
Very interesting article here on the effect of sibling status, diversity, and donations on admissions at top schools -- http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/06/nyregion/at-elite-new-york-schools-admissions-policies-are-evolving.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all . Lots of details on issues that interest many people here. I have not even finished reading it yet. I'll update later after I finish reading it. Enjoy.
ETA: I am putting below some of the quotes I find most interesting.
|
Interesting. I always thought that the sibling preference at NYC privates was weaker than the preferences at DC privates. I was led to believe this by friends and family who had lived in both places.
Sounds like they might be wrong? I wish DC privates had even weaker policies across the board. The schools would still fill every slot with top-notch kids and the group as a whole would probably be, how shall I put this? would probably be stronger-smarter. Ala Thomas Jefferson or Stuyvesant. Everybody stands on his own. |
I talk to a lot of parents who lead stress-filled lives because they have children in multiple schools. They're driving all over, they're giving and volunteering all over, and it all really requires a stay-at-home parent to manage it. For that reason, I like the preference given to siblings. Once a family is a part of a community, schools should admit siblings so long as they're as qualified as other applicants. |
I do not know what family would be happy moving kids between 2 different schools daily.
I know it would drive me crazy. Much better to have both attend the same |
I agree with PP. It's easier for schools too. You know the family already. You know they aren't going to drive you crazy and antagonize the teachers. A new family, no matter how charming at an interview is unknown.
The diversity mention seemed odd to me. NYC is a diverse area with affluent people fron all different cultures. It doesn't surprise me that a school is getting more diverse. Our country is getting more diverse. What does that have to do with admissions? Perhaps schools in less diverse areas need to work harder to get a diverse group and give some preference or what have you, but I cannot imagine in NYC that is an issue. I would assume there are many, many qualified candidates from all backgrounds with families willing to pay top dollar. |
Interesting article. I'm sorry to say, though, that it's probably worse than 2.4% for many families.
The quote about "those without connections have a 2.4% shot at the prize" uses the word "connections" to refer to sibling, legacy or faculty connections. But people use other connections to get into privates in DC, and in NYC I'm sure, such as having a school trustee weigh in on your behalf. I'm not surprised, like 12:36 is, by the diversity mention. The article drops hints, but doesn't spell it out. If 11 of the kids were legacies in the article, we can probably assume that most of them were white, this country's race relations being what they were when the legacies' parents were in school. Maybe 1/3 of the sibling applicants are URMS. So if the school wants to have an overall percentage of 30% URMS, then the chunk of white legacies means that more than 1/3 of the 17 "non-hooked" kids has to be a URM. I'm not saying this is bad, in fact the chunk of white legacies is unfair. The article also doesn't the sort of preferences that come with being parents who are really successful, important, or wealthy. In DC, it's having a parent who is a political appointee. In NYC, it's having a parent who is a hedge fund manager or who is otherwise big in finance or law. The former add prestige to your school, the latter add big donations. This isn't to say that no "unhooked" kid never gets in. If you don't try, you'll never know. Just don't get too wedded to the idea of getting your kid into a certain school. Who knows, maybe some day you'll be able to post on DCUM, "we're a normal family, and we got in." |