Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think any of this “hooked” stuff is true. My kid is unhooked - no legacy because we are from another country, no athletic ability whatsoever, very good but not amazing academics (ie some Bs), no interesting extra curriculars. A very nice, smart kid who is very well liked by teachers so really the only thing I can think of is that he had very good recommendations - but I’m sure that lots of other kids had these too. Got into 2 out of 2 Big 3s that we applied to and 2 out of 2 “next tier” schools.
For anyone reading this: do not be put off by talk of hooks! Just apply if you like the schools and think your kid will be happy there.

You still don’t get it do you? Being from another country often IS a hook.

my exact thought when reading that post

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think any of this “hooked” stuff is true. My kid is unhooked - no legacy because we are from another country, no athletic ability whatsoever, very good but not amazing academics (ie some Bs), no interesting extra curriculars. A very nice, smart kid who is very well liked by teachers so really the only thing I can think of is that he had very good recommendations - but I’m sure that lots of other kids had these too. Got into 2 out of 2 Big 3s that we applied to and 2 out of 2 “next tier” schools.
For anyone reading this: do not be put off by talk of hooks! Just apply if you like the schools and think your kid will be happy there.

You still don’t get it do you? Being from another country often IS a hook.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Private school AD's use a software program that allows them to see your professional background, University & Grad schools attended and , importantly same for your parents, boards you serve on and same for your parents, assets, and donor profile.

That should make you barf, but this is Washington.

You might be right that your kid and theirs' are same/same in terms of ability and talents, but that is the myth about these schools and it is a cruel one. Yes, they are looking for bright and talented kids, but they are also always looking towards their endowment, their prestige and how much influence their alumni network can exert.

Best rec in DC for a private: is from one of the main partners in the old, long time DC law firms especially if said law partner is a founding member and say the GP of the kid applicant. In the last 10-15 years Cyber, Defense and Tech Company Counsel is also throwing its weight around town and these schools want these parents in their schools and on their boards.

Is that true that there is software to find all of that out about an applicants family?

No, there is LinkedIn which gives 99% of this and there are also philanthropy databases that offer a window into giving. That's about all they need.

I don’t think any of this “hooked” stuff is true. My kid is unhooked - no legacy because we are from another country, no athletic ability whatsoever, very good but not amazing academics (ie some Bs), no interesting extra curriculars. A very nice, smart kid who is very well liked by teachers so really the only thing I can think of is that he had very good recommendations - but I’m sure that lots of other kids had these too. Got into 2 out of 2 Big 3s that we applied to and 2 out of 2 “next tier” schools.
For anyone reading this: do not be put off by talk of hooks! Just apply if you like the schools and think your kid will be happy there.

I think the system is completely rotten and corrupt. I wouldn’t worry too much. My kids got into two elite schools, that’s why I know.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One thing that definitely helps with admissions is being full pay.

Full pay is not enough. They have plenty of full pay applicants. In my experience with three kids and their friends applying out to high school, most are full pay and the acceptances mostly tracked who was hooked for the top schools (family connections, knowing a board member, serious donation potential, athletics but only if they also had one of the other hooks as well). For the next tier down, full pay was not really an advantage because most of the kids got acceptances. So, full pay is not enough to be a real factor at the top schools and not as necessary below that coming out of another private school. Interestingly, grades and test scores didn't really track acceptances. Some of the hooked kids were excellent students and some were not. All were accepted. Some of the unhooked students were excellent students and they largely ended up at slightly less competitive schools.

One of my kids was an excellent student and did get into a "Big 3" unhooked, but he got in off the waitlist after a couple of hooked kids at our school turned it down. I think grades and test scores can help in that situation. It can't move you ahead of the hooked kids, but it can leave you in a strong position to pick up the open seats after they have made their decisions.

Often the mysterious missing link that a lot of people don't know about is other kids' legacy status.

You may think you know these families in your K-8 or PK-6 well, know where the parents are from, where they went to school, etc. But what you may not know, because most people don't talk about it, is the legacy connections to the top schools that they have through grandparents, random aunts/ uncles, etc. They have links to these schools that may not be immediately obvious via the parents. And that can make the difference in admissions.

Being full pay is not sufficient but it is very close to being necessary. A kid who isn’t full pay has to be better than the full pay kids. Money talks.

Anonymous wrote:One thing that definitely helps with admissions is being full pay.

Full pay is not enough. They have plenty of full pay applicants. In my experience with three kids and their friends applying out to high school, most are full pay and the acceptances mostly tracked who was hooked for the top schools (family connections, knowing a board member, serious donation potential, athletics but only if they also had one of the other hooks as well). For the next tier down, full pay was not really an advantage because most of the kids got acceptances. So, full pay is not enough to be a real factor at the top schools and not as necessary below that coming out of another private school. Interestingly, grades and test scores didn't really track acceptances. Some of the hooked kids were excellent students and some were not. All were accepted. Some of the unhooked students were excellent students and they largely ended up at slightly less competitive schools.

One of my kids was an excellent student and did get into a "Big 3" unhooked, but he got in off the waitlist after a couple of hooked kids at our school turned it down. I think grades and test scores can help in that situation. It can't move you ahead of the hooked kids, but it can leave you in a strong position to pick up the open seats after they have made their decisions.

Anonymous wrote:Also, we had former attendees/board members write letters of recommendation.

This helps. Good shadow days and good assessment data. A bad teacher rec or low grades will be noticed. It also matters whether that school is overenrolled or underenrolled for your DC's specific grade that specific year. Lots of variables.

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:Test scores, first choice letters, legacy, URM, sports, being potentially very large donors in addition to full pay.

You seem very confident that you know what went into the other kids' applications, and sometimes there are things that their parents haven't mentioned to you.

I agree with this. We have been through admissions multiple times with our kids. The times we have been successful, it felt like an all-out siege, but none of the strategizing and effort would have been visible to other parents.

What did you do that wouldn’t have been obvious to others?

We have been accepted to 2nd tier schools only and WL at first tier. I still don’t understand why. ISEE scores 7,8,9,9; national placement in science; city recognition for art portfolio (submitted to school); plays 4 sports; UMC family that is active at K-8; parent recognized for school donations; well written parent statements and student essay. Applied to top tier in K, 6, and 9 - all WL. I know legacy kids with lower stats who get in. The non-legacy kids (very view) who do get in have similar stats. What did you do differently?

Did you ask the HoS at your K-8 why your child was not admitted to top tier for 9th? HoS at St Pats, Lowell, Sheridan, Norwood would know.

Yes, I asked, but I feel like I got a 'non-answer' - "competition was steep and there were just so many great kids and not enough spots". It just seems like other "great kids" similar to mine get the spots and never my kid. Oh well, my focus is on my younger ones now and I'm not sure top tier is for them - I'm tempted to send them there the older ones went for simplicity.

Your emphasis on "first tier" and "2nd tier" could be your answer.

Are you saying there isn't a pecking order in high schools or just that it is supposed to remain unsaid?

You’re saying too much of the quiet part out loud. Also focused too much on rankings instead of showing fit. You’re supposed to say things like “Jr wants to go to the library every day to learn after school and is looking for a school where there are more kids like her,” not “we’re looking for Jr to be in a top tier school.”

This is also internally in your K-8 discussions with teachers and administrators. If you don’t show you know why your daughter would be a better fit at NCS than Holton beyond that NCS is ranked first, especially if administrators think Holton would also be a fit or might be a better fit, they may not bat for you with NCS.

So gross and eye-rolly. How do you do that crap and not vomit all over yourselves? You know in 20 years NONE of this will matter!

I don’t. But I know people who do, and do so successfully.

I also think this practice is completely unfair. For all these schools’ talk about systemic bias no one seems to realize that parents of most kids coming from underprivileged backgrounds don’t know don’t have time to learn the difference between Sidwell and GDS. They just want their kids to go to the best schools and “get ahead,” sometimes without much of an idea of what that means. It’s unfair to ask them to have a reason to want to a school beyond “I want the best for my child.”

Why exactly is it unfair? Because you assume they don't have the fortitude to make a distinction? Equating privilege, or lack there of, with an (in)ability to appropriately analyze options is at best, short-sighted, at worst, insulting. Underprivileged is not synonymous with incapable or stupid.

Have you ever been underprivileged? I have. Where I come from, people don't use phrases like "fortitude to make a distinction." People use phrases like "you know those presidents sent their girls to Sidwell." When I had to write my "Why Princeton" essay, my dad said, "That essay is stupid. You just write, 'Because it's Princeton.' There. Three words. Done." I had to explain that it wasn't how that worked, and that when there was a 250 word limit, the essay shouldn't be 3 words. By that point, I was more privileged than he was, even though he was more capable than I.

He was more capable than me.

Actually, both “than I” and “than me” are fine but not great. Best is to add the verb at the end: “than I was.”
- professional editor (who thinks pointing out spelling and grammar errors/typos on informal online posts is a jerk move that reflects badly on the corrector, not the poster)

Thank you for your response. Saved me from having to do it. And you put it so well. Jerk move it right!

Anonymous wrote:Educational consultants who advocate for your child.

No. This isn’t a thing with private outside counselors. It’s just not. But private school counselors can absolutely help get you into high school.

One thing that definitely helps with admissions is being full pay.

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:Test scores, first choice letters, legacy, URM, sports, being potentially very large donors in addition to full pay.

You seem very confident that you know what went into the other kids' applications, and sometimes there are things that their parents haven't mentioned to you.

I agree with this. We have been through admissions multiple times with our kids. The times we have been successful, it felt like an all-out siege, but none of the strategizing and effort would have been visible to other parents.

What did you do that wouldn’t have been obvious to others?

We have been accepted to 2nd tier schools only and WL at first tier. I still don’t understand why. ISEE scores 7,8,9,9; national placement in science; city recognition for art portfolio (submitted to school); plays 4 sports; UMC family that is active at K-8; parent recognized for school donations; well written parent statements and student essay. Applied to top tier in K, 6, and 9 - all WL. I know legacy kids with lower stats who get in. The non-legacy kids (very view) who do get in have similar stats. What did you do differently?

Did you ask the HoS at your K-8 why your child was not admitted to top tier for 9th? HoS at St Pats, Lowell, Sheridan, Norwood would know.

Yes, I asked, but I feel like I got a 'non-answer' - "competition was steep and there were just so many great kids and not enough spots". It just seems like other "great kids" similar to mine get the spots and never my kid. Oh well, my focus is on my younger ones now and I'm not sure top tier is for them - I'm tempted to send them there the older ones went for simplicity.

Your emphasis on "first tier" and "2nd tier" could be your answer.

Are you saying there isn't a pecking order in high schools or just that it is supposed to remain unsaid?

You’re saying too much of the quiet part out loud. Also focused too much on rankings instead of showing fit. You’re supposed to say things like “Jr wants to go to the library every day to learn after school and is looking for a school where there are more kids like her,” not “we’re looking for Jr to be in a top tier school.”

This is also internally in your K-8 discussions with teachers and administrators. If you don’t show you know why your daughter would be a better fit at NCS than Holton beyond that NCS is ranked first, especially if administrators think Holton would also be a fit or might be a better fit, they may not bat for you with NCS.

So gross and eye-rolly. How do you do that crap and not vomit all over yourselves? You know in 20 years NONE of this will matter!

I don’t. But I know people who do, and do so successfully.

I also think this practice is completely unfair. For all these schools’ talk about systemic bias no one seems to realize that parents of most kids coming from underprivileged backgrounds don’t know don’t have time to learn the difference between Sidwell and GDS. They just want their kids to go to the best schools and “get ahead,” sometimes without much of an idea of what that means. It’s unfair to ask them to have a reason to want to a school beyond “I want the best for my child.”

Why exactly is it unfair? Because you assume they don't have the fortitude to make a distinction? Equating privilege, or lack there of, with an (in)ability to appropriately analyze options is at best, short-sighted, at worst, insulting. Underprivileged is not synonymous with incapable or stupid.

Have you ever been underprivileged? I have. Where I come from, people don't use phrases like "fortitude to make a distinction." People use phrases like "you know those presidents sent their girls to Sidwell." When I had to write my "Why Princeton" essay, my dad said, "That essay is stupid. You just write, 'Because it's Princeton.' There. Three words. Done." I had to explain that it wasn't how that worked, and that when there was a 250 word limit, the essay shouldn't be 3 words. By that point, I was more privileged than he was, even though he was more capable than I.

I'm a first generation American, first generation college grad, and child of blue collar workers , who grew up on welfare in Section 8 among other experiences that gave me the label of "underprivileged." So yes, I have been underprivileged. And, as someone with family still in "underprivileged" spaces, I still consider it home and witness their experiences regularly. Please stop. My parents weren't educated or well read, and may not speak the way I do, but they absolutely would never tell me "my essay was stupid" because they 1) would never demean my efforts and also 2) recognized I was in a space they had no familiarity with so they trusted my efforts. It doesn't take much to put 2 and 2 together to realize why a "Because it's Princeton" response is stupid. And for that, I never cast a wide net that those who have less than, automatically have no gumption to know how to make sincere distinctions and avoid playing the name game. It's insulting.

He didn’t say my essay was stupid, but that Princeton’s question was stupid, because he didn’t know a single person who would turn down Princeton if given the opportunity. He saw Princeton as a golden ticket.

I don’t think all underprivileged people are the same. You and I were both once underprivileged and had different experiences. Perhaps you and your parents could’ve explained at 12 why NCS was a better fit than Holton, but mine couldn’t have, and it’s not because they’re lesser than yours. They’re also not lesser yours, because yours somehow knew “because it’s Princeton” was a “stupid” response. It’s because they came from a different culture. They’re not lesser than because they could use some grace. Some grace is warranted.

I really think this goes back to going where you are seen and valued. If a school’s admissions team has a process that fails to see a student’s value because of the family they come from, why would you want the student to attend? I wouldn’t ask for grace. I would be happy to have the clarity that the school didn’t align with my values.

Anonymous wrote:Are you being honest with yourself?

Are your kids participating, and theirs are excelling? Are your kids on the team, but theirs are player of the game/all tournament types? Are all of the kids in the all state band/orchestra, but their kids are the concert master or section leader?

Take your mommy goggles off and be realistic.

Top athletes would be aiming for Catholic school, PP. The athletic programs at the independent schools around here are not excellent.

It’s a money thing, PP. They Google the parents’ jobs and guess their HHI if they can’t find it. And that’s a starting point.

Anonymous wrote:For the above poster - were there kids who were the top 3 kids in the class grade-wise who did not get in to their first choice for lack of the sibling/parent connections or athletics?

Not the original poster, but answer in our school (which is a well known K-8) was yes. School would report higher, but since we just went through the process and I know the class very well since we’ve been there a long time, I’d say about 50% matched with their true first choice. At least for our class, kids near the top were actually much less likely to get into their top choice than kids lower in the pecking order academically (because the first choice was often more difficult to get into).

For Sidwell, NCS, GDS, Potomac, Maret, and STA, we had kids near the very top of the class grades wise get shut out and then had some kids that didn’t have a traditional hook (money, sports, sibling, legacy, URM (not sure that one matters much in our grades experience)) that were more middle of the road students get it. It’s was all very unpredictable for those six schools.

For schools that are probably the next rung down in terms of difficulty of admission: Holton, Madeira, etc. (I don’t want to start a war about who all would be included in this group), the admissions were very predictable. The better students or students with hooks got in, others did not. Same was true for the less competitive schools.

So just because your kid has really good grades or recommendations, I wouldn’t assume they will get into the above six. For most other schools, it’s a pretty good assumption that the top 10-20 of the well known K-8s will get it (at least it was true at our school).