private school admissions--what sets kids apart?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s like in a job interview. When they say “Why do you want to work here?” The answer can’t just be, “I really need a job and all my friends will be impressed if I get one at Fancy Corp., plus I like the benefits here.” And no one argues with that - it’s just the way the game is played. This is the school admissions version.

Again, have you interviewed warehouse workers? This is exactly the kind of answer that is given sometimes.

I don't argue with you that this is the way the game is played. I do think people are blind if they don't see the chasm between where some kids are coming from and the culture they're trying to enter. When the chasm is driven by priviledge and the school talks so much about equity, perhaps they should not be blind about this chasm.

They are not blind. They are perfectly aware. They don’t care. They want wealthy, connected families above all else and to get those families, they have discovered they have to walk a fine line between saying they support diversity and actually doing it. Because those families do not actually want a diverse, equitable and inclusive school. So it’s in the schools’ best interest to maintain the status quo while also talking a good DEI game.

[Anonymous]

We are an underprivileged family who went through admissions when covid happened. I knew absolutely nothing and remember answering one of those questions as "This is the best school and I want the best for my child." I had no help during the process, didn't know a single person who had gone through it and relied on DCUM as my Q&A to help me navigate it.

Some schools had a very good admissions team that could immediately tell we were not like other families and adjusted their line of questioning and one even called me back to ask follow up questions. Other schools went down their checklist, accepted our poor responses and WL my child. I'm sure if it wasn't for her grades and test scores, she would have been flat out rejected at these schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Test scores, first choice letters, legacy, URM, sports, being potentially very large donors in addition to full pay.

You seem very confident that you know what went into the other kids' applications, and sometimes there are things that their parents haven't mentioned to you.

I agree with this. We have been through admissions multiple times with our kids. The times we have been successful, it felt like an all-out siege, but none of the strategizing and effort would have been visible to other parents.

What did you do that wouldn’t have been obvious to others?

We have been accepted to 2nd tier schools only and WL at first tier. I still don’t understand why. ISEE scores 7,8,9,9; national placement in science; city recognition for art portfolio (submitted to school); plays 4 sports; UMC family that is active at K-8; parent recognized for school donations; well written parent statements and student essay. Applied to top tier in K, 6, and 9 - all WL. I know legacy kids with lower stats who get in. The non-legacy kids (very view) who do get in have similar stats. What did you do differently?

Did you ask the HoS at your K-8 why your child was not admitted to top tier for 9th? HoS at St Pats, Lowell, Sheridan, Norwood would know.

Yes, I asked, but I feel like I got a 'non-answer' - "competition was steep and there were just so many great kids and not enough spots". It just seems like other "great kids" similar to mine get the spots and never my kid. Oh well, my focus is on my younger ones now and I'm not sure top tier is for them - I'm tempted to send them there the older ones went for simplicity.

Your emphasis on "first tier" and "2nd tier" could be your answer.

Are you saying there isn't a pecking order in high schools or just that it is supposed to remain unsaid?

You’re saying too much of the quiet part out loud. Also focused too much on rankings instead of showing fit. You’re supposed to say things like “Jr wants to go to the library every day to learn after school and is looking for a school where there are more kids like her,” not “we’re looking for Jr to be in a top tier school.”

This is also internally in your K-8 discussions with teachers and administrators. If you don’t show you know why your daughter would be a better fit at NCS than Holton beyond that NCS is ranked first, especially if administrators think Holton would also be a fit or might be a better fit, they may not bat for you with NCS.

So gross and eye-rolly. How do you do that crap and not vomit all over yourselves? You know in 20 years NONE of this will matter!

I don’t. But I know people who do, and do so successfully.

I also think this practice is completely unfair. For all these schools’ talk about systemic bias no one seems to realize that parents of most kids coming from underprivileged backgrounds don’t know don’t have time to learn the difference between Sidwell and GDS. They just want their kids to go to the best schools and “get ahead,” sometimes without much of an idea of what that means. It’s unfair to ask them to have a reason to want to a school beyond “I want the best for my child.”

Why exactly is it unfair? Because you assume they don't have the fortitude to make a distinction? Equating privilege, or lack there of, with an (in)ability to appropriately analyze options is at best, short-sighted, at worst, insulting. Underprivileged is not synonymous with incapable or stupid.

Have you ever been underprivileged? I have. Where I come from, people don't use phrases like "fortitude to make a distinction." People use phrases like "you know those presidents sent their girls to Sidwell." When I had to write my "Why Princeton" essay, my dad said, "That essay is stupid. You just write, 'Because it's Princeton.' There. Three words. Done." I had to explain that it wasn't how that worked, and that when there was a 250 word limit, the essay shouldn't be 3 words. By that point, I was more privileged than he was, even though he was more capable than I.

I'm a first generation American, first generation college grad, and child of blue collar workers , who grew up on welfare in Section 8 among other experiences that gave me the label of "underprivileged." So yes, I have been underprivileged. And, as someone with family still in "underprivileged" spaces, I still consider it home and witness their experiences regularly. Please stop. My parents weren't educated or well read, and may not speak the way I do, but they absolutely would never tell me "my essay was stupid" because they 1) would never demean my efforts and also 2) recognized I was in a space they had no familiarity with so they trusted my efforts. It doesn't take much to put 2 and 2 together to realize why a "Because it's Princeton" response is stupid. And for that, I never cast a wide net that those who have less than, automatically have no gumption to know how to make sincere distinctions and avoid playing the name game. It's insulting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Test scores, first choice letters, legacy, URM, sports, being potentially very large donors in addition to full pay.

You seem very confident that you know what went into the other kids' applications, and sometimes there are things that their parents haven't mentioned to you.

I agree with this. We have been through admissions multiple times with our kids. The times we have been successful, it felt like an all-out siege, but none of the strategizing and effort would have been visible to other parents.

What did you do that wouldn’t have been obvious to others?

We have been accepted to 2nd tier schools only and WL at first tier. I still don’t understand why. ISEE scores 7,8,9,9; national placement in science; city recognition for art portfolio (submitted to school); plays 4 sports; UMC family that is active at K-8; parent recognized for school donations; well written parent statements and student essay. Applied to top tier in K, 6, and 9 - all WL. I know legacy kids with lower stats who get in. The non-legacy kids (very view) who do get in have similar stats. What did you do differently?

Did you ask the HoS at your K-8 why your child was not admitted to top tier for 9th? HoS at St Pats, Lowell, Sheridan, Norwood would know.

Yes, I asked, but I feel like I got a 'non-answer' - "competition was steep and there were just so many great kids and not enough spots". It just seems like other "great kids" similar to mine get the spots and never my kid. Oh well, my focus is on my younger ones now and I'm not sure top tier is for them - I'm tempted to send them there the older ones went for simplicity.

Your emphasis on "first tier" and "2nd tier" could be your answer.

Are you saying there isn't a pecking order in high schools or just that it is supposed to remain unsaid?

You’re saying too much of the quiet part out loud. Also focused too much on rankings instead of showing fit. You’re supposed to say things like “Jr wants to go to the library every day to learn after school and is looking for a school where there are more kids like her,” not “we’re looking for Jr to be in a top tier school.”

This is also internally in your K-8 discussions with teachers and administrators. If you don’t show you know why your daughter would be a better fit at NCS than Holton beyond that NCS is ranked first, especially if administrators think Holton would also be a fit or might be a better fit, they may not bat for you with NCS.

So gross and eye-rolly. How do you do that crap and not vomit all over yourselves? You know in 20 years NONE of this will matter!

I don’t. But I know people who do, and do so successfully.

I also think this practice is completely unfair. For all these schools’ talk about systemic bias no one seems to realize that parents of most kids coming from underprivileged backgrounds don’t know don’t have time to learn the difference between Sidwell and GDS. They just want their kids to go to the best schools and “get ahead,” sometimes without much of an idea of what that means. It’s unfair to ask them to have a reason to want to a school beyond “I want the best for my child.”

Why exactly is it unfair? Because you assume they don't have the fortitude to make a distinction? Equating privilege, or lack there of, with an (in)ability to appropriately analyze options is at best, short-sighted, at worst, insulting. Underprivileged is not synonymous with incapable or stupid.

Have you ever been underprivileged? I have. Where I come from, people don't use phrases like "fortitude to make a distinction." People use phrases like "you know those presidents sent their girls to Sidwell." When I had to write my "Why Princeton" essay, my dad said, "That essay is stupid. You just write, 'Because it's Princeton.' There. Three words. Done." I had to explain that it wasn't how that worked, and that when there was a 250 word limit, the essay shouldn't be 3 words. By that point, I was more privileged than he was, even though he was more capable than I.

I'm a first generation American, first generation college grad, and child of blue collar workers , who grew up on welfare in Section 8 among other experiences that gave me the label of "underprivileged." So yes, I have been underprivileged. And, as someone with family still in "underprivileged" spaces, I still consider it home and witness their experiences regularly. Please stop. My parents weren't educated or well read, and may not speak the way I do, but they absolutely would never tell me "my essay was stupid" because they 1) would never demean my efforts and also 2) recognized I was in a space they had no familiarity with so they trusted my efforts. It doesn't take much to put 2 and 2 together to realize why a "Because it's Princeton" response is stupid. And for that, I never cast a wide net that those who have less than, automatically have no gumption to know how to make sincere distinctions and avoid playing the name game. It's insulting.

He didn’t say my essay was stupid, but that Princeton’s question was stupid, because he didn’t know a single person who would turn down Princeton if given the opportunity. He saw Princeton as a golden ticket.

I don’t think all underprivileged people are the same. You and I were both once underprivileged and had different experiences. Perhaps you and your parents could’ve explained at 12 why NCS was a better fit than Holton, but mine couldn’t have, and it’s not because they’re lesser than yours. They’re also not lesser yours, because yours somehow knew “because it’s Princeton” was a “stupid” response. It’s because they came from a different culture. They’re not lesser than because they could use some grace. Some grace is warranted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Test scores, first choice letters, legacy, URM, sports, being potentially very large donors in addition to full pay.

You seem very confident that you know what went into the other kids' applications, and sometimes there are things that their parents haven't mentioned to you.

I agree with this. We have been through admissions multiple times with our kids. The times we have been successful, it felt like an all-out siege, but none of the strategizing and effort would have been visible to other parents.

What did you do that wouldn’t have been obvious to others?

We have been accepted to 2nd tier schools only and WL at first tier. I still don’t understand why. ISEE scores 7,8,9,9; national placement in science; city recognition for art portfolio (submitted to school); plays 4 sports; UMC family that is active at K-8; parent recognized for school donations; well written parent statements and student essay. Applied to top tier in K, 6, and 9 - all WL. I know legacy kids with lower stats who get in. The non-legacy kids (very view) who do get in have similar stats. What did you do differently?

Did you ask the HoS at your K-8 why your child was not admitted to top tier for 9th? HoS at St Pats, Lowell, Sheridan, Norwood would know.

Yes, I asked, but I feel like I got a 'non-answer' - "competition was steep and there were just so many great kids and not enough spots". It just seems like other "great kids" similar to mine get the spots and never my kid. Oh well, my focus is on my younger ones now and I'm not sure top tier is for them - I'm tempted to send them there the older ones went for simplicity.

Your emphasis on "first tier" and "2nd tier" could be your answer.

Are you saying there isn't a pecking order in high schools or just that it is supposed to remain unsaid?

You’re saying too much of the quiet part out loud. Also focused too much on rankings instead of showing fit. You’re supposed to say things like “Jr wants to go to the library every day to learn after school and is looking for a school where there are more kids like her,” not “we’re looking for Jr to be in a top tier school.”

This is also internally in your K-8 discussions with teachers and administrators. If you don’t show you know why your daughter would be a better fit at NCS than Holton beyond that NCS is ranked first, especially if administrators think Holton would also be a fit or might be a better fit, they may not bat for you with NCS.

So gross and eye-rolly. How do you do that crap and not vomit all over yourselves? You know in 20 years NONE of this will matter!

I don’t. But I know people who do, and do so successfully.

I also think this practice is completely unfair. For all these schools’ talk about systemic bias no one seems to realize that parents of most kids coming from underprivileged backgrounds don’t know don’t have time to learn the difference between Sidwell and GDS. They just want their kids to go to the best schools and “get ahead,” sometimes without much of an idea of what that means. It’s unfair to ask them to have a reason to want to a school beyond “I want the best for my child.”

Why exactly is it unfair? Because you assume they don't have the fortitude to make a distinction? Equating privilege, or lack there of, with an (in)ability to appropriately analyze options is at best, short-sighted, at worst, insulting. Underprivileged is not synonymous with incapable or stupid.

Have you ever been underprivileged? I have. Where I come from, people don't use phrases like "fortitude to make a distinction." People use phrases like "you know those presidents sent their girls to Sidwell." When I had to write my "Why Princeton" essay, my dad said, "That essay is stupid. You just write, 'Because it's Princeton.' There. Three words. Done." I had to explain that it wasn't how that worked, and that when there was a 250 word limit, the essay shouldn't be 3 words. By that point, I was more privileged than he was, even though he was more capable than I.

I'm a first generation American, first generation college grad, and child of blue collar workers , who grew up on welfare in Section 8 among other experiences that gave me the label of "underprivileged." So yes, I have been underprivileged. And, as someone with family still in "underprivileged" spaces, I still consider it home and witness their experiences regularly. Please stop. My parents weren't educated or well read, and may not speak the way I do, but they absolutely would never tell me "my essay was stupid" because they 1) would never demean my efforts and also 2) recognized I was in a space they had no familiarity with so they trusted my efforts. It doesn't take much to put 2 and 2 together to realize why a "Because it's Princeton" response is stupid. And for that, I never cast a wide net that those who have less than, automatically have no gumption to know how to make sincere distinctions and avoid playing the name game. It's insulting.

Also look at the comment right above yours. I don’t call that response stupid. I call it good parenting. Maybe a person might not know the game but is willing to try for the sake of one’s child.

[Anonymous]

This is compelling. Years ago I did an interview project with nursing staff. Some of the best ppl in their moral practice and capacity gave simple verybal answers. Complexity of blabbing did not correlate with what I saw in practice. "Because it's Princeton" is an honest answer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Test scores, first choice letters, legacy, URM, sports, being potentially very large donors in addition to full pay.

You seem very confident that you know what went into the other kids' applications, and sometimes there are things that their parents haven't mentioned to you.

I agree with this. We have been through admissions multiple times with our kids. The times we have been successful, it felt like an all-out siege, but none of the strategizing and effort would have been visible to other parents.

What did you do that wouldn’t have been obvious to others?

We have been accepted to 2nd tier schools only and WL at first tier. I still don’t understand why. ISEE scores 7,8,9,9; national placement in science; city recognition for art portfolio (submitted to school); plays 4 sports; UMC family that is active at K-8; parent recognized for school donations; well written parent statements and student essay. Applied to top tier in K, 6, and 9 - all WL. I know legacy kids with lower stats who get in. The non-legacy kids (very view) who do get in have similar stats. What did you do differently?

Did you ask the HoS at your K-8 why your child was not admitted to top tier for 9th? HoS at St Pats, Lowell, Sheridan, Norwood would know.

Yes, I asked, but I feel like I got a 'non-answer' - "competition was steep and there were just so many great kids and not enough spots". It just seems like other "great kids" similar to mine get the spots and never my kid. Oh well, my focus is on my younger ones now and I'm not sure top tier is for them - I'm tempted to send them there the older ones went for simplicity.

Your emphasis on "first tier" and "2nd tier" could be your answer.

Are you saying there isn't a pecking order in high schools or just that it is supposed to remain unsaid?

You’re saying too much of the quiet part out loud. Also focused too much on rankings instead of showing fit. You’re supposed to say things like “Jr wants to go to the library every day to learn after school and is looking for a school where there are more kids like her,” not “we’re looking for Jr to be in a top tier school.”

This is also internally in your K-8 discussions with teachers and administrators. If you don’t show you know why your daughter would be a better fit at NCS than Holton beyond that NCS is ranked first, especially if administrators think Holton would also be a fit or might be a better fit, they may not bat for you with NCS.

So gross and eye-rolly. How do you do that crap and not vomit all over yourselves? You know in 20 years NONE of this will matter!

I don’t. But I know people who do, and do so successfully.

I also think this practice is completely unfair. For all these schools’ talk about systemic bias no one seems to realize that parents of most kids coming from underprivileged backgrounds don’t know don’t have time to learn the difference between Sidwell and GDS. They just want their kids to go to the best schools and “get ahead,” sometimes without much of an idea of what that means. It’s unfair to ask them to have a reason to want to a school beyond “I want the best for my child.”

Why exactly is it unfair? Because you assume they don't have the fortitude to make a distinction? Equating privilege, or lack there of, with an (in)ability to appropriately analyze options is at best, short-sighted, at worst, insulting. Underprivileged is not synonymous with incapable or stupid.

What distinction is there between SFS and GDS? Is one more ethical and less racist? I was able to follow the thread until these posts.

Curious about this also.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Don’t forget behavior.

Our child was at a private that sent many students to top schools. Children were not prepared for exmissions, but they were generally expected to be considerate and well-behaved. They were also expected to have friendly conversations with adults. The ones who did not meet this expectation did not get into top schools, even when the parents were VIPs and grades were great. The kids who got into top schools were not uniformly smart, but they were uniformly kind.

One very intelligent, career-driven mom’s overachieving child was rejected or waitlisted everywhere because of her own oblivious and obnoxious behavior. When she found out via the HoS inquiring that she was the reason her child not accepted, she then started explaining how the schools were short-sighted and missing out by not accepting her child. This might all be true, but it also exemplifies the very behavior that might have prevented her from being a wanted member of the community.

The exact opposite happened at our K-6. The most obnoxious mom complained about other kids, even as her kid was kicking other kids. My kid got kicked in the shins and the HOS laughed about the other mom and kid. But, that kid got into a top 3... as a sibling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We just found out about private school admissions for several of our friends' children. They did amazingly well and got into the most competitive middle and high schools.
My kids applied in the last few years and didn't get into the more competitive schools. We were disappointed, but it is what it is.
I can't help but feel a little sting that all these kids are getting into schools that my kids were rejected from--mostly because I do not understand what set them apart. Our kids all seem very similar--well-rounded with good grades/school involvement, nice kids. Families are nice. Parents are involved. Everyone is UMC or wealthy. We are close with these families so I don't think they are doing any crazy, amazing ECs or accomplishments that I don't know about. I know their grades (similar to my kids).
What sets kids apart in 5th or 8th grade? Essays? letter of Rec? Parent essays? Family involvement in schools?
I think my kids are great, so I wish I knew what prevented them from gaining admission.

Different years are going to have different results. It doesn’t sound like your kids were applying at the same time for the same grades, so you really can’t directly compare results.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Educational consultants who advocate for your child.

This is actually a good point. Lots of UMC white families are using these educational consultants as an edge over the competition. Once you take out the slots for recruited athletes, URMs, legacy, VIP, there aren't many spaces left for children of affluent white/asian families.

If even 20% of white/asian families are using an educational consultant, it becomes incredibly hard to gain admission without one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Test scores, first choice letters, legacy, URM, sports, being potentially very large donors in addition to full pay.

You seem very confident that you know what went into the other kids' applications, and sometimes there are things that their parents haven't mentioned to you.

I agree with this. We have been through admissions multiple times with our kids. The times we have been successful, it felt like an all-out siege, but none of the strategizing and effort would have been visible to other parents.

What did you do that wouldn’t have been obvious to others?

We have been accepted to 2nd tier schools only and WL at first tier. I still don’t understand why. ISEE scores 7,8,9,9; national placement in science; city recognition for art portfolio (submitted to school); plays 4 sports; UMC family that is active at K-8; parent recognized for school donations; well written parent statements and student essay. Applied to top tier in K, 6, and 9 - all WL. I know legacy kids with lower stats who get in. The non-legacy kids (very view) who do get in have similar stats. What did you do differently?

Did you ask the HoS at your K-8 why your child was not admitted to top tier for 9th? HoS at St Pats, Lowell, Sheridan, Norwood would know.

Yes, I asked, but I feel like I got a 'non-answer' - "competition was steep and there were just so many great kids and not enough spots". It just seems like other "great kids" similar to mine get the spots and never my kid. Oh well, my focus is on my younger ones now and I'm not sure top tier is for them - I'm tempted to send them there the older ones went for simplicity.

Your emphasis on "first tier" and "2nd tier" could be your answer.

Are you saying there isn't a pecking order in high schools or just that it is supposed to remain unsaid?

You’re saying too much of the quiet part out loud. Also focused too much on rankings instead of showing fit. You’re supposed to say things like “Jr wants to go to the library every day to learn after school and is looking for a school where there are more kids like her,” not “we’re looking for Jr to be in a top tier school.”

This is also internally in your K-8 discussions with teachers and administrators. If you don’t show you know why your daughter would be a better fit at NCS than Holton beyond that NCS is ranked first, especially if administrators think Holton would also be a fit or might be a better fit, they may not bat for you with NCS.

So gross and eye-rolly. How do you do that crap and not vomit all over yourselves? You know in 20 years NONE of this will matter!

I don’t. But I know people who do, and do so successfully.

I also think this practice is completely unfair. For all these schools’ talk about systemic bias no one seems to realize that parents of most kids coming from underprivileged backgrounds don’t know don’t have time to learn the difference between Sidwell and GDS. They just want their kids to go to the best schools and “get ahead,” sometimes without much of an idea of what that means. It’s unfair to ask them to have a reason to want to a school beyond “I want the best for my child.”

Why exactly is it unfair? Because you assume they don't have the fortitude to make a distinction? Equating privilege, or lack there of, with an (in)ability to appropriately analyze options is at best, short-sighted, at worst, insulting. Underprivileged is not synonymous with incapable or stupid.

What distinction is there between SFS and GDS? Is one more ethical and less racist? I was able to follow the thread until these posts.

Curious about this also.

From what we've seen SFS seems to have a very strict quota system for non URM minorities. They will not admit more than one Chinese/Asian kid in a year or one ME kid. You can just see this each year as you welcome the new incoming class but even if you are not a parent at the school you can just take a look at their yearbooks. They take diversity kind of literally in terms of what people look like. It's not an admirable part of the school. GDS is more open. Individual admissions officers do like to advocate on behalf of URMs and it is a big part of their mission but they aren't so literal about how they think about diversity. This is more ethical. They might take a wealthy Chinese kid and then one who is a FARMS or first generation kid even if they come from the same area. This is assuming they are both overachievers and a good fit for the school. This is for the few unhooked spots.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Educational consultants who advocate for your child.

This is actually a good point. Lots of UMC white families are using these educational consultants as an edge over the competition. Once you take out the slots for recruited athletes, URMs, legacy, VIP, there aren't many spaces left for children of affluent white/asian families.

If even 20% of white/asian families are using an educational consultant, it becomes incredibly hard to gain admission without one.

I don't know any Asian familes that use an educational consultant. I think this is mostly a white thing.

[Anonymous]

Genuine question--why would an educational consultant help? Assuming this is beyond application content help? The schools in question value a recommendation more from someone a family can pay?

[Anonymous]

Is this literally, I've worked with the parents, they're fine, they pay me, the kid is ok type of thing? Genuinely curious to know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Educational consultants who advocate for your child.

This is actually a good point. Lots of UMC white families are using these educational consultants as an edge over the competition. Once you take out the slots for recruited athletes, URMs, legacy, VIP, there aren't many spaces left for children of affluent white/asian families.

If even 20% of white/asian families are using an educational consultant, it becomes incredibly hard to gain admission without one.

This just isn’t true. You can do your own research and get the same insights for free.

In the lower/middle school, they are mostly looking at the parents: their demeanor, personality, what they bring to the school community. Are they going to be a PITA, emailing teachers and staff about every little thing? Are they “off” or would other parents feel comfortable dropping their kids off at their house? (Just an example). In the high school it’s more about the kid. They can have real conversations at their interviews and their accomplishments are starting to speak for themselves.