Anonymous wrote:The college admission game is changing profoundly and quickly. Top privates will continue to do well, but indeed average students in those schools with few APs and clearly supported by tutors/parents are not going to get a pass - even legacy is at risk. People are looking at inclusion stats.

Anonymous wrote:^^
Not a defense, but it’s been around for decades. WIS didn’t start it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The other thread is talking about private, including the Big3 is waste of money and with no advantage to college admissions. Would be interesting to actually see the stats for the bottom 75% of class. I am sure to 25% are what people are touting here.

Nope. There are "bottom 75%" who applied to non-Ivy, first choice schools and are getting in ED. They may not be schools that some consider "elite" (I am referring to the long thread in the College forum here) but they are those students first choices. Schools like Carnegie, Case-Western, Pitzer, etc.

Okay, but was spending money at Big3 helping them get in at the low tier schools or would they still have gotten in coming from a public?

Your brain is truly in the wrong place. You have no idea what you are talking about to ask such a question.

I would argue that being in the lower 75% of your class at a private school actually hurts your application. college admissions is mainly a numbers game and if your class standing is low you will be over looked. Funny how people think spending tons of money on private school gives them a leg up, but in reality it is the opposite.

Then why do they choose private over inclusive public?
Agreed…I’m in undergraduate admissions at mid-tier private university and being in the lower half of a regarded private works against the student, as we select based on numbers - including number of students from a specific school. You may have better credentials than middle third of public high school, but we select only so many from your school. High performing public school students are actually more desirable…

Wow…so bottom line is save your money. This makes sense, as you want your kid to be on the top half of the travel sports team he/she plays on, so that they get the most reps / exposure / playing time. Seems to be true for admissions as well. Better to be in the top half of a public school than the bottom half of a private. And shows you are more well-rounded / adjusted as you are exposed to more adversity / distraction / inclusion. Better to shine than to be average, no matter what the school…again, save your money

The person in undergraduate admissions is saying it is better to be a high performing public school students than a lower than average private school student. Not exactly what you understood.
The average performing student would still do better college admissions wise at a private than a public.

Average performing students at Big 3 privates would be high performing students at public schools if they chose to attend public schools.

Then why do they choose elitist private over inclusive public?

Because the game has changed. Previously, average performing students at Big 3 privates do better in college admissions than high performing students at public schools. But not now. Now high performing students at public schools do better in college admissions than average performing students at Big 3 privates. This change will reflect in private schools enrollment in the future (but may not be so quickly).

If local DMV Eds are representative then this is likely true.

Wow…tide is a changing…

Makes sense as there is an anti-privilege sentiment across our nation (test optional, social discord, tax reform), and nothing screams perceived privilege, elitism, and non-inclusion than privates…going to be interesting…if you are on the fence in the next few years, skip the private school education , put the money towards your kids launch later, as it will work against you…

Not every private school screams elitism. Some are religious, some are havens for low income kids from terrible school districts, etc.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The other thread is talking about private, including the Big3 is waste of money and with no advantage to college admissions. Would be interesting to actually see the stats for the bottom 75% of class. I am sure to 25% are what people are touting here.

Nope. There are "bottom 75%" who applied to non-Ivy, first choice schools and are getting in ED. They may not be schools that some consider "elite" (I am referring to the long thread in the College forum here) but they are those students first choices. Schools like Carnegie, Case-Western, Pitzer, etc.

Okay, but was spending money at Big3 helping them get in at the low tier schools or would they still have gotten in coming from a public?

Your brain is truly in the wrong place. You have no idea what you are talking about to ask such a question.

I would argue that being in the lower 75% of your class at a private school actually hurts your application. college admissions is mainly a numbers game and if your class standing is low you will be over looked. Funny how people think spending tons of money on private school gives them a leg up, but in reality it is the opposite.

Then why do they choose private over inclusive public?
Agreed…I’m in undergraduate admissions at mid-tier private university and being in the lower half of a regarded private works against the student, as we select based on numbers - including number of students from a specific school. You may have better credentials than middle third of public high school, but we select only so many from your school. High performing public school students are actually more desirable…

Wow…so bottom line is save your money. This makes sense, as you want your kid to be on the top half of the travel sports team he/she plays on, so that they get the most reps / exposure / playing time. Seems to be true for admissions as well. Better to be in the top half of a public school than the bottom half of a private. And shows you are more well-rounded / adjusted as you are exposed to more adversity / distraction / inclusion. Better to shine than to be average, no matter what the school…again, save your money

The person in undergraduate admissions is saying it is better to be a high performing public school students than a lower than average private school student. Not exactly what you understood.
The average performing student would still do better college admissions wise at a private than a public.

Average performing students at Big 3 privates would be high performing students at public schools if they chose to attend public schools.

Then why do they choose elitist private over inclusive public?

Because the game has changed. Previously, average performing students at Big 3 privates do better in college admissions than high performing students at public schools. But not now. Now high performing students at public schools do better in college admissions than average performing students at Big 3 privates. This change will reflect in private schools enrollment in the future (but may not be so quickly).

If local DMV Eds are representative then this is likely true.

Wow…tide is a changing…

Makes sense as there is an anti-privilege sentiment across our nation (test optional, social discord, tax reform), and nothing screams perceived privilege, elitism, and non-inclusion than privates…going to be interesting…if you are on the fence in the next few years, skip the private school education , put the money towards your kids launch later, as it will work against you…

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The other thread is talking about private, including the Big3 is waste of money and with no advantage to college admissions. Would be interesting to actually see the stats for the bottom 75% of class. I am sure to 25% are what people are touting here.

Nope. There are "bottom 75%" who applied to non-Ivy, first choice schools and are getting in ED. They may not be schools that some consider "elite" (I am referring to the long thread in the College forum here) but they are those students first choices. Schools like Carnegie, Case-Western, Pitzer, etc.

Okay, but was spending money at Big3 helping them get in at the low tier schools or would they still have gotten in coming from a public?

Your brain is truly in the wrong place. You have no idea what you are talking about to ask such a question.

I would argue that being in the lower 75% of your class at a private school actually hurts your application. college admissions is mainly a numbers game and if your class standing is low you will be over looked. Funny how people think spending tons of money on private school gives them a leg up, but in reality it is the opposite.

Then why do they choose private over inclusive public?
Agreed…I’m in undergraduate admissions at mid-tier private university and being in the lower half of a regarded private works against the student, as we select based on numbers - including number of students from a specific school. You may have better credentials than middle third of public high school, but we select only so many from your school. High performing public school students are actually more desirable…

Wow…so bottom line is save your money. This makes sense, as you want your kid to be on the top half of the travel sports team he/she plays on, so that they get the most reps / exposure / playing time. Seems to be true for admissions as well. Better to be in the top half of a public school than the bottom half of a private. And shows you are more well-rounded / adjusted as you are exposed to more adversity / distraction / inclusion. Better to shine than to be average, no matter what the school…again, save your money

The person in undergraduate admissions is saying it is better to be a high performing public school students than a lower than average private school student. Not exactly what you understood.
The average performing student would still do better college admissions wise at a private than a public.

Average performing students at Big 3 privates would be high performing students at public schools if they chose to attend public schools.

Then why do they choose elitist private over inclusive public?

Because the game has changed. Previously, average performing students at Big 3 privates do better in college admissions than high performing students at public schools. But not now. Now high performing students at public schools do better in college admissions than average performing students at Big 3 privates. This change will reflect in private schools enrollment in the future (but may not be so quickly).

If local DMV Eds are representative then this is likely true.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The other thread is talking about private, including the Big3 is waste of money and with no advantage to college admissions. Would be interesting to actually see the stats for the bottom 75% of class. I am sure to 25% are what people are touting here.

Nope. There are "bottom 75%" who applied to non-Ivy, first choice schools and are getting in ED. They may not be schools that some consider "elite" (I am referring to the long thread in the College forum here) but they are those students first choices. Schools like Carnegie, Case-Western, Pitzer, etc.

Okay, but was spending money at Big3 helping them get in at the low tier schools or would they still have gotten in coming from a public?

Your brain is truly in the wrong place. You have no idea what you are talking about to ask such a question.

I would argue that being in the lower 75% of your class at a private school actually hurts your application. college admissions is mainly a numbers game and if your class standing is low you will be over looked. Funny how people think spending tons of money on private school gives them a leg up, but in reality it is the opposite.

Then why do they choose private over inclusive public?
Agreed…I’m in undergraduate admissions at mid-tier private university and being in the lower half of a regarded private works against the student, as we select based on numbers - including number of students from a specific school. You may have better credentials than middle third of public high school, but we select only so many from your school. High performing public school students are actually more desirable…

Wow…so bottom line is save your money. This makes sense, as you want your kid to be on the top half of the travel sports team he/she plays on, so that they get the most reps / exposure / playing time. Seems to be true for admissions as well. Better to be in the top half of a public school than the bottom half of a private. And shows you are more well-rounded / adjusted as you are exposed to more adversity / distraction / inclusion. Better to shine than to be average, no matter what the school…again, save your money

The person in undergraduate admissions is saying it is better to be a high performing public school students than a lower than average private school student. Not exactly what you understood.
The average performing student would still do better college admissions wise at a private than a public.

Average performing students at Big 3 privates would be high performing students at public schools if they chose to attend public schools.

Then why do they choose elitist private over inclusive public?

Because the game has changed. Previously, average performing students at Big 3 privates do better in college admissions than high performing students at public schools. But not now. Now high performing students at public schools do better in college admissions than average performing students at Big 3 privates. This change will reflect in private schools enrollment in the future (but may not be so quickly).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Legacy admissions should be eliminated.

And I am a Big 3 parent whose child would benefit from it. It just feels…icky.

Why? We have had several generations go to the same Ivy, and the institution is a big part of our families' lives and traditions, not just a place to go to college. Colleges value and benefit from that type of connection and institutional history. Why should they eliminate it?

Are you serious with this post? It would be funny if it was not utterly clueless.

That's not an answer. I think you are the one who is clueless. You most likely misunderstand the mission of America's elite universities. But feel free to educate me about why tradition is not important to these universities.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you look at the admissions for a Big3, some of the lower placing kids attend places like Tulane, Wisconsin, Richmond, etc.
If you look at the admission for Wilson, this is where many the highest placing kids attend (outside of a recruited crew athlete or two). I have kids at both schools and have watched admissions really closely for years.
I would ague that paying for private is actually more advantageous for a kid who isn't going to be a top 10 student in public. I have one of these: he does well but he wasn't going to
take 15 APs, etc, become editor of the school newspaper (there are many) and do a ton of other extracurriculars which are all things that are necessary to attend a decent college out of Wilson. Attending private
gives him similar (if not better) college outcomes without a whole lot of stress of having to get a ton of leadership positions on his resume. The competition for extracurricular leaderships positions at Wilson is fierce
and can be really stressful (per friends whose kids are there).

Lots of wisdom here. We are a MoCo family in the Whitman district. DD is very disciplined and hard working and made the top 10% at Whitman. DS was not disciplined nor hard working and to be brutally honest was just not as smart as his sister. He finished in the top half at a Big 3. DD ended up at a top 20 state U. No complaints there. DS got into a few higher ranked state schools than his sister and ended up at a top 5 SLAC. My view is that DD would have ended up at the same school, whether a public or private high school. For DS he would have been an average Whitman student and there is no way he would have made it into his current college had he remained at Whitman.

Why do you send your son to a private, but daughter to a public?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The other thread is talking about private, including the Big3 is waste of money and with no advantage to college admissions. Would be interesting to actually see the stats for the bottom 75% of class. I am sure to 25% are what people are touting here.

Nope. There are "bottom 75%" who applied to non-Ivy, first choice schools and are getting in ED. They may not be schools that some consider "elite" (I am referring to the long thread in the College forum here) but they are those students first choices. Schools like Carnegie, Case-Western, Pitzer, etc.

Okay, but was spending money at Big3 helping them get in at the low tier schools or would they still have gotten in coming from a public?

Your brain is truly in the wrong place. You have no idea what you are talking about to ask such a question.

I would argue that being in the lower 75% of your class at a private school actually hurts your application. college admissions is mainly a numbers game and if your class standing is low you will be over looked. Funny how people think spending tons of money on private school gives them a leg up, but in reality it is the opposite.

Then why do they choose private over inclusive public?
Agreed…I’m in undergraduate admissions at mid-tier private university and being in the lower half of a regarded private works against the student, as we select based on numbers - including number of students from a specific school. You may have better credentials than middle third of public high school, but we select only so many from your school. High performing public school students are actually more desirable…

Wow…so bottom line is save your money. This makes sense, as you want your kid to be on the top half of the travel sports team he/she plays on, so that they get the most reps / exposure / playing time. Seems to be true for admissions as well. Better to be in the top half of a public school than the bottom half of a private. And shows you are more well-rounded / adjusted as you are exposed to more adversity / distraction / inclusion. Better to shine than to be average, no matter what the school…again, save your money

The person in undergraduate admissions is saying it is better to be a high performing public school students than a lower than average private school student. Not exactly what you understood.
The average performing student would still do better college admissions wise at a private than a public.

Average performing students at Big 3 privates would be high performing students at public schools if they chose to attend public schools.

Then why do they choose elitist private over inclusive public?

Because the game has changed. Previously, average performing students at Big 3 privates do better in college admissions than high performing students at public schools. But not now. Now high performing students at public schools do better in college admissions than average performing students at Big 3 privates. This change will reflect in private schools enrollment in the future (but may not be so quickly).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The other thread is talking about private, including the Big3 is waste of money and with no advantage to college admissions. Would be interesting to actually see the stats for the bottom 75% of class. I am sure to 25% are what people are touting here.

Nope. There are "bottom 75%" who applied to non-Ivy, first choice schools and are getting in ED. They may not be schools that some consider "elite" (I am referring to the long thread in the College forum here) but they are those students first choices. Schools like Carnegie, Case-Western, Pitzer, etc.

Okay, but was spending money at Big3 helping them get in at the low tier schools or would they still have gotten in coming from a public?

Your brain is truly in the wrong place. You have no idea what you are talking about to ask such a question.

I would argue that being in the lower 75% of your class at a private school actually hurts your application. college admissions is mainly a numbers game and if your class standing is low you will be over looked. Funny how people think spending tons of money on private school gives them a leg up, but in reality it is the opposite.

Then why do they choose private over inclusive public?
Agreed…I’m in undergraduate admissions at mid-tier private university and being in the lower half of a regarded private works against the student, as we select based on numbers - including number of students from a specific school. You may have better credentials than middle third of public high school, but we select only so many from your school. High performing public school students are actually more desirable…

Wow…so bottom line is save your money. This makes sense, as you want your kid to be on the top half of the travel sports team he/she plays on, so that they get the most reps / exposure / playing time. Seems to be true for admissions as well. Better to be in the top half of a public school than the bottom half of a private. And shows you are more well-rounded / adjusted as you are exposed to more adversity / distraction / inclusion. Better to shine than to be average, no matter what the school…again, save your money

The person in undergraduate admissions is saying it is better to be a high performing public school students than a lower than average private school student. Not exactly what you understood.
The average performing student would still do better college admissions wise at a private than a public.

Average performing students at Big 3 privates would be high performing students at public schools if they chose to attend public schools.

Then why do they choose elitist private over inclusive public?