If schools made last year's admissions data widely available, would this be helpful to you?

[Anonymous]

If schools would be honest at open houses, say "we like to see SSAT scores in the 70s," guess what would happen? Applications would drop! People with low/borderline low scores would not subject their children to this process, drag them out of school etc. if they had this information.

[Anonymous]

Affirmative action stats have existed since the existence of private, elite, educational institutions. Simply peruse the graduating class rosters of these elite schools and their feeders ... from college backward to their embryonic elementary schools.

There is no one single measure or cutoff that eliminates candidates (though in my short American lifetime: gender, race, and religion have been absolute exclusion criteria in the past for some of these institutions of higher learning)

Similarly, there is no absolute test cutoff to exclude a candidate. One's test results are usually taken in the context of your pedigree/phenotype/genotype, income and past generosity, past performance and accomplishments and previous relationship to the school. Thus, if your child's score fell below some perceived or imaginary test cut-off point but your great grand father was the founder of the institution and his progeny have supported the institution (there a buildings stamped with the surname). The latter may trump any "shifting" cut-off point.

There is no accurate and objective test measure in 3,4, and 5 year-olds that predict future academic or life success short of caring family coccoon and higher socio-economic status. The latter is directly correlated with safer and less distracting surroundings, better and healthier nourishment for the developing and maturing child, access to better schools, tutoring, music and language classes, books, score, kumon classes, kaplan, princeton review, CTY, EPGY, NUMATS and multiple practise attempts at WPPSI, SCAT, Explore, SSAT, SAT, ACT (and the like) exams even before these exams actually count for the admission process to select private and elite institutions of higher education. Then we parents, proud as peacocks, brag to our colleagues about our "gifted" and "entitled" children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If schools would be honest at open houses, say "we like to see SSAT scores in the 70s," guess what would happen? Applications would drop! People with low/borderline low scores would not subject their children to this process, drag them out of school etc. if they had this information.

Don't you think you can get a sense of ranges without schools spoon feeding it to you?

[Anonymous]

If folk on this board are truly interested in transparency and schools provided the "data" you seek would you provide the same in kind?

For example:

History of the types of tutoring services (subjects, duration) provided to your children (e.g., Kaplan, Score, Kumon, Private, Other)

History of preparation classes for tests and private educational consultants used in preparing the application

Standard exams taken (date and scores) (e.g., IQ tests, SCAT, SSAT, Explore, SAT, ACT)

Amount of $$$/year spent on these activities

Now, this is a move towards transparency that is real and bilateral. All parties become equally informed. Thus, both parties can make better informed decisions about the admission's process.

[Anonymous]

"Spoon-feeding" seems harsh. It's a question an applicant should be able to ask and get an answer of the sort suggested (ballpark/range) in response. You shouldn't have to hire a consultant or have friends inside to get such an answer. It's something that seems reasonable to ask an AD, although something I'd be more inclined to ask privately, referencing my own kid rather than something I'd ask at an open house. If other people aren't concerned, I wouldn't want to create more anxiety. And I'd expect an AD answering this question in a public setting would be cautious about doing so. Conversely, if an AD is talking privately to someone who suspects that their kid doesn't have a chance in hell and asks point blank, better to confirm that than waste everyone's time.

In general, if I were a private school administrator, I wouldn't publish stats or announce cut-offs at open-houses. That would give a misleading impression of the admissions process (which isn't nearly as numbers- driven, especially in the lower grades, as college admissions). Personally, I don't think it's really in a school's interest to maximize applications if that means encouraging people to apply when their kids have no chance of getting in. Admissions can be an expensive and time-consuming process for schools.

[Anonymous]

Spoonfeeding is harsh indeed, I am calling for HONESTY. A parent -- not me -- asked a question at an open house and was told one thing in a room full of parents, then several months later, someone in admissions contradicted her. I will not reveal the identify of this woman at Sidwell because she is up there. It was the fall of 2007. I believe the woman, but followed up later because I started hearing otherwise. I wanted a straight answer.

Schools that extol intellectual rigor and achievement should practice what they preach in the form of intellectual honesty. It was a flat-out distortion of the way things worked. Of course we know why. The thresholds are different for different categories of students. So we're back to the diversity conundrum.

11:48 I'm not sure how that would inform the admissions office.

[Anonymous]

Personally, I don't think it's really in a school's interest to maximize applications if that means encouraging people to apply when their kids have no chance of getting in.

Really? But from what I hear, if students do not score above a certain percentile on the SSAT they are out. So why not disclose this? And by not disclosing this, aren't they maximizing applications? I know several people who would have pulled out had they known. I wish an education consultant, someone who's observed the process across a range of schools, would comment on this one!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Spoonfeeding is harsh indeed, I am calling for HONESTY. A parent -- not me -- asked a question at an open house and was told one thing in a room full of parents, then several months later, someone in admissions contradicted her. I will not reveal the identify of this woman at Sidwell because she is up there. It was the fall of 2007. I believe the woman, but followed up later because I started hearing otherwise. I wanted a straight answer.

Schools that extol intellectual rigor and achievement should practice what they preach in the form of intellectual honesty. It was a flat-out distortion of the way things worked. Of course we know why. The thresholds are different for different categories of students. So we're back to the diversity conundrum.

11:48 I'm not sure how that would inform the admissions office.

What diversity conundrum? Or are you talking about legacies admitted who performed poorly at the playdates and had borderline WPPSI scores?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Spoonfeeding is harsh indeed, I am calling for HONESTY. A parent -- not me -- asked a question at an open house and was told one thing in a room full of parents, then several months later, someone in admissions contradicted her. I will not reveal the identify of this woman at Sidwell because she is up there. It was the fall of 2007. I believe the woman, but followed up later because I started hearing otherwise. I wanted a straight answer.

Schools that extol intellectual rigor and achievement should practice what they preach in the form of intellectual honesty. It was a flat-out distortion of the way things worked. Of course we know why. The thresholds are different for different categories of students. So we're back to the diversity conundrum.

11:48 I'm not sure how that would inform the admissions office.

I don't think the thresholds are different for different categories of students. I think they are different for EACH student. Schools have an idea of what they want to see in a class. Maybe the girls are particularly sporty and they would like to balance the expansion class with some girls who are more interested in books and crafts. Maybe the boys are relatively quiet and they are looking for boys for the 3rd grade intake with good social skills and appear to be inclusive in their play. Maybe there is a boy who is very interested in the sciences, both his parents work at NIH, and they ran a science day at his preschool. Yet the boy had uneven WPPSI scores and cried at the playdate. The school may still decide that the family is a good fit with the community, especially as they want to bolster its science program and the child had glowing recs from his preschool. Admissions is more an art than a science.

Yes, I heard one thing at a Sidwell open house and another thing in private regarding low and uneven WPPSI scores. But whatever. I took it all as guidance. Our DC still got into our first choice. We assumed that schools will decide who is a good fit, that they will look at a variety of criteria, and hope that they made good decisions. Yes, I found a few of the admissions officials to be a little cool towards us, yet turn and greet other families at an open house with a sudden spurt of warmth. But the vast majority of folks I met were real pros, striving hard to do a good job, and working to balance a myriad of sometimes competing concerns. I was very impressed.

[Anonymous]

to 12:17


Case scenario:

10 year-old boy applies to 4th grade at a fine private St. B from a fine private feeding elementary school. The SSAT score 88 percentile.

This boy has taken the SSAT twice for practise at age 8 and 9. The child also had taken an expensive 6 week prep SSAT prep course before he sat for the exam a third and final time scoring 88 percentile (higher than when he was age 8 and 9 and consistent with continued improvement) An educational consultant was hired by the family to help with the application process to St B. The child is enrolled in an expensive private tutoring program after school (SCORE) twice/week for the last 3 years.

Another 10 year-old boy applies to 4th grade at St. B from a public elementary school. The SSAT score 80 percentile. This was the first time he took the SSAT exam. He did not take any outside expensive 6 week SSAT prep course. The family did not hire the services of an educational consultant for his application process. He is not enrolled in any private tutoring programs after school.

Both kids have similar transcripts (top 10 percent of class). They are both good athletes. Socio-economic status is roughly the same in both households. Let's remove the confounder of race (both children are white)

Both children were deemed qualified for St B during admission committee deliberations. Because of limited space (supply/demand) the committee offered the admission to the second child with the lower SSAT score on the application.

Did the admission committee make the wrong decision?
Did the admission committee make the wrong decision on moral grounds?
Was the admission committee influenced to any degree by the additional information provided by the family in the interest of transparency?
If the admission committee opted to take the first child would that have been the wrong decision?
Should the admission committee make their decision on a strict SSAT cut-off point (SSAT 85 percentile) and automatically rejected the second child?

I do not pretend to know the answer but I can live with their decision.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: I don't think the thresholds are different for different categories of students. I think they are different for EACH student. Schools have an idea of what they want to see in a class. Maybe the girls are particularly sporty and they would like to balance the expansion class with some girls who are more interested in books and crafts. Maybe the boys are relatively quiet and they are looking for boys for the 3rd grade intake with good social skills and appear to be inclusive in their play. Maybe there is a boy who is very interested in the sciences, both his parents work at NIH, and they ran a science day at his preschool. Yet the boy had uneven WPPSI scores and cried at the playdate. The school may still decide that the family is a good fit with the community, especially as they want to bolster its science program and the child had glowing recs from his preschool. Admissions is more an art than a science.

I agree. The function of admissions officers is to put together the best class they think they can and to add members to the school community that reinforce existing strengths and address troublesome weaknesses. And they see themselves as choosing families -- not just a particular student. So the question they are asking themselves is "Given a variety of imperatives and the actual applicant pool, what are the best admission decisions for this class in this school now?" They aren't asking which kids are in some cosmic sense, the brightest, the most worthy, the most impressive, the most likely to contribute to society, the most appealing, etc.

Kinda like putting together a bouquet. You don't want a bunch of individually beautiful flowers fighting for attention, you want a harmonious balance with enough repetition to appear coherent but enough variety to be interesting and there are a number of dimensions you need to pay attention to as you strike that balance.

[Anonymous]

I think folks are making too much out of income. There are three categories of income, as far as I can tell (I serve on a TT's board). 1 - people who can pay out of pocket, 2 - people who cannot and will require FA, and 3 - people who are, as one pp put it nicely "bright and shiny." Income is, of course, only one way of being bright and shiny.

[Anonymous]

yup

[Anonymous]

Well, income/wealth has in impact in at least three ways:

(1) self-selection (people who cannot afford it and therefore opt out -- or wait until middle or high school to go private)
(2) preparation
(3) admissions.

Wrt admissions, I think 15:02 is basically right about the categories. Group 1 encompasses all sorts of families (including those in which grandparents pay tuition) and my guess is that the finances of many of them are unknown to admissions people.

But self-selection certainly disqualifies more kids than admissions officers reject and preparation functions both to make privileged preschoolers look "brighter and shinier" than less-privileged kids who are equally intelligent and, by the upper grades, it probably renders lots of bright kids whose families didn't have the resources to provide them with an excellent elementary school education less competitive for admission to secondary schools.

My take is that income is probably the key factor in determining who goes to private schools. But that's because decisions made by admissions officers aren't the only factors determining which kids end up in which schools.

[Anonymous]

Shucks, a death knell and staggering blow to any genetic theory of inferior intelligence and low test scores based on race! I act in the affirmative for this breath of intelligence.