Anonymous wrote:Most of our private T25 are unhooked….its a surprise this year.

Or you think they're unhooked . . .

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here are the facts from a WSJ article. It's pretty clear that privates do better at the top schools, and always have. This article is from September 2023.

It's somewhat comical that people think kids are doing better or worse in any given year.

"Among all high-school students in the U.S., 8.5% attend private high schools, according to federal data. Among the eight Ivy League schools, the percentage of students who graduate from a private high school is about four to five times that.

At Harvard, 37% of the class of 2025 attended private schools, while at Princeton, the share is 40%, with Brown at 41%, and Dartmouth, 44%, according to the schools’ websites or surveys taken by student newspapers. Between 10% and 30% of Ivy League undergraduates are international, many of whom attended private high schools."

It’s not comical. Admissions offices thought they could use TO to take kids they wanted under cover. They really do want to give kids a chance. They didn’t count on the faculty protesting so loudly that these TO classes were so much weaker and couldn’t do they work.

Those 3 cycles sucked for private schools.

Now it’s swung back.

No those cycles were no different. The article is from September 2023.

There has been really no difference. The problem is if your kid isn’t admitted then somehow the cycle was bad.

The data isn’t from sept 2023

So, then produce data that refutes it.

the person who yells, THE DATA, should produce data.

the fact is, there is no real data on earnings by college by major. I mean, who would even collect that?

WTF are you even talking about? This discussion is about private school kids' admittance rates to top universities. Nowhere was earnings even once mentioned.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here are the facts from a WSJ article. It's pretty clear that privates do better at the top schools, and always have. This article is from September 2023.

It's somewhat comical that people think kids are doing better or worse in any given year.

"Among all high-school students in the U.S., 8.5% attend private high schools, according to federal data. Among the eight Ivy League schools, the percentage of students who graduate from a private high school is about four to five times that.

At Harvard, 37% of the class of 2025 attended private schools, while at Princeton, the share is 40%, with Brown at 41%, and Dartmouth, 44%, according to the schools’ websites or surveys taken by student newspapers. Between 10% and 30% of Ivy League undergraduates are international, many of whom attended private high schools."

It’s not comical. Admissions offices thought they could use TO to take kids they wanted under cover. They really do want to give kids a chance. They didn’t count on the faculty protesting so loudly that these TO classes were so much weaker and couldn’t do they work.

Those 3 cycles sucked for private schools.

Now it’s swung back.

No those cycles were no different. The article is from September 2023.

There has been really no difference. The problem is if your kid isn’t admitted then somehow the cycle was bad.

The data isn’t from sept 2023

So, then produce data that refutes it.

the person who yells, THE DATA, should produce data.

the fact is, there is no real data on earnings by college by major. I mean, who would even collect that?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Post-SC ruling and Test fluid world, the safest thing a t20 can do is double their questbridge and posse numbers and then load up on affluent families and/or kids coming from known privates.

They’ll end up w a barbell community - rich and poor - but they’ll increase Pell numbers which gets mentioned in the NYT and helps w ratings, their diversity numbers will look fine (also sure to be a NYT follow up article), the yield numbers will be solid and their budget will be fine.

So they’ve decided that’s a deal they’re willing to take. To look better to outsiders while keeping full pay kids. Even if it creates a problematic situation within the classroom.

Right. And haven’t they done this? That’s exactly the formula they’re using.

I think they were trying to use TO to find kids on their own. That didn't work. This is the year we've seen schools doubling down on quest bridge numbers and a much better admit season at private HSs

Agree on this. Test optional from public schools has backfired. Though they are still OK with some test optional candidates from private schools. Depends on who I suppose. Perhaps after next year it’ll backfire everywhere. Jury is out.

See the Rice admissions officer statements on test optional candidates from private schools for the “proof “ about whether or not they penalize the students for using test optional (YCBK podcast)….

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Post-SC ruling and Test fluid world, the safest thing a t20 can do is double their questbridge and posse numbers and then load up on affluent families and/or kids coming from known privates.

They’ll end up w a barbell community - rich and poor - but they’ll increase Pell numbers which gets mentioned in the NYT and helps w ratings, their diversity numbers will look fine (also sure to be a NYT follow up article), the yield numbers will be solid and their budget will be fine.

So they’ve decided that’s a deal they’re willing to take. To look better to outsiders while keeping full pay kids. Even if it creates a problematic situation within the classroom.

Right. And haven’t they done this? That’s exactly the formula they’re using.

Correct. They need the data from the questbridge posse kids.
But the elite private school kids (as a population) can do the work and they come with money to boot. AND they will have every support needed to succeed as alums as well. Remember, these colleges need their graduates to get elite jobs and do noteworthy things after graduation. Private school kids have networks.

I have both public and private school kids. If you look at the Ivy grads from our DC public and the Ivy grads from our private they are on very different trajectories. The public school kids are mostly working at non-profits and some just tutoring full time. The private school ones are at Goldman Sachs etc. Sure, I'm stereotyping a bit but not by much. It's pretty shocking when you drill down and look at where the kids end up after graduation.

This is really a weird observation. Most public school students can't afford to work at an NPO...and the tutoring full-time is odd.

The DCPS kids I know (either Walls or JR) are working at Blue Origin (Bezos space company), an AI start-up in SFO and Morgan Stanley.

you know different kids than i do.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Post-SC ruling and Test fluid world, the safest thing a t20 can do is double their questbridge and posse numbers and then load up on affluent families and/or kids coming from known privates.

They’ll end up w a barbell community - rich and poor - but they’ll increase Pell numbers which gets mentioned in the NYT and helps w ratings, their diversity numbers will look fine (also sure to be a NYT follow up article), the yield numbers will be solid and their budget will be fine.

So they’ve decided that’s a deal they’re willing to take. To look better to outsiders while keeping full pay kids. Even if it creates a problematic situation within the classroom.

Right. And haven’t they done this? That’s exactly the formula they’re using.

I think they were trying to use TO to find kids on their own. That didn't work. This is the year we've seen schools doubling down on quest bridge numbers and a much better admit season at private HSs

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Post-SC ruling and Test fluid world, the safest thing a t20 can do is double their questbridge and posse numbers and then load up on affluent families and/or kids coming from known privates.

They’ll end up w a barbell community - rich and poor - but they’ll increase Pell numbers which gets mentioned in the NYT and helps w ratings, their diversity numbers will look fine (also sure to be a NYT follow up article), the yield numbers will be solid and their budget will be fine.

So they’ve decided that’s a deal they’re willing to take. To look better to outsiders while keeping full pay kids. Even if it creates a problematic situation within the classroom.

Right. And haven’t they done this? That’s exactly the formula they’re using.

Correct. They need the data from the questbridge posse kids.
But the elite private school kids (as a population) can do the work and they come with money to boot. AND they will have every support needed to succeed as alums as well. Remember, these colleges need their graduates to get elite jobs and do noteworthy things after graduation. Private school kids have networks.

I have both public and private school kids. If you look at the Ivy grads from our DC public and the Ivy grads from our private they are on very different trajectories. The public school kids are mostly working at non-profits and some just tutoring full time. The private school ones are at Goldman Sachs etc. Sure, I'm stereotyping a bit but not by much. It's pretty shocking when you drill down and look at where the kids end up after graduation.

This is really a weird observation. Most public school students can't afford to work at an NPO...and the tutoring full-time is odd.

The DCPS kids I know (either Walls or JR) are working at Blue Origin (Bezos space company), an AI start-up in SFO and Morgan Stanley.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Post-SC ruling and Test fluid world, the safest thing a t20 can do is double their questbridge and posse numbers and then load up on affluent families and/or kids coming from known privates.

They’ll end up w a barbell community - rich and poor - but they’ll increase Pell numbers which gets mentioned in the NYT and helps w ratings, their diversity numbers will look fine (also sure to be a NYT follow up article), the yield numbers will be solid and their budget will be fine.

So they’ve decided that’s a deal they’re willing to take. To look better to outsiders while keeping full pay kids. Even if it creates a problematic situation within the classroom.

Right. And haven’t they done this? That’s exactly the formula they’re using.

Correct. They need the data from the questbridge posse kids.
But the elite private school kids (as a population) can do the work and they come with money to boot. AND they will have every support needed to succeed as alums as well. Remember, these colleges need their graduates to get elite jobs and do noteworthy things after graduation. Private school kids have networks.

I have both public and private school kids. If you look at the Ivy grads from our DC public and the Ivy grads from our private they are on very different trajectories. The public school kids are mostly working at non-profits and some just tutoring full time. The private school ones are at Goldman Sachs etc. Sure, I'm stereotyping a bit but not by much. It's pretty shocking when you drill down and look at where the kids end up after graduation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here are the facts from a WSJ article. It's pretty clear that privates do better at the top schools, and always have. This article is from September 2023.

It's somewhat comical that people think kids are doing better or worse in any given year.

"Among all high-school students in the U.S., 8.5% attend private high schools, according to federal data. Among the eight Ivy League schools, the percentage of students who graduate from a private high school is about four to five times that.

At Harvard, 37% of the class of 2025 attended private schools, while at Princeton, the share is 40%, with Brown at 41%, and Dartmouth, 44%, according to the schools’ websites or surveys taken by student newspapers. Between 10% and 30% of Ivy League undergraduates are international, many of whom attended private high schools."

It’s not comical. Admissions offices thought they could use TO to take kids they wanted under cover. They really do want to give kids a chance. They didn’t count on the faculty protesting so loudly that these TO classes were so much weaker and couldn’t do they work.

Those 3 cycles sucked for private schools.

Now it’s swung back.

No those cycles were no different. The article is from September 2023.

There has been really no difference. The problem is if your kid isn’t admitted then somehow the cycle was bad.

The data isn’t from sept 2023

So, then produce data that refutes it.

Anonymous wrote:Post-SC ruling and Test fluid world, the safest thing a t20 can do is double their questbridge and posse numbers and then load up on affluent families and/or kids coming from known privates.

They’ll end up w a barbell community - rich and poor - but they’ll increase Pell numbers which gets mentioned in the NYT and helps w ratings, their diversity numbers will look fine (also sure to be a NYT follow up article), the yield numbers will be solid and their budget will be fine.

So they’ve decided that’s a deal they’re willing to take. To look better to outsiders while keeping full pay kids. Even if it creates a problematic situation within the classroom.

Right. And haven’t they done this? That’s exactly the formula they’re using.