Does going to a Big 3 school really help with college admissions?

[Anonymous]

Controlling for things like standardized test scores, athletic ability, legacy status, underrepresented minority status, and accomplishment in extracurricular activities, does going to a Big 3 school help students get into very selective colleges?

I've heard parents at MoCo public schools, especially the ones other than Whitman and BCC, say the answer is yes. They point to the fact that some colleges almost never accept students from certain public schools that churn out high achievers every year.

I've also heard parents at Big 3 schools say the answer is no. They say that students who would be at the top of some other school end up in the middle at a Big 3 schools and get rejected more often than they should. They also say that Big 3 schools have lots of students whose parents went to Harvard and Yale, etc., which means they get the benefit of more legacy admissions.

Let the fireworks begin!

[Anonymous]

Which schools do you mean when you say Big 3?

[Anonymous]

If in the top 10% of the class, yes, they will be in good shape. After that, no, I don't think it confers much advantage these days.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If in the top 10% of the class, yes, they will be in good shape. After that, no, I don't think it confers much advantage these days.

I agree with this. The problem being that it's really not easy to be in the top 10%. Pretty much everyone at a big3 for high school is very smart. Being in the top 10% is reserved for kids who study non-stop at the expense of almost everything else.
I'm beginning to realize that college admissions-wise my kids my kids would have been better off or just as good in public. They're well rounded kids--they work hard and do well in school, they play travel sports, they volunteer, they have active social lives---
but they're not going to be in the top 10%. That is reserved for the kids who are compulsive about school (more power to them but it's not most kids).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If in the top 10% of the class, yes, they will be in good shape. After that, no, I don't think it confers much advantage these days.

I agree with this. The problem being that it's really not easy to be in the top 10%. Pretty much everyone at a big3 for high school is very smart. Being in the top 10% is reserved for kids who study non-stop at the expense of almost everything else.
I'm beginning to realize that college admissions-wise my kids my kids would have been better off or just as good in public. They're well rounded kids--they work hard and do well in school, they play travel sports, they volunteer, they have active social lives---
but they're not going to be in the top 10%. That is reserved for the kids who are compulsive about school (more power to them but it's not most kids).

Nah. Senior class at our public VA HS has 950 students (close to 3,000 total).

There are almost non-existent Ivy League acceptances and maybe 15-20 UVA —out of 950 kids. These are the full IB program kids with a gazillion AP credits and well over a 4.5-4.6 gpa.

Also, counselors are over-worked, deal with way too many students and don’t have any connection to admission offices.

Kids with 4.0, multiple activities are struggling to get into Tech and JMU these days due to the quotas per Fairfax and Arlington HS.

It’s not what you think it is. The stress levels and anxiety are through the roof and the competition insane.

[Anonymous]

Agree. The kids at top public HS in MoCo, VA are very bright too. Their parents aren’t paying $40k/year for school—but these kids are as bright or brighter than Big 3 and have SAT scores and AP credits through the roof. You have to remember in this area, kids are coming from homes from parents with multiple degrees, PhD, law, medical, MBA, etc. that do choose strong public schools. It’s different than areas that the only option is private. It’s the Lake Wobegon effect. The same in places like Palo Alto.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If in the top 10% of the class, yes, they will be in good shape. After that, no, I don't think it confers much advantage these days.

I agree with this. The problem being that it's really not easy to be in the top 10%. Pretty much everyone at a big3 for high school is very smart. Being in the top 10% is reserved for kids who study non-stop at the expense of almost everything else.
I'm beginning to realize that college admissions-wise my kids my kids would have been better off or just as good in public. They're well rounded kids--they work hard and do well in school, they play travel sports, they volunteer, they have active social lives---
but they're not going to be in the top 10%. That is reserved for the kids who are compulsive about school (more power to them but it's not most kids).

Curious. Does this really work? Denigrating other kids to rationalize your own kids mediocrity?

The top 10% kids at our school are all well rounded and play sports and do theater. That’s how they all get into top 10 schools. You don’t get in just studying all the time.

Do you know why your kid didn’t make the top 10%? They just weren’t smart enough. But continue living in your fantasy world.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Which schools do you mean when you say Big 3?

Sidwell, NCS & STA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If in the top 10% of the class, yes, they will be in good shape. After that, no, I don't think it confers much advantage these days.

I agree with this. The problem being that it's really not easy to be in the top 10%. Pretty much everyone at a big3 for high school is very smart. Being in the top 10% is reserved for kids who study non-stop at the expense of almost everything else.
I'm beginning to realize that college admissions-wise my kids my kids would have been better off or just as good in public. They're well rounded kids--they work hard and do well in school, they play travel sports, they volunteer, they have active social lives---
but they're not going to be in the top 10%. That is reserved for the kids who are compulsive about school (more power to them but it's not most kids).

Curious. Does this really work? Denigrating other kids to rationalize your own kids mediocrity?

The top 10% kids at our school are all well rounded and play sports and do theater. That’s how they all get into top 10 schools. You don’t get in just studying all the time.

Do you know why your kid didn’t make the top 10%? They just weren’t smart enough. But continue living in your fantasy world.

Sorry. I was not meaning to be rude but you clearly are. The kids in the top 10% at our Big3 schools (my kids are 2 different ones) are really really driven to study. I don't know how to phrase it without you taking offense and insulting my kids. But my point stands it's not easy to be in this percentage. 90% of the very bright, hard working class are not. Those who are work really hard and are pretty compulsive about doing well (not meant to be an insult).

[Anonymous]

No

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Which schools do you mean when you say Big 3?

Sidwell, NCS & STA.

In that case, no. It does not help.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If in the top 10% of the class, yes, they will be in good shape. After that, no, I don't think it confers much advantage these days.

I agree with this. The problem being that it's really not easy to be in the top 10%. Pretty much everyone at a big3 for high school is very smart. Being in the top 10% is reserved for kids who study non-stop at the expense of almost everything else.
I'm beginning to realize that college admissions-wise my kids my kids would have been better off or just as good in public. They're well rounded kids--they work hard and do well in school, they play travel sports, they volunteer, they have active social lives---
but they're not going to be in the top 10%. That is reserved for the kids who are compulsive about school (more power to them but it's not most kids).

Curious. Does this really work? Denigrating other kids to rationalize your own kids mediocrity?

The top 10% kids at our school are all well rounded and play sports and do theater. That’s how they all get into top 10 schools. You don’t get in just studying all the time.

Do you know why your kid didn’t make the top 10%? They just weren’t smart enough. But continue living in your fantasy world.

Sorry. I was not meaning to be rude but you clearly are. The kids in the top 10% at our Big3 schools (my kids are 2 different ones) are really really driven to study. I don't know how to phrase it without you taking offense and insulting my kids. But my point stands it's not easy to be in this percentage. 90% of the very bright, hard working class are not. Those who are work really hard and are pretty compulsive about doing well (not meant to be an insult).

So you should be excused because you’re just an inadvertent asshole insulting other kids. That makes it all better. The basic premise is simply incorrect. Kids at the top study AND do all the other things you think your kids are doing.

[Anonymous]

I’m a parent who has spent $$$$ on a top flight non DC private. I think the answer is no. One factor you haven’t considered is that parents like me are more likely to be top school alums themselves. Between all those factors, I think it doesn’t much change admissions outcomes. And it certainly isn’t why I pay for private.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If in the top 10% of the class, yes, they will be in good shape. After that, no, I don't think it confers much advantage these days.

I agree with this. The problem being that it's really not easy to be in the top 10%. Pretty much everyone at a big3 for high school is very smart. Being in the top 10% is reserved for kids who study non-stop at the expense of almost everything else.
I'm beginning to realize that college admissions-wise my kids my kids would have been better off or just as good in public. They're well rounded kids--they work hard and do well in school, they play travel sports, they volunteer, they have active social lives---
but they're not going to be in the top 10%. That is reserved for the kids who are compulsive about school (more power to them but it's not most kids).

Definitionally it’s not 90% of kids. I mean really.

[Anonymous]

Absolutely but helps the bottom 90% more than the top 10%