Anonymous wrote:Somewhat off-topic, but given that the HW data appears to exclude athletes, how much does being an athlete help? If my kid wants to go to, say, Harvard, does a sport only help if he is otherwise on equal footing? Or instead of having a 4.0, how low could the GPA go? If you are talking about a state school, would it change? Anyone have insight?

Being an athlete only helps a lot if you are actively recruited by the coach for that sport (and for a specific position they need). Different sports get different numbers of slots (eg football gets more than diving), and there are different number of slots for each position because you need all positions to field a competitive team.

Part of the Varsity Blues scandal was they were paying coaches to "recruit" their kids for specific teams and positions, eg paying the crew coach to hold a coxswain position for their kid or paying the football coach to hold a kicker spot for their kid.

Giant state schools will often have more slots and will not be as strict about academics compared to Ivy schools--though there are still minimums. But the athletic standards will be much higher to get recruited if it's a competitive big state school. So the average basketball recruit at UConn will have a much better basketball recruiting profile but lower academic numbers. Not always, but on average.

Also, Ivy league schools don't give scholarships and don't tie anything to you playing. Which means you could be recruited for basketball but quit or get hurt and there would be no implications. At state schools, there are usually scholarships tied to your playing.

In some sports, a trend has been to do a postgraduate year in order to prepare the kid for recruiting for specific positions--either to improve the atheltic profile, the academic profile, or both. In hockey, it's common to do a postgrad year at a boarding school in order to prepare for recruiting. In some other sports, you can do a postgrad year at IMG academy to prepare for recruiting.

HW probably has a lot of celebrities' kids. They definitely get a leg up in admissions.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would hate to be a college counselor at a top private school.
Sounds very stressful dealing with neurotic and entitled parents and kids.
We are at a private school but I have to just say it - parental expectations are sky high and not always reasonable.
Many parents are high fliers in society and professionally. They are used to getting what they want. It does not always work out that way for college admissions

Sure this is right. And I am one of the GDS parents here complaining about GDS.

Here's the thing - I don't expect my kid to go to an Ivy because I did. I really don't. All I have said here (and most GDS parents I've seen post here have said) is that GDS clearly has GPA driven outcomes data but they don't share it with parents. Frankly this would unburden their office. Instead, they go with unclear and n0n-transprent communications masked in feel-good trust your heart language.

That's not me being a type A and wanting my kid to go to HYP because I did. That's me saying if GDS could show me the data and it said HYP below 3.8 has not happened for a GDS kid in the last 5 years (even athlete) then I would say to my kid, "dont apply to HYP" - instead it becomes this war of wills with the CCO simple BECUASE they dont share data and they ask us to read their tone and body language....and even worse, they ask 17 year olds to do that becuase there is a grand total of 1 meeting with parents to discuss the list.

They were also entirely unclear about AP testing despite listing AP test results of senior class in College Profile - after getting rid of AP courses.

Again, that's not complaining, it's just calling out lack of clear ciommunication. We do expect better there

I understand the frustration but if they share too much data, it takes a lot of control away from them.
And perhaps you might react rationally and just look at the data and use it to guide your child but the next parent may throw a fit at the fact that their kid is shut out of the ivys with a 3.8 GPA while a different VIP kid is in with a lower GPA. Sharing data openly can open up a can of worms and who knows how parents will react. I can understand why GDS is hesitant and tries to keep parents at arm’s length

Makes zero sense that parents and students from peer institutions have access to Naviance/Scoir while GDS parents do not.

This. Especially given how inefficient GDS college counseling appears to be, access to Scoir data would be very helpful.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would hate to be a college counselor at a top private school.
Sounds very stressful dealing with neurotic and entitled parents and kids.
We are at a private school but I have to just say it - parental expectations are sky high and not always reasonable.
Many parents are high fliers in society and professionally. They are used to getting what they want. It does not always work out that way for college admissions

Sure this is right. And I am one of the GDS parents here complaining about GDS.

Here's the thing - I don't expect my kid to go to an Ivy because I did. I really don't. All I have said here (and most GDS parents I've seen post here have said) is that GDS clearly has GPA driven outcomes data but they don't share it with parents. Frankly this would unburden their office. Instead, they go with unclear and n0n-transprent communications masked in feel-good trust your heart language.

That's not me being a type A and wanting my kid to go to HYP because I did. That's me saying if GDS could show me the data and it said HYP below 3.8 has not happened for a GDS kid in the last 5 years (even athlete) then I would say to my kid, "dont apply to HYP" - instead it becomes this war of wills with the CCO simple BECUASE they dont share data and they ask us to read their tone and body language....and even worse, they ask 17 year olds to do that becuase there is a grand total of 1 meeting with parents to discuss the list.

They were also entirely unclear about AP testing despite listing AP test results of senior class in College Profile - after getting rid of AP courses.

Again, that's not complaining, it's just calling out lack of clear ciommunication. We do expect better there

Unconscionable if they list AP test results of senior class in Class Profile after getting rid of AP courses. Do the other DMV independent schools do the same?

Anonymous wrote:Somewhat off-topic, but given that the HW data appears to exclude athletes, how much does being an athlete help? If my kid wants to go to, say, Harvard, does a sport only help if he is otherwise on equal footing? Or instead of having a 4.0, how low could the GPA go? If you are talking about a state school, would it change? Anyone have insight?

I know an athlete going to Princeton this fall with a 1410 SAT. GPA is about 3.5 from a strong private (not DC area).

Anonymous wrote:Generally, rich kids do fine OP, even if they are mediocre students or people

This is just flat out wrong. Have you seen Episcopal High schools matriculation data? They have the highest endowment in the dc area and the non athletes all end up at safety schools.

Somewhat off-topic, but given that the HW data appears to exclude athletes, how much does being an athlete help? If my kid wants to go to, say, Harvard, does a sport only help if he is otherwise on equal footing? Or instead of having a 4.0, how low could the GPA go? If you are talking about a state school, would it change? Anyone have insight?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Generally, rich kids do fine OP, even if they are mediocre students or people

HW is really rigorous academically—definitely comparable to the DC big 3.

I have only scanned this thread, so maybe it has been touched on, but HW seems to have far fewer graduates with GPAs around 3.1 and under than the "big 3." StA, Sidwell, NCS, Potomac--all have a higher number of students around the 3.0. HW=grade inflation, just like everywhere else.

Again, this is a small sample of probably no more than the same 50-100 kids, all of whom are unhooked. You cannot reach any conclusions about the GPAs of the school as a whole from this.

With 201 applications to Michigan, I'm pretty sure the sample is bigger than 50-100...

Okay, sure, call it 200 or so, but the point is that there are going to be a lot of repeats in the group, because unhooked kids necessarily cast a very wide net. Each data point in their chart is not one unique student and people in this thread are acting like it is.

My guess is that a chart like this from most top privates would look very similar as far as GPA ranges.

278 applications to Berkeley. I think we can safely call it well more than 200.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:04:33 again--forgot to say that 1st gen is also a hook.

I think the strategy of HW is to start lowering parent expectations over time. Many parents of little kids think the college process is merit-based, and the merit is just GPA and SAT score. So once Larlo gets into HW, they think all he has to do is keep his grades up and HYPSM will open their doors for him. There is no understanding that Larlo is competing with his HW peers, or that colleges look at hooks and rigor and do-we-need-a-trombone-player-this-coming-year, and pure luck of the mood of the person who reads Larlo's application after coincidentally reading three other trombone-player applications.

So, there is sort of a "come to Jesus" lecture in junior year. From the previous comments it sounds like GDS has a tighter lid on the process.

I am other PP HW parent. I have an unhooked Sophomore. This is incredibly insightful. Thank you!

We've had a single 45 minute w the dean thus far, which was very useful and set us up nicely (I hope) for the process you describe I think.

You also have to remember if the kid who is 1 or 2 at the school gets in to Harvard and Stanford. The kid 10 or 14th most likely will not get in to Harvard or Stanford. My sister was complaining about that a few years ago.

Anonymous wrote:04:33 again--forgot to say that 1st gen is also a hook.

I think the strategy of HW is to start lowering parent expectations over time. Many parents of little kids think the college process is merit-based, and the merit is just GPA and SAT score. So once Larlo gets into HW, they think all he has to do is keep his grades up and HYPSM will open their doors for him. There is no understanding that Larlo is competing with his HW peers, or that colleges look at hooks and rigor and do-we-need-a-trombone-player-this-coming-year, and pure luck of the mood of the person who reads Larlo's application after coincidentally reading three other trombone-player applications.

So, there is sort of a "come to Jesus" lecture in junior year. From the previous comments it sounds like GDS has a tighter lid on the process.

I am other PP HW parent. I have an unhooked Sophomore. This is incredibly insightful. Thank you!

We've had a single 45 minute w the dean thus far, which was very useful and set us up nicely (I hope) for the process you describe I think.

04:33 again--forgot to say that 1st gen is also a hook.

I think the strategy of HW is to start lowering parent expectations over time. Many parents of little kids think the college process is merit-based, and the merit is just GPA and SAT score. So once Larlo gets into HW, they think all he has to do is keep his grades up and HYPSM will open their doors for him. There is no understanding that Larlo is competing with his HW peers, or that colleges look at hooks and rigor and do-we-need-a-trombone-player-this-coming-year, and pure luck of the mood of the person who reads Larlo's application after coincidentally reading three other trombone-player applications.

So, there is sort of a "come to Jesus" lecture in junior year. From the previous comments it sounds like GDS has a tighter lid on the process.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also a HW parent. A few things that might useful to consider:

1. HW is the only school of its type in the country that publishes this kind of data. I know of no other school that breaks out the acceptances into hooked/unhooked. This says a lot about the school, in my estimation, both in terms of how things work internally and how it presents itself publicly.

2. it is useful to compare the unhooked acceptances with published acceptances for all students, which can also be found if you look around. But generally speaking many legacy-type students are also in that top band of 3.8+, from what I can tell. Unhooked students going to Stanford or Harvard are probably just a few per year. But there are many more hooked students going, and they are typically very good students if not tiptop. Many of the Princeton kids seem to be water polo players

3. HW does not, however, publish ED vs. RD numbers, which would tell us a lot about applications to schools like Chicago and NYU. The data would be that much more useful if they did this.

4. 3.8+ equates, as best I can tell, to the top 20 percent of a class. So let's say 55-60 students.

5. Financial aid at HW is only 25 percent of families. The parents are generally well-to-do, sometimes obscenely rich (I know of parents who live in 40-60 m dollar houses). But the vast majority of parents are upper-middle-class-to-rich professionals: law, finance, medicine. Not a few film industry people, but mostly the money side, not the "talent." I don't think the "famous parent" thing is really a big deal, though of course it will seem that way relative to other cities.

6. One other thought: HW is one of many, many schools in the city, but it strikes me as the one most likely to draw from kids all over the city, as a rule, though most are from the rich west side of the city. It is also much larger than other privates, with 300 students roughly per class. It is universally recognized as the most academically intense school in the city; it is in no way seen as simply as a school for the city's elite, even if that might be the perception outside of LA.

Do you know what the “etc” means in the definition of unhooked? What students are excluded from this data, in other words.

Thanks for your insight. Your posts are interesting.

I have asked the same question. I was thinking the "etc." implies URM -- and is a polite way of saying so -- but then the unhooked data includes Howard Univ and Morehouse. So I don't know how to reconcile those two things.

Not this HW parent PP above--I'm the other one from earlier, with the unhooked kids.

The parents have a few meetings along the way to help them understand the college application process. In spring of Junior year, they have a meeting with the dean.

When figuring out what colleges to apply to for my 2021 grad, I remember the dean (college counselor) telling us that hooks were legacy, athletes, URM, and "developmental families" which are the super-rich who can donate a lot. It gets fed into a computer program. We'd look at a particular school and it's broken down by GPA. So you match up your kid's GPA and look at how many of the previous class (or the last few years' classes) at that GPA point were admitted/deferred/denied. You can also break it up by ED, EA, or RD. You don't see the previous students' names, but the dean clearly knew who they were and the story of each result, because the dean would say things like, "oh, this student, this acceptance, they had a musical talent..."

So that gives your student a rough estimate of their chances at a particular school, and helps a kid pick an ED (or SCEA) school. It's rough because it doesn't take into account SAT/ACT and extracurriculars, and also doesn't take into account the rigor of the course curriculum (e.g. same GPAs but one kid in hardest tier of classes and another in less rigorous)

The deans will also help strategize based on the composition of the current class. For example, if, on average, a college that considers legacy usually accepts about 10 kids from HW, and this year there are 9 legacies applying and 8 other non-legacy kids applying, then chances are not so great...so if you are hooked, the dean will look at the stats of the other hooked kids to see where in line your kid falls, and same with unhooked. I recall with my 2021 grad, over time one school went from target to reach to out-of-reach for my DC because it suddenly became a "hot" school with an inordinate amount of kids in that class becoming interested in it.

The only drawback is there is not a lot of time to do this, so you have to really come into that meeting with a researched and culled list and plow through it, and know what to ask.
HTH

PP here. She actually sent both of her sons to Harvard Westlake!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Transactional LA- parents demand and get.

DC culture is more respectful of educators so you don’t know diddly

Reminds me of Caitlin Flanagan’s Atlantic article from when she worked as a college counselor at HW.

You can’t believe anything she writes. If anything, when she writes something, I tend to think the opposite is true.

The self-congratulation is distasteful and a bit delusional as well.

She wrote it 21 years ago.

Written April 2021.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2021/04/private-schools-are-indefensible/618078/

She sent her own twin sons to private school then NYU.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would hate to be a college counselor at a top private school.
Sounds very stressful dealing with neurotic and entitled parents and kids.
We are at a private school but I have to just say it - parental expectations are sky high and not always reasonable.
Many parents are high fliers in society and professionally. They are used to getting what they want. It does not always work out that way for college admissions

Sure this is right. And I am one of the GDS parents here complaining about GDS.

Here's the thing - I don't expect my kid to go to an Ivy because I did. I really don't. All I have said here (and most GDS parents I've seen post here have said) is that GDS clearly has GPA driven outcomes data but they don't share it with parents. Frankly this would unburden their office. Instead, they go with unclear and n0n-transprent communications masked in feel-good trust your heart language.

That's not me being a type A and wanting my kid to go to HYP because I did. That's me saying if GDS could show me the data and it said HYP below 3.8 has not happened for a GDS kid in the last 5 years (even athlete) then I would say to my kid, "dont apply to HYP" - instead it becomes this war of wills with the CCO simple BECUASE they dont share data and they ask us to read their tone and body language....and even worse, they ask 17 year olds to do that becuase there is a grand total of 1 meeting with parents to discuss the list.

They were also entirely unclear about AP testing despite listing AP test results of senior class in College Profile - after getting rid of AP courses.

Again, that's not complaining, it's just calling out lack of clear ciommunication. We do expect better there

I understand the frustration but if they share too much data, it takes a lot of control away from them.
And perhaps you might react rationally and just look at the data and use it to guide your child but the next parent may throw a fit at the fact that their kid is shut out of the ivys with a 3.8 GPA while a different VIP kid is in with a lower GPA. Sharing data openly can open up a can of worms and who knows how parents will react. I can understand why GDS is hesitant and tries to keep parents at arm’s length

Makes zero sense that parents and students from peer institutions have access to Naviance/Scoir while GDS parents do not.