appropriate end point for URM preferential admissions? I am not asking if we have reached that point, but just asking what that point would be.

It seems that nobody will answer the question "when does it end."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have high school kids at two Big3 schools and have spent way too much time thinking about this.
The Ivy admits are 90% legacy or athletes or URMs or generally 2 of the 3. Actually you can probably say 95%.
I.e. if you're not 2 of the 3 you're not getting into an Ivy from a Big3. Period.
Might as well cross it off. Your odds are attending an Ivy are higher from a public.

Now the rest of the top 20 college spots go in part to the top academic achievers. Some also go to legacy/athletes/URM.
but many if not most are available to the top "smart kids" (i.e the top 10-20% of the class academically).

The next problem is, how to have one of the "smart kids". It's easier said than done. The work is hard, grade deflation is real and most
of the kids at the school are smart. It's not easy to be at the top of the class.

If it easier for URM to be admitted than for non-URM, soon enough there wouldn’t be URM anymore, right? This reasoning doesn’t sound right.

URM is a bit of a misnomer. It means certain preferred groups, regardless of whether the groups are actually under represented. Proponents of preferential admissions for URMs will never say "okay, the problem is solved, so we now can have race blind admissions."

Well just think of the hundreds of years race has mattered in admissions and URMS couldn’t even be considered. Now because you think there has been a push for URM’s, you want everything to be race blind? Interesting.

No, that is not quite what I said. I said that even when representation of minorities in elite schools is proportionate (or even ahead) of their numbers in society generally, proponents of preferential admissions will want preferential admissions to continue indefinitely; in other words, there is no end point. In your opinion, am I right about that or am I wrong? On this one, I would be happy to be wrong.

You do realize that the vast majority of students at top schools are white and Asian? Look it up. We are far from having URMs “ahead of their numbers in society” as you put it.

What is the appropriate end point for URM preferential admissions? I am not asking if we have reached that point, but just asking what that point would be.

When URMs are getting accepted proporte to their population numbers without needing a leg up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have high school kids at two Big3 schools and have spent way too much time thinking about this.
The Ivy admits are 90% legacy or athletes or URMs or generally 2 of the 3. Actually you can probably say 95%.
I.e. if you're not 2 of the 3 you're not getting into an Ivy from a Big3. Period.
Might as well cross it off. Your odds are attending an Ivy are higher from a public.

Now the rest of the top 20 college spots go in part to the top academic achievers. Some also go to legacy/athletes/URM.
but many if not most are available to the top "smart kids" (i.e the top 10-20% of the class academically).

The next problem is, how to have one of the "smart kids". It's easier said than done. The work is hard, grade deflation is real and most
of the kids at the school are smart. It's not easy to be at the top of the class.

If it easier for URM to be admitted than for non-URM, soon enough there wouldn’t be URM anymore, right? This reasoning doesn’t sound right.

URM is a bit of a misnomer. It means certain preferred groups, regardless of whether the groups are actually under represented. Proponents of preferential admissions for URMs will never say "okay, the problem is solved, so we now can have race blind admissions."

Well just think of the hundreds of years race has mattered in admissions and URMS couldn’t even be considered. Now because you think there has been a push for URM’s, you want everything to be race blind? Interesting.

No, that is not quite what I said. I said that even when representation of minorities in elite schools is proportionate (or even ahead) of their numbers in society generally, proponents of preferential admissions will want preferential admissions to continue indefinitely; in other words, there is no end point. In your opinion, am I right about that or am I wrong? On this one, I would be happy to be wrong.

You do realize that the vast majority of students at top schools are white and Asian? Look it up. We are far from having URMs “ahead of their numbers in society” as you put it.

What is the appropriate end point for URM preferential admissions? I am not asking if we have reached that point, but just asking what that point would be.

When URMs are getting accepted proporte to their population numbers without needing a leg up.

Which population numbers?

% of national population?
% of DMV population?
% of DC population?

Any problems with this approach anyone can see?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have high school kids at two Big3 schools and have spent way too much time thinking about this.
The Ivy admits are 90% legacy or athletes or URMs or generally 2 of the 3. Actually you can probably say 95%.
I.e. if you're not 2 of the 3 you're not getting into an Ivy from a Big3. Period.
Might as well cross it off. Your odds are attending an Ivy are higher from a public.

Now the rest of the top 20 college spots go in part to the top academic achievers. Some also go to legacy/athletes/URM.
but many if not most are available to the top "smart kids" (i.e the top 10-20% of the class academically).

The next problem is, how to have one of the "smart kids". It's easier said than done. The work is hard, grade deflation is real and most
of the kids at the school are smart. It's not easy to be at the top of the class.

If it easier for URM to be admitted than for non-URM, soon enough there wouldn’t be URM anymore, right? This reasoning doesn’t sound right.

URM is a bit of a misnomer. It means certain preferred groups, regardless of whether the groups are actually under represented. Proponents of preferential admissions for URMs will never say "okay, the problem is solved, so we now can have race blind admissions."

Well just think of the hundreds of years race has mattered in admissions and URMS couldn’t even be considered. Now because you think there has been a push for URM’s, you want everything to be race blind? Interesting.

No, that is not quite what I said. I said that even when representation of minorities in elite schools is proportionate (or even ahead) of their numbers in society generally, proponents of preferential admissions will want preferential admissions to continue indefinitely; in other words, there is no end point. In your opinion, am I right about that or am I wrong? On this one, I would be happy to be wrong.

You do realize that the vast majority of students at top schools are white and Asian? Look it up. We are far from having URMs “ahead of their numbers in society” as you put it.

What is the appropriate end point for URM preferential admissions? I am not asking if we have reached that point, but just asking what that point would be.

When URMs are getting accepted proporte to their population numbers without needing a leg up.

So then when AA are at 13 percent? That’s what the percentage of the nation’s population they are. By that standard Asian students should be at higher numbers than AA students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have high school kids at two Big3 schools and have spent way too much time thinking about this.
The Ivy admits are 90% legacy or athletes or URMs or generally 2 of the 3. Actually you can probably say 95%.
I.e. if you're not 2 of the 3 you're not getting into an Ivy from a Big3. Period.
Might as well cross it off. Your odds are attending an Ivy are higher from a public.

Now the rest of the top 20 college spots go in part to the top academic achievers. Some also go to legacy/athletes/URM.
but many if not most are available to the top "smart kids" (i.e the top 10-20% of the class academically).

The next problem is, how to have one of the "smart kids". It's easier said than done. The work is hard, grade deflation is real and most
of the kids at the school are smart. It's not easy to be at the top of the class.

If it easier for URM to be admitted than for non-URM, soon enough there wouldn’t be URM anymore, right? This reasoning doesn’t sound right.

URM is a bit of a misnomer. It means certain preferred groups, regardless of whether the groups are actually under represented. Proponents of preferential admissions for URMs will never say "okay, the problem is solved, so we now can have race blind admissions."

Well just think of the hundreds of years race has mattered in admissions and URMS couldn’t even be considered. Now because you think there has been a push for URM’s, you want everything to be race blind? Interesting.

No, that is not quite what I said. I said that even when representation of minorities in elite schools is proportionate (or even ahead) of their numbers in society generally, proponents of preferential admissions will want preferential admissions to continue indefinitely; in other words, there is no end point. In your opinion, am I right about that or am I wrong? On this one, I would be happy to be wrong.

You do realize that the vast majority of students at top schools are white and Asian? Look it up. We are far from having URMs “ahead of their numbers in society” as you put it.

What is the appropriate end point for URM preferential admissions? I am not asking if we have reached that point, but just asking what that point would be.

When URMs are getting accepted proporte to their population numbers without needing a leg up.

Which population numbers?

% of national population?
% of DMV population?
% of DC population?

Any problems with this approach anyone can see?

If it’s a ivy school they are pulling from all over the world so maybe national percentage numbers plus more for international students.

[Anonymous]

Wow GDS, NCS, and STA are impressive even more so for the later two since they have much smaller class sizes!

Not nearly as impressive as the local public magnets: Blair and RM-IB. The true denominator is 100 magnet students in each graduating who make up 99 percent of the quoted admissions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Wow GDS, NCS, and STA are impressive even more so for the later two since they have much smaller class sizes!

Not nearly as impressive as the local public magnets: Blair and RM-IB. The true denominator is 100 magnet students in each graduating who make up 99 percent of the quoted admissions.

I don’t even know what those schools are or know anyone who attends them. I think private can be a whole different social world.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are more Ivy League legacies in public schools, and folks who whine about legacy admissions never mention that.

So what?!? The legacy admissions rate at the Ivy I attended is ~25%. The general admits rate ~5%. Whine away.

[Anonymous]

I have kids in both. Yes, we’re public-private hybrid and there are a lot of families like ours.
Sorry that you’re so narrow minded and parochial.