Why do schools give preference to siblings? What's the logic?

[Anonymous]

OK, I know I will get slammed for even asking this, but why do schools give preference to siblings? Why is it in their interest to do so? Is it as simple as "families" are better overall donors and it's an economically-driven decision or am I missing something more nuanced and philosophical. Perhaps the schools simply like the certainty of the PV of the cash flows associated with accepting a family. Doesn't this bias almost virtually guarantee that the overall aptitude of the class will be lower? I went to MIT undergrad and HBS for my MBA and I can tell you a sibling preference policy would have obliterated the quality of the education I received. I just don't get it. Isn't this just insane? ... Not trying to offend, just seeking a rational, dispassionate discussion of this.

[Anonymous]

I am not sure you can make the direct comparison between college/grad school and elementary school. As a parent I prefer both my children to be in one school, especially in the early years, and that also solidifies our family connection to the school community (including donations). Obviously by the time they get to college I don't feel any need to have them in the same place.

I am not sure a sibling policy dilutes the class. That would only be true if kid 2 was less intelligent than kid 1. And a sibling policy doesnt guarantee admission - i do know siblings who weren't admitted to schools because it wasn't the right fit for them.

[Anonymous]

If you as a parent have three children that are ages 4, 6 and 8 years old and you were putting them in private school would it be more convenient for you as a family unit to put them into the same schools (if at all possible) or would you like to chauveur them around town to 3 different schools? (provided you have the time and the resources to do so)

I think schools at the primary and secondary levels recognise the push by many families to have their children go to the same school and try to accommodate?

If schools have developed good relations with a family (intellectual, academic, professional, or otherwise) with the first child it is likely to continue with the second. The devil you know is better than the angel you don't. A bird in hand is worth two in the bush (HBS- MBA 101)

[Anonymous]

I disagree with your statement that siblings at private colleges and universties do not get preference. But after we get past that point, there are a bunch of reasons, but Present Value is not a part of it.

One is to help the family - for coordinating items such as vacations, drop offs, pick ups. (So they are not driving all over the place for child A, B and possibly C)
In addition, the school knows the family. They know how the parents are to work with, how they support the school, and if they area PITA.

I am not sure what else there is to say.

[Anonymous]

In the short term, it retains students and it increases the amount of parental labor you can get. Over the longer-term, it increases the odds that the school claims more of a percentage of the family's charitable donations.

The broader claim will be that it fosters community. Unlike the college scenario, where kids are older and farther from home, many of the interactions among children at a private day school depend on parental involvement (and lots of these schools seem to depend on parental volunteerism for various fundraising and community building efforts). So if you want to make the logistics easy and you want your school to be a major focus for the family, then you need to accept sibs. Not always, but usually.

[Anonymous]

I don't know of any schools that GUARANTEE admission to siblings, they just say they give them preferential treatment. I think preferential treatment for qualified siblings makes sense for all the reasons the PP cited.

[Anonymous]

IQ of second child is usually higher than first.
BTW, some schools care more about families than IQs.

[Anonymous]

I agree that it's not just a simple dollar/cents calculation by the school, and that a lot has to do with developing a relationship with the families.

Also, to respond to your point about second-sibling-preference diluting the class-aptitude ("Doesn't this bias almost virtually guarantee that the overall aptitude of the class will be lower?"), you need to consider the whole-school-aptitude counter-point. If my brilliant DC1 starts at a school, but my less-brilliant DC2 is not admitted, I might be tempted to move them both to a different school where both would be happy. As a result, the whole-school-aptitude of the original school is arguably diminished. I think it's all a lot more complex than this, but my point is that there is a counter-argument to your class-aptitude argument.

[Anonymous]

From what I have been told by an AD friend of mine, schools like to keep families together provided the sibling meets qualifications and the family is a good fit for the school.

[Anonymous]

Little kids are little kids & taking good care of them is hard work. Even public schools let a sibling transfer when another sibling is accepted into a special program. (The second sib may not be in the program, but they can attend the school.) For the record, I have seen sibs NOT accepted at schools (including the "progressive" schools) if the sib is not a fit. Sometimes, that does mean the first child leaves; it's just too hard on the family. Why give preference? Stable enrollment, rather than turmoil of turnover.

[Anonymous]

HBS does give legacy preference. Big time.

[Anonymous]

So I guess it's my fault my just barely a B student brother got in.

[Anonymous]

OP here. On what basis can you support the idea that the IQ of the 2nd child is higher than the first? I've just never come across any evidence to support something like that.

For me the admissions process is problematic as it concerns siblings for the following reason. The decision-making calculus for the sibling applicant pool is essentially a binary one and for non-siblings it's a function of the probabilities of marginal supply. This is inherently (and profoundly) unfair to individual children. N = all available slots. The sibling either meets the hurdle or does not - binary decision. X = # of siblings that apply. Let's say 80% meet the hurdle and get accepted. N - .8*X = remaining slots holding diversity and gender constant. If 1/2 the applicants are siblings and 1/2 non siblings and the total number of applicants is about 2x the number of total spots (to keep the math simple) that suggests to me that non siblings have at best a 20% probability of acceptance vs. siblings. In many cases, the sibling hurdle rate is much higher than 80% and the proportion of siblings applying is also higher, rendering the probability for non siblings on that marginal supply of available slots quite low, sometimes well under 10% depending on gender balance in any given year. This just isn't fair to non siblings who could do quite well at some of these schools. If we changed the "factor" to any other variable other than sibling, we'd all be outraged. When one looks at this at the individual child level and examines who got in because he's a sibling and the other kid who did not because he isn't, there are some outcomes that are just hard to fathom. Quite literally, it's important to mix up the gene pool in some of these elite institutions. I am completely sympathetic to the point of view of parents who want to keep their kids together in one school -- for me the issue is the implication of unfairness to non sibling applicants. The reality is several of the best schools in the DC area are swamped by sibling applicants with a high proportion being accepted and as a consequence end up with student bodies that are related. I'm certain I've offended someone -- it's unintended I assure you. Which family we were born into wasn't supposed to matter anymore.

[Anonymous]

I don't mean to offend you, OP, but I am little surprised by the tone of your post, which suggests that you have somehow just stumbled upon the fact that the admissisons process to private schools it not entirely fair. I think people in general are not outraged by the advantage given to siblings because they concede that the benefits outweigh the reduction in fairness. They are generally outraged, or at least more outraged, by other advantages, such as those that are believed to drive from wealth, status, etc.

[Anonymous]

In a free market, many families will try to find the best school that has the highest probability of keeping their young children together in one place and many private schools will seek the best ways of holding onto the best kids (income, diversity, scores, family generosity etc)