Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I didn’t post this comment - i’m the trinity alum/dalton kid poster from above - but i think the poster is mostly joking. We all say that kind of thing. However, I will say that while we loved the lower school experience, I don’t think the high school is a particularly healthy environment for so many reasons, and I would certainly think long and hard before sending my kiddos there. Can give more details if you’d like.

Please! We interviewed/toured the school, and it definitely felt like an outlier in terms of how cold and formal the interactions with the staff were. Hard to read how much that is reflective of the overall vibe for the students, but definitely gave us a pause. Do you have any comparative info wrt Horace Mann (also reputationally competitive, but felt much more relaxed and easy-going when we visited). Thanks!

Current parent, kid just about to start in upper school and we’ve been there since kindergarten. When we toured it felt very formal and compared to Dalton from an admissions standpoint. That has overwhelmingly not been our experience.

The school has been warm and thoughtful and the teachers and community are amazing. We’ve made great friends (as have our kids). Middle school has been completely transformed by current leadership and my kid loves school and while things are competitive, isn’t a stress case. Homework is wildly manageable. Could they be the right type of kid for this experience? Sure. Could I have predicted that at age 5? Definitely not. We made a leap and (knock on wood) landed on solid ground. We are very happy and extremely grateful. Just a current parents viewpoint!

Anonymous wrote:And while "child prodigies" (one-sided candidates) may "reach a high level", these research results may put current Ivy admission philosophy into question. Colleges started to look for "big spikes" because - and I am generalizing - they appear to believe that (i) early success predicts the future and (ii) "one-sided students" are more likely to become famous and bring extra spotlight to their alma mater. If this does not hold true, the current approach to college admissions (look out for "big spikes") may be short-lived.

I guess it remains to be seen, I think it depends on how big of a spike we are talking about.

I'll address chess specifically: Güllich compares top-10 junior players (~14 y.o.) with top-10 adults, and finds only 10% correlation. Fair enough -- and keep in mind that due to the use of modern chess engines, the understanding of theory and strategy has been evolving unusually fast in the recent years, so that's an additional factor -- the knowledge you drilled down as teen a may not be applicable a few years down the road. But still, I bet every single top-10 adult player was at the very least a top-100 player as a junior -- itself a huge spike. If you look at the very best players, like Gary and Magnus, they were certainly extremely remarkable record-beaters at 12-13 and unquestionably dominant by 18. By the end of high school, every top player is a very strong GM (which usually means they have spent an inordinate amount of time training for and participating in the tournaments). So, yes, if colleges are interested in getting very strong chess players, the "spike" is exactly what they should be looking for.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread took a real pivot.

Anyone else miss the UB threads about the Dalton sweatshirt mom, “no one gets into Town,” and bickering if you deserve a push present for an elective c-section?

What was the sweatshirt reference? Sounds funny

There was a mom who was a fixture walking around the UES (usually on Park) wearing a Dalton sweatshirt. It just became a running joke— did anyone see Dalton sweatshirt mom today.

Meanwhile my wardrobe has an embarrassing amount of spirit gear, so I’ve turned into that mom for the rival tigers

And while "child prodigies" (one-sided candidates) may "reach a high level", these research results may put current Ivy admission philosophy into question. Colleges started to look for "big spikes" because - and I am generalizing - they appear to believe that (i) early success predicts the future and (ii) "one-sided students" are more likely to become famous and bring extra spotlight to their alma mater. If this does not hold true, the current approach to college admissions (look out for "big spikes") may be short-lived.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From a recent article in the Economist (Why child prodigies rarely become elite performers):

"The adult superstars also had a reliably different approach to their fields from that of the child prodigies, in that they seemed to maintain interests besides the one in which they eventually became elite... Nobel-prizewinning scientists were less likely to have won academic scholarships than those nominated for a Nobel who did not win. They also took longer to reach senior academic positions, had less impressive early publication records, and maintained interest in fields beyond that for which they won their prize."

It is yet to be seen whether "well-roundedness" will overtake "one-sidedness" in college admission preferences.

Some important counter-examples: chess (all top players elite as children), early-peaking sports (figure skating, gymnastics), piano/violin (all top performers start very early and need to be remarkably dedicated throughout childhood). I think nuance is important here -- e.g. even if math Olympiad winners may not overlap fully with elite adult mathematicians, as a group they are probably overwhelmingly successful in whatever professional paths they pursue.

The article also talks about chess and music. The trends are similar:

"This study, led by Arne Güllich, a sports scientist at the rptu University Kaiserslautern-Landau, in Germany, crunched data covering more than 34,000 elite performers in several areas, including sport, chess, classical music and academia. It concluded that, although they often reach a high level, the best-performing, most intensely drilled teenagers tend not to become true superstars as adults. Those who do make that grade, by contrast, tend not to stand out early on. They take longer to reach their peaks and seem to keep their interests wider for longer."

Agree early-peaking sports are different. Kids have much less time to realize your full potential so starting early is the only option to excel.

Anonymous wrote:I didn’t post this comment - i’m the trinity alum/dalton kid poster from above - but i think the poster is mostly joking. We all say that kind of thing. However, I will say that while we loved the lower school experience, I don’t think the high school is a particularly healthy environment for so many reasons, and I would certainly think long and hard before sending my kiddos there. Can give more details if you’d like.

Please! We interviewed/toured the school, and it definitely felt like an outlier in terms of how cold and formal the interactions with the staff were. Hard to read how much that is reflective of the overall vibe for the students, but definitely gave us a pause. Do you have any comparative info wrt Horace Mann (also reputationally competitive, but felt much more relaxed and easy-going when we visited). Thanks!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The fact that it seems common for alums to refer to themselves as “survivors” is such a massive red flag

I went to Trinity only for HS and feel like I survived a war. Lots of us have PTSD from it.

Do you think you could illustrate with 1-2 examples of how uniquely intense / PTSD war like it was? I did not grow up in NY but my high school experience was still hard as far as the work load and pressure to get into a top college/gunning for Ivy League. But I would not call it PTSD and I’m trying to think what could have made it that way for you. Genuinely curious

I didn’t post this comment - i’m the trinity alum/dalton kid poster from above - but i think the poster is mostly joking. We all say that kind of thing. However, I will say that while we loved the lower school experience, I don’t think the high school is a particularly healthy environment for so many reasons, and I would certainly think long and hard before sending my kiddos there. Can give more details if you’d like.

Anonymous wrote:From a recent article in the Economist (Why child prodigies rarely become elite performers):

"The adult superstars also had a reliably different approach to their fields from that of the child prodigies, in that they seemed to maintain interests besides the one in which they eventually became elite... Nobel-prizewinning scientists were less likely to have won academic scholarships than those nominated for a Nobel who did not win. They also took longer to reach senior academic positions, had less impressive early publication records, and maintained interest in fields beyond that for which they won their prize."

It is yet to be seen whether "well-roundedness" will overtake "one-sidedness" in college admission preferences.

Some important counter-examples: chess (all top players elite as children), early-peaking sports (figure skating, gymnastics), piano/violin (all top performers start very early and need to be remarkably dedicated throughout childhood). I think nuance is important here -- e.g. even if math Olympiad winners may not overlap fully with elite adult mathematicians, as a group they are probably overwhelmingly successful in whatever professional paths they pursue.

Anonymous wrote:This thread took a real pivot.

Anyone else miss the UB threads about the Dalton sweatshirt mom, “no one gets into Town,” and bickering if you deserve a push present for an elective c-section?

What was the sweatshirt reference? Sounds funny

Anonymous wrote:What is the grade inflation like at the TT schools? Do most of the kids in high school school get As? I wonder because a lot of suburban schools that my relatives' kids attend give out mostly As so it is so hard to distinguish between the students. It always seems like everyone has a 4.0 (uw) or 4.8 or something with APs. Do the private schools do the same so the kids can compete on GPA for college applications?

My year at trinity, I think the average gpa was ~3.7. I THINK. Lots of kids were concerned about grade inflation then, and there were a couple of people who wanted to go back to a 100-point scale to differentiate with more detail, but they were mincing dweebs. Truth is most people worked really hard and most of us earned our grades. Will say I worked far less in college for a slightly higher gpa than I did in high school

Anonymous wrote:There's some good info in this thread though. The scarsdalephobic person is obviously rage-bating, but bringing trump/ice into this is not particularly productive either.

Anyway, to contribute something, a friend's kid is a senior at a Bronxville public, and from what we can tell from ED/EA, their matriculation this year is shaping up to be easily comparable to TT NYC privates, especially if you adjust for legacies.

25-40% of that class isn’t going to an Ivy. Dream on.

I think the differences between TT privates and TT city publics and TT suburban publics in terms of how they would impact any given kid's college prospects are probably small enough that they would be outweighed by the other impacts those three very different environments would have on a kid.

This thread took a real pivot.

Anyone else miss the UB threads about the Dalton sweatshirt mom, “no one gets into Town,” and bickering if you deserve a push present for an elective c-section?

There's some good info in this thread though. The scarsdalephobic person is obviously rage-bating, but bringing trump/ice into this is not particularly productive either.

Anyway, to contribute something, a friend's kid is a senior at a Bronxville public, and from what we can tell from ED/EA, their matriculation this year is shaping up to be easily comparable to TT NYC privates, especially if you adjust for legacies.

To add to my previous post (about the perceived advantage of "one-sided" candidates) - there is more and more research suggesting that early "one-sidedness" does not predict success later in life. Once you look at real high achievers (e.g. Nobel prize winners or elite athletes), you will see that a disproportionate number of them stayed "well rounded" for longer than their peers.

From a recent article in the Economist (Why child prodigies rarely become elite performers):

"The adult superstars also had a reliably different approach to their fields from that of the child prodigies, in that they seemed to maintain interests besides the one in which they eventually became elite... Nobel-prizewinning scientists were less likely to have won academic scholarships than those nominated for a Nobel who did not win. They also took longer to reach senior academic positions, had less impressive early publication records, and maintained interest in fields beyond that for which they won their prize."

It is yet to be seen whether "well-roundedness" will overtake "one-sidedness" in college admission preferences.