Do elite college admissions officers look at private school as a negative?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No it is not a negative. For the most part, the strong private schools send a higher percentage of graduating seniors to elite schools than public schools. You can't just look at numbers of students because of the stark difference in student population. For example, for class of 22, Churchill HS sent approximately 7% of their graduating seniors to top 20 universities whereas strong private schools were are in the 25-35% range of graduating students. So as a high achieving private school student at a rigorous school, you will have a much stronger chance of admission to an elite school.

There’s a real gap in your logic here, and it hits some private school families really hard in admissions season. The mere fact that a private school sends a higher percentage of the class to elite colleges does not mean that each and every individual student has a better chance of admission from private.

I’m not sure PP is the one with the logic-gap here. The question is whether private schooling is a disadvantage in admissions to top schools, not whether every kid at a private school will get into a top university. The fact that such high proportions of seniors at strong private schools get into top universities each year indicates that it is not disadvantage.

New poster. My kids go to a top private that sends around 40% to Ivy+MIT & Stanford almost every year. All of them are legacies, and occasionally a top URM student. Our kids are neither, so yes, in a way they are disadvantaged. I am aware of that and ok with it. They are smart, hard working children from a stable home and receiving excellent K-12 education. They will be fine in life without an Ivy degree.

I’m In agreement with you but just so you are clear - this isn’t just applicable to Ivy - many of these high achieving kids are not even in at T30 or T40 schools. (They will still be fine but this is not an ivy obsession, it’s more than that)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No it is not a negative. For the most part, the strong private schools send a higher percentage of graduating seniors to elite schools than public schools. You can't just look at numbers of students because of the stark difference in student population. For example, for class of 22, Churchill HS sent approximately 7% of their graduating seniors to top 20 universities whereas strong private schools were are in the 25-35% range of graduating students. So as a high achieving private school student at a rigorous school, you will have a much stronger chance of admission to an elite school.

There’s a real gap in your logic here, and it hits some private school families really hard in admissions season. The mere fact that a private school sends a higher percentage of the class to elite colleges does not mean that each and every individual student has a better chance of admission from private.

I’m not sure PP is the one with the logic-gap here. The question is whether private schooling is a disadvantage in admissions to top schools, not whether every kid at a private school will get into a top university. The fact that such high proportions of seniors at strong private schools get into top universities each year indicates that it is not disadvantage.

New poster. My kids go to a top private that sends around 40% to Ivy+MIT & Stanford almost every year. All of them are legacies, and occasionally a top URM student. Our kids are neither, so yes, in a way they are disadvantaged. I am aware of that and ok with it. They are smart, hard working children from a stable home and receiving excellent K-12 education. They will be fine in life without an Ivy degree.

In our wealthy Arlington neighborhood where most kids go public, just about every house has at least one parent that is an Ivy alum. At the top local high schools which are fed from wealthy hoods- it’s not any different from the privates. They are all legacies or URMs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No it is not a negative. For the most part, the strong private schools send a higher percentage of graduating seniors to elite schools than public schools. You can't just look at numbers of students because of the stark difference in student population. For example, for class of 22, Churchill HS sent approximately 7% of their graduating seniors to top 20 universities whereas strong private schools were are in the 25-35% range of graduating students. So as a high achieving private school student at a rigorous school, you will have a much stronger chance of admission to an elite school.

There’s a real gap in your logic here, and it hits some private school families really hard in admissions season. The mere fact that a private school sends a higher percentage of the class to elite colleges does not mean that each and every individual student has a better chance of admission from private.

I’m not sure PP is the one with the logic-gap here. The question is whether private schooling is a disadvantage in admissions to top schools, not whether every kid at a private school will get into a top university. The fact that such high proportions of seniors at strong private schools get into top universities each year indicates that it is not disadvantage.

New poster. My kids go to a top private that sends around 40% to Ivy+MIT & Stanford almost every year. All of them are legacies, and occasionally a top URM student. Our kids are neither, so yes, in a way they are disadvantaged. I am aware of that and ok with it. They are smart, hard working children from a stable home and receiving excellent K-12 education. They will be fine in life without an Ivy degree.

In our wealthy Arlington neighborhood where most kids go public, just about every house has at least one parent that is an Ivy alum. At the top local high schools which are fed from wealthy hoods- it’s not any different from the privates. They are all legacies or URMs.

Same in AU Park (NW DC). My 1/2 block of 6 houses has 2 Harvard alum (met at Harvard law after Harvard undergrad), 2 Duke (met at Duke), Penn, Northwestern, Michigan x 4.
(This is not us--we're products of second tier state schools).
But you can't throw a stick without hitting a double Ivy household.
Many of their kids will go to DCPS PK-12 (it's about 50/50 public/private).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The education level of the parents will tell you more about the outcome than whether the kid went public or private.

This is very true

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Our private high school (240 boys in the class) did insanely well this admissions cycle. So many top 10-20 schools among the masses.

So- at our school, they did not. In fact, I was told by an AO they know the rigor of the school and the AP test profile is that the majority of students score 5s.

This sounds like Gonzaga

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No it is not a negative. For the most part, the strong private schools send a higher percentage of graduating seniors to elite schools than public schools. You can't just look at numbers of students because of the stark difference in student population. For example, for class of 22, Churchill HS sent approximately 7% of their graduating seniors to top 20 universities whereas strong private schools were are in the 25-35% range of graduating students. So as a high achieving private school student at a rigorous school, you will have a much stronger chance of admission to an elite school.

There’s a real gap in your logic here, and it hits some private school families really hard in admissions season. The mere fact that a private school sends a higher percentage of the class to elite colleges does not mean that each and every individual student has a better chance of admission from private.

I’m not sure PP is the one with the logic-gap here. The question is whether private schooling is a disadvantage in admissions to top schools, not whether every kid at a private school will get into a top university. The fact that such high proportions of seniors at strong private schools get into top universities each year indicates that it is not disadvantage.

New poster. My kids go to a top private that sends around 40% to Ivy+MIT & Stanford almost every year. All of them are legacies, and occasionally a top URM student. Our kids are neither, so yes, in a way they are disadvantaged. I am aware of that and ok with it. They are smart, hard working children from a stable home and receiving excellent K-12 education. They will be fine in life without an Ivy degree.

In our wealthy Arlington neighborhood where most kids go public, just about every house has at least one parent that is an Ivy alum. At the top local high schools which are fed from wealthy hoods- it’s not any different from the privates. They are all legacies or URMs.

Same in AU Park (NW DC)....Many of their kids will go to DCPS PK-12 (it's about 50/50 public/private).

[/b][b]

but those well-to-do families in Arlington and AU Park who send their kids to public school ARE very different from the uber-wealthy families who send their kids to top privates. Those uber-wealthy families will get their kids into top colleges because they will be making 8-figure donations to the school where the kid gets admitted. They'll build the student center or a new wing of the library. It's a whole different game. Being a legacy isn't worth much in college admissions. It's worth a bit, but bringing an 8 figure donation or being the child of famous and powerful person is worth a lot more. So if your child is academically high achieving at a private school, but has classmates from uber-wealthy or powerful families, guess who gets the spot at the top college? Money and power will trump hard work and smarts.