Message
Anonymous wrote:I fear that putting them both in public school will hurt one, whereas placing one in private and one in public might cause jealousy.
I am 3:58. I'm sorry I accidentally derailed your thread OP. I've been bugged by the outbreak of "teaser" topic descriptions in the past few months, so I wanted to say something. I did not mean to block you from getting good responses. Here is one thread that discusses your issue: http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/37980.page#252109 . If you search the archive for the following terms, I think you'll find other threads too: public private fit "one in". Good luck.
If you look at the data table linked from the Private School FAQ (http://fwd4.me/QeT), you can see some analysis of St Anselm's college exmission success. On a percentage basis, St Anselm's college exmission numbers are most comparable to Potomac and Landon. This is consistent with the numbers for St Anselm's on the Matriculation Stats website, which uses a slightly different analysis to track the same thing (http://fwd4.me/QeV).
I hope this helps.
I hope this helps.
Here are an article and a couple presentations on the red/green zone issue (with maps). My understanding is that the program basically allocates additional funding to the red zone schools.
http://webreprints.djreprints.com/2218431183300.html
http://www.hbs.edu/pelp/docs/Weast070620Harvard.pdf
http://www.ets.org/Media/Education_Topics/pdf/school%20finance/Lacey.pdf
If you search online, you'll find several other articles and discussions about it: http://fwd4.me/PpB
Also, here is a book on Montgomery County schools that seems interesting: http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/leadingforequity/
http://webreprints.djreprints.com/2218431183300.html
http://www.hbs.edu/pelp/docs/Weast070620Harvard.pdf
http://www.ets.org/Media/Education_Topics/pdf/school%20finance/Lacey.pdf
If you search online, you'll find several other articles and discussions about it: http://fwd4.me/PpB
Also, here is a book on Montgomery County schools that seems interesting: http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/leadingforequity/
That said, the use of "percent admitted" stats for historical comparisons re how difficult it is to get into various schools always strikes me as really problematic because applicant pools change historically. And, of course, it's not random selection. So the question really is for whom is it harder to get admitted?
What's more, we know that there's been grade inflation and that the SAT has been re-normed (twice, I think, since I took it) in ways that also make today's scores inflated compared to earlier ones. Basically, to answer the "is it harder to get in today?" question, you'd have to define specific applicant pools and then look not at absolute numbers but percentiles. Even then, the test scores comparison is still somewhat iffy to the extent that changes in who takes SAT/ACT and what prep they have for it has also changed.
Fair enough on all these points. But the data I was posting above was really limited to the question of how much advantage legacies have. I understand (and agree) that the admissions bar for highly-selective schools seem to have gotten higher in the past 20 years, but I have not seen anything suggesting that the relative proportions of legacy applicants to non-legacy applicants has changed too much. Sure the average scores of college admittees have increased, but so have the scores of applicants -- the numbers should remain relatively proportional. The NSCE data that underlies the articles seems to come from a broad span of years (1983-1997), so it's got a pretty broad temporal scope to begin with.
Actually, after reading closer, I think you're really responding to the original post in the thread, and not to the most recent post. If so, then what you're saying makes more sense to me.
One of the most recent changes in applicant pools has been the increasing tendency for (upper middle class?) kids with no chance in hell of getting into HYP type schools applying, something I've noticed as an alumn interviewer and that friends who interview for other schools agree that they've seen that phenomenon as well. It's also been commented on in the context of the Common Application. In that sense, I don't see lower admissions rates as signs of higher standards. Just of less accurate self-selection on the part of applicants.
I'm not sure I totally understand you here. I'm pretty sure that upper-middle-class kids with no chance in hell of admissions have been applying to "reach" schools for decades -- at least my friends and I all were doing that 25+ years ago! Whatever the reason though, the applicant pool certainly has increased for many schools.
The snippet below arose in the private schools forum, but I am copying it here to the college forum, since it fits the topic better and ties into the earlier posts in this thread. It's also a topic that comes up regularly on DCUM, so this will make it easier to find later.
SAM2 wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Some legacy are let in with scores that wouldn't get them in if they weren't legacies.
And let's not forget that if Mommy and Daddy went to Princeton, sure, their kid will be a legacy applicant if he chooses to apply to Princeton, but HE ALSO WILL PROBABLY BE PRETTY DAMN SMART ANYWAY and could probably get in on his own.
I think this point is true, and people often forget it. For whatever reason (genetics, SES, interest in education, nature/nurture, etc), children of well-educated parents score higher on academic measures than others. When people think of legacy admissions to colleges, they most often think of the offensive example where a marginally qualified (or even completely unqualified) student gets admitted through legacy preference and huge donations. That surely happens in some cases and is very memorable. But I think that in many legacy situations, the legacy applicants are just as qualified as the rest of the applicant pool.
Here is a link to a study that examined (among other things) the impact of legacy status on admissions at highly-selective colleges: http://fwd4.me/OFj . The authors found that while legacy applicants make up less than 4% of the applicant pool, they are twice as likely to be admitted as non-legacies (50% of legacy applicants admitted vs. 24% of non-legacy applicants). See page 1425. However, the average SAT score for legacies is actually slightly higher than for non-legacies: 1350 for legacies, and 1332 for non-legacies. See page 1430 (last full paragraph on page).
And here is a follow-up study by the same authors, which tries to predict what would happen if admission preferences were removed: http://fwd4.me/P8d . The table at pages 299-300 summarizes the results. "Simulation 2" predicts what admissions would look like if admissions preferences for athletes and legacies were removed. The odds of admission for legacies definitely would drop significantly. Instead of admitting 47% of legacy applicants, colleges would admit only 28%. However, even without any preference, legacy applicants still would be admitted more often than non-legacy applicants, based only on merit: 28% admission rate for legacies vs. 22% for non-legacies. Thus, if all legacy preferences were removed, only about 60% of the legacies currently being admitted would be admitted.
So at least according to these studies, the legacy benefit is real and significant in admissions. However, the majority (60%) of legacy applicants would be admitted regardless. And legacy applicants actually represent only about 3.1% percentage of the applicant pool (page 297). So that suggests that "less qualified" legacies make up only 1.24% of the total applicant pool, and only 2.6% of admitted students. To me at least, that means that while I might not agree with colleges giving legacy preferences, the actual likely harm to my non-legacy child's chances of admission are pretty small.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Some legacy are let in with scores that wouldn't get them in if they weren't legacies.
And let's not forget that if Mommy and Daddy went to Princeton, sure, their kid will be a legacy applicant if he chooses to apply to Princeton, but HE ALSO WILL PROBABLY BE PRETTY DAMN SMART ANYWAY and could probably get in on his own.
I think this point is true, and people often forget it. For whatever reason (genetics, SES, interest in education, nature/nurture, etc), children of well-educated parents score higher on academic measures than others. When people think of legacy admissions to colleges, they most often think of the offensive example where a marginally qualified (or even completely unqualified) student gets admitted through legacy preference and huge donations. That surely happens in some cases and is very memorable. But I think that in many legacy situations, the legacy applicants are just as qualified as the rest of the applicant pool.
Here is a link to a study that examined (among other things) the impact of legacy status on admissions at highly-selective colleges: http://fwd4.me/OFj . The authors found that while legacy applicants make up less than 4% of the applicant pool, they are twice as likely to be admitted as non-legacies (50% of legacy applicants admitted vs. 24% of non-legacy applicants). See page 1425. However, the average SAT score for legacies is actually slightly higher than for non-legacies: 1350 for legacies, and 1332 for non-legacies. See page 1430 (last full paragraph on page).
And here is a follow-up study by the same authors, which tries to predict what would happen if admission preferences were removed: http://fwd4.me/P8d . The table at pages 299-300 summarizes the results. "Simulation 2" predicts what admissions would look like if admissions preferences for athletes and legacies were removed. The odds of admission for legacies definitely would drop significantly. Instead of admitting 47% of legacy applicants, colleges would admit only 28%. However, even without any preference, legacy applicants still would be admitted more often than non-legacy applicants, based only on merit: 28% admission rate for legacies vs. 22% for non-legacies. Thus, if all legacy preferences were removed, only about 60% of the legacies currently being admitted would be admitted.
So at least according to these studies, the legacy benefit is real and significant in admissions. However, the majority (60%) of legacy applicants would be admitted regardless. And legacy applicants actually represent only about 3.1% percentage of the applicant pool (page 297). So that suggests that "less qualified" legacies make up only 1.24% of the total applicant pool, and only 2.6% of admitted students. To me at least, that means that while I might not agree with colleges giving legacy preferences, the actual likely harm to my non-legacy child's chances of admission are pretty small.
Anonymous wrote:What is the starting salary of DC publics and privates?
Here is some useful data about public/private salaries in DC: http://www.aisgw.org/school_resources/Overall%20DC%20Stats%2008-09.pdf . The many people noting that public school teachers are paid more are correct. According to this data, public school teachers seem to be making about 10-15% more than private school teachers, not including benefits.
My view is that it's ridiculous to try to generalize which group of teachers is better or worse. Of course there are going to be both wonderful and terrible teachers in both types of schools. It seems the public school system would have a much more bureaucratic, objective, and regulation-driven hiring process, so it would make sense for public schools to require all sorts of certifications and baseline requirements to make sure they are getting top teachers. And public schools need to pay more to encourage teachers to go through that certification process. Private schools have the benefit of being able to ignore such rules and use more subjective measures to hire the best teachers they can attract. And it seems like many good teachers are willing to accept less pay at private schools in exchange for avoiding bureaucratic hassle and for other creature comforts. It also seems like there is just as much pressure on private schools to try to find good teachers, because the very active private school parents will complain and perhaps leave if the teachers are not strong.
I put some diversity numbers together a while ago, using "official" numbers from the DOE, and the results were pretty interesting. Here is the "diversity index" number for several schools, geographic regions, and local neighborhoods:
Comparing and contrasting the numbers for particular locations requires a little time. But the bottom line is that if you're coming from Bethesda, CC, Ward 3, or McLean, most of the schools likely will be more diverse than your neighbors.
Comparing and contrasting the numbers for particular locations requires a little time. But the bottom line is that if you're coming from Bethesda, CC, Ward 3, or McLean, most of the schools likely will be more diverse than your neighbors.
Anonymous wrote:I don't mean to be a booster of the NYC schools. That the two systems seem to me different doesn't necessarily make one better than the other.
Actually would be really interested to hear what is wrong with my point of view, or data that contradicts it. I don't have any interest in pursuing a false or inaccurate line of argument.
I like the reasonable sound of your post, so I'll bite. I personally think you're right that the NYC elementary school system generally insists on higher admissions test scores than DC. My understanding is that the many public gifted/talented schools in NYC now use something like 98-99% as the cut-off for admission consideration, so I suspect that many of the very top private schools can insist on the same numbers. I don't know if that reflects a difference in philosophy from DC, or just a much bigger pool of applicants that allows certain top schools to insist on only very top scores (sort of like a more extreme market segmentation than in DC). I think PP is also right that (for right or wrong) test prep is much more commonplace in NYC.
Looking at the Forbes list got me curious, so I started plugging some numbers for these other NYC/boarding schools into my working spreadsheet (http://fwd4.me/Jes). The results are very sketchy so far because of minimal data, but very interesting nevertheless.
I don't use the same methodology as Forbes (Ivy+MIT+Stanford), so my percentages are different. But relative to one another, it does seem that many of the very top NYC/boarding schools have a higher percentage than most local DC privates. The percentage difference is not huge -- only a few % points -- but it's clearly a difference. A legacy factor may account for some of that difference, and geography for some more, but it's clear the NYC/boarding schools have very strong track records at getting seniors into top colleges. This is particularly interesting because the (very limited) data I've seen so far suggests that the NYC/boarding students scores on various academic measures (Presidential Scholar, SATs, NMSFs) are not so uniformly better than the DC scores. I don't have a clear working hypothesis yet to explain the disparity between college and academic numbers for NYC/boarding schools.
It's interesting stuff.
I keep hearing about kids (families) who have been admitted to the Particular School, either this year or a couple years prior. In every single instance -- EVERY single instance -- mom or dad is either a columnist at the Post, a high-level Obama political type, a TV personality, a celebrity Washingtonian-featured physician, or a judge.
Maybe it's just that people are more likely to talk (and you're more likely to hear about) high-profile people. I'm pretty sure there are plenty of no-name government lawyers with kids at these schools -- probably more than the high-profile types -- but no one gabbing about the schools pays any attention to them.
Anonymous wrote:To make it easier for you, I'll explain: someone asked why DC schools weren't included in the Forbes list. The answer is that they don't deserve to be there based on most objective criteria (other than college matriculation).
Now I'm really mixed up, boss-man. You see, this dang objective data tells me that those boarding schools aren't any better than many of our local DC vo-tech schools. When you were bragging about your hundred-acre putting greens and such, I could sort of understand your point. You seemed like an ass, but I could understand you. Now I just don't know what to do. I guess that's why you're the boss.
Well, I better get back to work .... These turds ain't gonna polish themselves.
I think because everyone is completely anonymous, it's easy to cast aside all restraints of civility and just let fly with really obnoxious things you'd never consider saying in real life. Once I started posting with an actual login, I found myself being much more constructive and respectful. When I'm not logged in, if I see someone being a complete jerk, I'm much more likely to tell her to screw off -- if I'm logged in, I find myself trying harder to contribute constructively (and more likely to hold back from calling someone an ass).
It doesn't make much sense, because I'm just as anonymous with my login, so there's no reason I should hesitate to say whatever snarky thing I'm thinking. But somehow having a login associated with my comments makes me behave better. There's probably some psychological theory that explains it.
I actually like it most of the time. Others should consider trying it. I can understand why the site admin does not want to require logins, but I think it would make this a more enjoyable place. Maybe sometime when I'm queen for a day ....
It doesn't make much sense, because I'm just as anonymous with my login, so there's no reason I should hesitate to say whatever snarky thing I'm thinking. But somehow having a login associated with my comments makes me behave better. There's probably some psychological theory that explains it.
I actually like it most of the time. Others should consider trying it. I can understand why the site admin does not want to require logins, but I think it would make this a more enjoyable place. Maybe sometime when I'm queen for a day ....
Anonymous wrote:Thank you for your FAQ! I have found this to be extremely helpful!
Many thanks. If you can think of other topics that would be helpful to include, please let me know. Thanks again. Good luck with your school search.
Anonymous wrote:At my school parents are not involved in volunteering for sports at all-- they are big boys. There is no "cupcake" committee to speak of. No, indeed I volunteer for each of the two or three major school-wide fundraisers that are held at different times during the year, and there are lots (at least 20 or so!) of different positions to choose from.
I apologize for being unclear -- I was referring to the soccer team and the cupcake committee as tongue-in-cheek examples of very different groups, not as actual activities. If you're getting rebuffed by the fundraiser crowd, isn't there some other volunteer activity at the school besides fundraisers?
Your school is definitely not my school if it is so easy for someone to volunteer and get accepted at your school .... So, please tell me, how am I ever to become "heavily involved in school activities" as you say? I do not aspire to the Bpoard of Trustees, just to volunteering outside of my kitchen once in a while. I've been at this school for two years and still have not broken out of the kitchen.
I guess we are at different schools, because I just respond to those same emails and had no problem getting heavily involved immediately. And I'm pretty much a nobody, so I don't think I'm getting any benefits of cronyism or hen-cackling. If I were you, I'd try volunteering with a different group at school -- for example, if you don't want to bake, try volunteering with the soccer team rather than the cupcake committee. I don't know your school, but I'd imagine the same group of parents can't control every possible school event. (Yikes if they do!) Best of luck to you.