Anonymous wrote:The "Lifers" tend to come from the wealthiest, most powerful, and well connected families. That's why their little 4 year old beat out your little 4 year old 99 percenter for admission to places like Beauvoir. It is true that in 9th grade, test scores (or athletic ability) carry the day. But at the end of the day, wealth, power, and well connectedness will turn those Gentlemen Bs into gold.

You also get an "ick" from me -- and I'm the parent of 3 kids who transferred into a Big 3 in middle school. The PPs who've noted that obviously it's more difficult to predict long-term academic success for a preK applicant than for a 9th-grade applicant are correct. So too are the PPs who've noted that the top of the graduating class will include a mix of lifers and kids who transferred in at MS and HS -- and so will the bottom of the class. These are human beings, not robots, and a lot of variables enter into the picture.

Anonymous wrote:It's not that all the 9th-grade-entries outperform all the lifers. There are lifers at the tippy-top of the senior class at every K-12 school. It's that, as a PP said, many 9th-grade-entries are very strong academically (not all), while the lifers are more a mixed bag. Basically, you really can't predict with 4-year-olds, and they won't kick kids out just because they aren't superstars.

I would take it as commentary on the predictive validity of the WPPSI, playdates, and preschool recommendations, not as a slam on the lower and middle schools.

+1

Amazing how many of you have actually engaged in this ugly discussion. Yay! My child is smarter than those other children! I'm such a great parent!

Ugh.

When you can pick and choose amoung the top students who have already proved themselves, of course you are going to get a high result. Think sports. The draft -- just full of poor performers -- not. Why does it offend people so much in academics but not in sports?

I would guess it doesn't make a difference and varies by year at each school. At my K-12, the valedictorian and most of the top of the class were lifers. However, the transfer kids were much better rounded and more social.

The "Lifers" tend to come from the wealthiest, most powerful, and well connected families. That's why their little 4 year old beat out your little 4 year old 99 percenter for admission to places like Beauvoir. It is true that in 9th grade, test scores (or athletic ability) carry the day. But at the end of the day, wealth, power, and well connectedness will turn those Gentlemen Bs into gold.

I agree with every word of the prior poster who started with "Ick." (20:15) I was a lifer at a so called "Big 3" who went on to higher education (college and grad school) at top Ivies. There were some other lifers who did the same, and some who didn't. There were those who joined the school later who did the same, and some who did not. But so what? As far as I can tell, my classmates of all types are generally successful in their own spheres. Interesting and happy adults. My goal for my kids is that they develop a love for learning and do their own personal best, not that they "outperform" their peers.

Anonymous wrote:It's not that all the 9th-grade-entries outperform all the lifers. There are lifers at the tippy-top of the senior class at every K-12 school. It's that, as a PP said, many 9th-grade-entries are very strong academically (not all), while the lifers are more a mixed bag. Basically, you really can't predict with 4-year-olds, and they won't kick kids out just because they aren't superstars.

I would take it as commentary on the predictive validity of the WPPSI, playdates, and preschool recommendations, not as a slam on the lower and middle schools.

I tend to agree with this. At my K-12 private, the lifers were a mixed bag of superstars and average performers. Of those admitted from 6th grade on, the ratio was far more heavily weighted towards superstars.

It's not that all the 9th-grade-entries outperform all the lifers. There are lifers at the tippy-top of the senior class at every K-12 school. It's that, as a PP said, many 9th-grade-entries are very strong academically (not all), while the lifers are more a mixed bag. Basically, you really can't predict with 4-year-olds, and they won't kick kids out just because they aren't superstars.

I would take it as commentary on the predictive validity of the WPPSI, playdates, and preschool recommendations, not as a slam on the lower and middle schools.

Ick. This isn't a competition. Pick the school thats right for your DC. If your idea is that the goal is for your DC to "outperform" other children, I hope you don't send them to my DC's school.

It's harder to tell which child will thrive in 9th grade when he is 5 than when he is 14. Once they are in the school, they are less likely to leave. So yes, the ones who get in at 9th are usually stronger students than the "lifers", but not always. Sometimes the "lifers" would have been accepted at 9th, too.

Anonymous wrote:I think it has more to do with the fact that it is easier for the school to identify smart, talented, hardworking 9th-graders for admission than smart, talented, hardworking 4-year-olds.

- perhaps some slight bias as I attended a "Big 3" starting in middle school

This is the truth!

I think it has more to do with the fact that it is easier for the school to identify smart, talented, hardworking 9th-graders for admission than smart, talented, hardworking 4-year-olds.

- perhaps some slight bias as I attended a "Big 3" starting in middle school

Its an interesting theory. Really begs the question as to whether or not the "big" lower and middle schools are really worth all the hype. People have said for years that the benefit of being at a place like Sidwell is for the high school experience and the college placement.

I have stories from friends and family members about the difference in academic preparation for high school at the "big 3 or 5" schools as it relates to the lifers versus the kids that transfer in at the 9th grade. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? All the frenzy over getting kids into a K-12 school at the outset, when in actuality, it might be smarter to let them start somewhere else -- anywhere else, develop strong academic work habits and then transfer to one of the highly competitive schools for high school and outperform the lifers! Thoughts?!