Any Parents Privately Disappointed with College Placement?
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
"from among" - WTF? Your posts sound like you think all publics are like those dreadful southeast DC high schools where you might have to rub shoulders with *gasp* people who don't look exactly like you. Absolutely not true. Also, you need to put down that glazed donut (your naivety gives your class away) and listen to what others are saying here: if you yourself can't confer legacy status on your kid, you yourself aren't politically connected, and your kid doesn't have the diversity or terrific (I.e. recruitable) athletic talent, then sending him or her to an elite private will hurt not help college prospects, because your kid will be competing against kids in the private who do have these assets. Why do you think Sidwell asks where you and DH went to college? They're trying to figure out if your kid is a legacy. |
SAM2
Member Offline
Member Offline
|
Hold the phone! Did someone say "glazed donut"? Because I really like donuts.
And by the by, I don't understand PP's claim that any student from private who lacks legacy/connections/diversity/athletics will be disadvantaged at college admissions. If you're applying to college from a local public school, you'll be competing against all those same people. And while some colleges might put some maximum limit on the number of students from a particular private school, it's not like we're talking strict max/min quotas here that will have much impact. Sure the legacy/athletes/diversity people might benefit from a lower bar for admissions to colleges, but that doesn't mean the colleges won't accept other candidates who can meet the higher admissions criteria for someone without those characteristics. If Penn has already decided to admit 3 GDS students who are legacy/athletes/diversity, it's not going to close the door on a 4th GDS student that is fully qualified. Similarly, if Penn has not found any legacy/athletes/diversity students from Whitman that meet its admissions criteria, it's not going to lower the admissions criteria for some kid without those characteristics. I will be busy eating my donuts. Please explain your thinking further. |
Anonymous
|
WTF right back-atcha. You read *that* into those two paragraphs? I think it says a lot more about who you are than who I am (wrong on every guess, BTW). I especially liked the part where you simultaneously reassured me that not all public schools are like "those dreadful southeast DC high schools" and castigated me for presumably seeking an environment full of people who look exactly like me. Personally, the peer groups at many local privates scare me a helluva lot more than the peer groups at many local publics.
Not surprisingly, I think the "naivety" is all on your part. Perhaps you're confusing me with a different PP, but I haven't argued that private always gives a kid the edge over public -- depends on the kid, depends on the public, depends on the private, depends on the kid's class rank (which depends, in part, on the kid's cohort). Yes, if the kid will be at the very top of the class regardless of whether s/he goes to public or private, and if your kid will not be a legacy at the school s/he most wants to attend, and if your primary goal in choosing a HS is college admissions (rather than HS education), then your kid is better off at public. But guess what? Very few kids will actually be at the very tops of their class, not all of them will get into the most coveted colleges, and parents (much less parents of elementary school-aged kids) are not the most accurate or objective judges/predictors of where their own kids should/will be. If it's all about college admissions (which strikes me as the wrong approach but, for the sake of argument, I'll start from that premise), then the real question for most people here should be where will my kid be best off is s/he turns out to be a strong/capable student but not the star of his or her class? There are certainly kids in that category who will be better off at a private school -- but, again, it depends on which private vs. which public. |
Anonymous
|
Anonymous
To 14:39 - I am the poster you quoted, and I disagree with you. I had terrible work and study habits before college. I went to a highly regarded public school in another state and was in the gifted program/all AP classes/etc. I live in DC, which doesn't even have a gifted program. I am not painting some cozy picture of private school. I also do not think all public school kids are dumb. I was a public school kid myself, as was my (also gifted track in yet another state) DH. You seem determined to take the view that those who choose private are doing it as some sort of class war. In our case, we are not. Finding the line for our children between challenging and interesting enough and a pressure cooker will not be easy. It's a challenge I devote my time and energy (and financial resources) to because I was absolutely miserable and bored in high school. Life began at college for me. I hated school before then. It was nice to be in a place where they expected you to do good work and take the subject seriously. My public school, despite how I was tracked, was never able to make me feel like I had to think about anything - it was all too easy and boring. College also made clear that a focus on academics to the exclusion of everything else (including art, music and sports) was a crappy way to live my life. "Drill and kill," as you put it, is not something I want my kids to experience when they could be experiencing a more well-rounded and interdisciplinary approach to learning. |
Anonymous
Taught at leading private. Great kids but plenty have terrible study habits, etc-- the average was surprisingly average. But I think kids across the board have many more available distractions, and I'm sure if I were their age I would be distracted too. But private school does not equate great study habits per se. |
Anonymous
|
Forgot to mention that it's naive to assume that your kid won't be competing against kids with legacy status within a public HS, especially at affluent suburban schools, Wilson, and magnets with competitive admissions.
And, yes, Sam, schools will turn down the 4th (or xth -- maybe it's 6th, I don't know) fully-qualified GDS students. The schools with the most selective admissions routinely turn down hundreds of highly-qualified students. They want student bodies that are diverse/balanced in so many ways (regionally, economically, public vs. private) and wrt athletes, at a certain point (earlier in Ivies than in football-oriented school), each coach has met his/her quota. Basically, with a nationwide pool there's an overabundance of well-qualified kids and highly-coveted schools have to say "no" not just to some of them but to MOST of them who apply. Which is why you have various sorts of quotas -- admission is a scarce commodity which needs to be rationed in order to serve a variety of different goals. |
SAM2
Member Offline
Member Offline
My apologies -- I was not clear. I completely agree with you that very many highly-qualified applicants will be rejected. But my point is that the applicant from a top private school who is not legacy/athlete/diversity is not really directly competing for slots with the legacy/athlete/diversity applicants at her school. She's definitely competing, but that competition is far broader than just her private school. It's not as if a college sets a quota of 4 slots from a particular high school, and then assigns those 4 slots to legacy/athlete/diversity applicants first, with leftover slots going to other applicants without such characteristics. Each applicant is competing on a nationwide (or at least city/region-wide) level. Indeed, if an applicant is relying on an athletic scholarship to get admitted, I suspect her real competition is with all the other athletes across the country playing that same sport, since I imagine each coach will only have a limited number of recruiting slots to award. (In other words, the womens crew coach cannot designate 300 women as priority admits because they happened to row in high school.) Yes, an applicant who lacks any legacy/athlete/diversity factor must be incredibly highly-qualified (and very lucky) to be admitted to a top college. But she doesn't have to be more qualified to get admitted when she's coming from a local private school rather than from a local public school. The one exception I can see relates to class rank -- I've definitely read articles about how students from top high schools (private and public magnets) are disadvantaged in college admissions because they have relatively lower class ranks than they might get at standard public schools (since the academic competition is more fierce at many privates and public magnets). This is the reason many such schools refuse to report class ranks. |
Anonymous
Sorry for the sarcasm. I chose to call the PP naive, but I felt like calling her much worse. And I like glazed donuts too - that was a point about PP's elitism. She displayed an incredible smugness about private versus public, and one that's wrong-headed in many ways. I found it very offensive, and maybe responded too strongly. But she needs to be shaken up, too. Actually, I think Penn might turn down the 4th GDS student. From looking at privates' exmissions lists (yes, I have a kid in private), it looks like the top schools (Ivy and other) only take a few kids from each class. If those slots are claimed by legacies or athletes, then other kids don't get in. I may have exaggerated (just a tad) to make a point to the oblivious PP I was responding to, but I wasn't exaggerating much. You can find this sort of information in books like The Price of Admission, which DH and I read with amazement. Or, just go to the schools that post exmissions data, and check out their lists. |
Anonymous
You need to adjust the tones of your posts, if they provoke such responses. Arguing that private kids are a better peer group than public kids is just offensive. Unless you have some way to explain this statement that doesn't sound offensive, in which case we're all ears. |
Anonymous
No, some other posters here created the view that there's some sort of class war going on. I was responding to two types of statements, from apparently different posters: (1) Private kids are smarter than public kids ("private kids can shoot to the top of any public school class"), and (2) Private kids are a better peer group. My kids have done public and private. I know from experience that these statements are wrong. I seem to have offended people, but I don't care. I find these stereotypes very offensive. I don't know whether these statements come from ingrained elitism, or naivete, or a desire to justify the decision to spend lots of money on private. They're still offensive. |
Anonymous
SAM2, I'd really like to believe this, because my DC is at one of the most competitive high schools in the area. But from what we've seen in upper grades at school, and from what I've read in various places, unfortunately it does seem to work out this way. Do you have a source for this, or personal inside knowledge? |
Anonymous
| instead of "does", I meant "does not". Sorry! |
SAM2
Member Offline
Member Offline
Which part? For some I can cite you authorities, and other parts are just my inferences. Are you saying you see that most of the admits from your DC's school to top colleges seem to be legacy/diversity/athletes? If so, that makes sense because those groups need to clear a lower bar, so there will be more of them admitted. But it doesn't mean that non-priorities face a higher bar. Actually, I can think of two likely exceptions to that last statement: (1) In a general mathematical sense, if a college is planning to admit only X number of students nationwide, and some portion of X slots goes to legacy/athletes/diversity, then I suppose the other non-priority applicants face a marginally higher bar. But there are studies showing that bar really is raised only very slightly. (2) If at a particular high school, some enormous number of priority applicants are admitted, then I suppose some college might truly cap out and refuse to admit more students. But given the very tiny number of people admitted to top colleges, I think that's probably a rarity. |
Anonymous
|
From some of the literature I've read, like the Price of Admission, I got the impression that there weren't all that many slots left after all the legacies (15-20% of the class), diversity, wealth, and athletics. Maybe 30-40% of the class was available to non-priority students.
So possibly what we are talking about is the odds of getting admitted, not numbers per se. Tons of non-priority kids applying for those 30-40% of slots, and a smaller number of athletes, legacies, diverse kids applying for those slots. So the non-priority kids face lower odds, because the ratio of non-priority kids to non-priority slots is higher. How does this translate into a given non-priority kid's chances at an elite school? As you say, schools may do their calculations on a national basis. But I would think that the priority kid in your school has a better shot at the 3-4 slots (i.e. better odds), and once those slots are gone, the non-priority kid is out of luck? I'd be interested in what you've seen. |