Not so surprised the LS head would make this sort of remark. He is very sure of himself.

One of the TRUE beauties of STA is that the school has such a broad definition of what constitutes "strength" and celebrates the various ways in which different boys bring their "strength" to the community.

True beauty and strategic design of course. If the definition was restrictive and narrow then it's harder to justify admitting the C student with big bucks and cache, versus the gifted musician failing in mathematics, or the suave, debonair and skillfull lacrosse player, or the hard working overachiever from downtown D.C., versus the true geek with no interest in sports or the creative arts.

That's the point. The definition is trully broad such that it's not difficult to celebrate the various ways in which different boys bring their "strength" to the community. I don't think the STA admission's office would have diffuculty celebrating the strengths of a C student from a family that just donated $5 million to the STA community? Do you?

Anonymous wrote:

ALL else being equal, a student from a wealthy family will probably get the nod over one from a less-well-off family, but that's the extent of it. And IIRC STA runs a need-blind admissions office.

Explain your logic here.

If IIRC STA runs a need-blind admissions office how will a student from a wealthy family probably get the nod over one from a less-well-off family?

"Need blind" admission means that if a candidate comes along that the school wants to admit but whose family has limited financial resources, the school will not let the inability to pay all or even part of the tuition stand in the way of letting the boy in. This philosophy underpins the school's "Skip Grant Program" -- http://www.stalbansschool.org/page.aspx?pid=705

In the other example, if two solid, equally-qualified candidates come along who are vying for the last available slot, the school is probably not going to flip a coin but instead is likely going to give the nod to the one whose last name is Marriott or Ourisman.

Anonymous wrote:Please define a pupil who is not a strong student? What are the criteria? Not a ... Artist, Musician, published novelist, math competition champion, science fair winner? Do you believe all kids at STA are strong? Are there kids at STA that are not as strong as others? If the kids meet STA standards and the family is a generous donor he will be accepted to STA (all other things being equal). Like any population, the students at STA will mimic a Bell shaped curve for "strength".

One of the TRUE beauties of STA is that the school has such a broad definition of what constitutes "strength" and celebrates the various ways in which different boys bring their "strength" to the community. There is, in no particular order, academic strength (by which I mean, "above and beyond" academic strength), athletic strength, artistic strength, leadership and interpersonal and community-building strength, faith-based strength, life experience and life circumstance strength, diversity strength, etc. All of these qualities are overtly and subtly celebrated by the school, with the result that everyone in the school community benefits. Just throwing 75 brainiacs together in each class wouldn't do anybody (or the school) any good. Note as well that I'm not simply talking about diversity for the sake of diversity.

Of course, there are minimum standards for the academic component, otherwise the rest of it doesn't really matter, but other than that, I don't think there's a specific recipe or set of admissions criteria. The applicant just needs to at least reach the STA minimal competence threshold in terms of mental horsepower, offer something that's going to broaden the school in an intriguing way, appreciate what the school offers in return, stand a good chance of doing something compelling with it, and have a bit of luck on his side in the admissions process (again, there are only 75 places in each class, and some VERY worthy candidates are inevitably going to be turned away simply because of insufficient space). It isn't complicated or mysterious.

Let cut to the chase.

Are you telling me if my hypothetical child is a C+/B- student with SSAT scores of 69th percentile (I presume, well below the 'standards" for STA) and his family generously donates $5 million dollars (unrestricted) to STA (perhaps 25% of the STA endowment after 100+ years) the school will reject this boy. This child can walk, talk and chew gum at the same time. He is not a stellar athlete or artist but is otherwise a nice kid with no other issues.

If you are telling me he will not get into STA I am afraid I have to disagree with you ... 110 percent. There will be a child with higher GPA and SSAT scores that will not get that seat (unless I am outbid ... the family is a bigger donor!)

I think people's reactions to the "athletic fields" comment are a bit overblown. Everybody knows that private schools are always on the prowl for major donors, everybody knows that the schools' financial needs are always enormous even for basic operations, to say nothing of when special projects or capital campaigns come around, and everybody knows that in some cases money CAN grease the skids up to a point.

Yet a school like STA isn't going to take a student who's a bad fit academically or socially or who isn't going to bring something unique to the overall mix within the student body; this is not only because the negative aspects of doing so are so high, but also because the opportunity costs of doing so are also so high (in other words, the competition is intense, and the school can pretty much pick and choose whoever they want, and they're not going to turn away someone they think will really be a win-win admission just to score a few bucks with a lesser candidate).

It's slightly tacky to drop the comment bluntly at a "first contact" event where everybody's supposed to be tip-toeing around on their best behavior, but if the substance of the comment came as a shock to anyone in the room, they probably shouldn't have been there in the first place. And everyone, even a school administrator or admissions person, is entitled once in a while to say something they probably wish they hadn't.

ALL else being equal, a student from a wealthy family will probably get the nod over one from a less-well-off family, but that's the extent of it. And IIRC STA runs a need-blind admissions office.

Anonymous wrote:The LS head mentioned more than once at the open house that they are "waiting for someone" to write a multimillion dollar check to fund new athletic fields. I thought it was pretty tacky.

Oh c'mon. I highly doubt he was implying that a donation would get a kid in. Probably just explaining the timing on the upgrade of the fields/facilities.

As for the mythical 8th grade applicant from a "certain school in McLean" - sounds like a real long shot. First I don't think repeating 8th grade is exactly a calling card at St Albans. 2nd, 8th grade is not an entry year so unlikely they would take an under qualified candidate at that point (or probably at any point). I know last year the slots for 9th grade were extremely competitive and a number of siblings weren't accepted.

Private school is a "non-profit" business which in the case of Exeter translates into a billion dollar endowment!

Who do you think underwrites scholarships for well-deserving underprivileged kids? No one seems to complain about the source then.

Sure beats spending hours and bits and bytes on gossip!

A similar comment to families of students already enrolled would just be a "truth." But to put that out there, not once but twice, during a tour for prospective families seems to be suggesting that big donation potential has an admissions impact. I don't doubt that it's true, but it's tacky to broadcast it before the scores of hopeful families there with their 8 and 9 year old boys, hoping they'll get in because their kids are deserving. Sorry.

Why not? What's wrong with the pure and unadultered truth? That's the problem with lies and the birds and the bees.

Anonymous wrote:

The LS head mentioned more than once at the open house that they are "waiting for someone" to write a multimillion dollar check to fund new athletic fields. I thought it was pretty tacky.

What's tacky about this? It's a tough economy today. This is how private educational institutions in this country have operated for centuries? Are you surprised? Or do you, or would you prefer truths veiled and delivered by slight of hand and tongue.

A similar comment to families of students already enrolled would just be a "truth." But to put that out there, not once but twice, during a tour for prospective families seems to be suggesting that big donation potential has an admissions impact. I don't doubt that it's true, but it's tacky to broadcast it before the scores of hopeful families there with their 8 and 9 year old boys, hoping they'll get in because their kids are deserving. Sorry.

Anonymous wrote:

The LS head mentioned more than once at the open house that they are "waiting for someone" to write a multimillion dollar check to fund new athletic fields. I thought it was pretty tacky.

What's tacky about this? It's a tough economy today. This is how private educational institutions in this country have operated for centuries? Are you surprised? Or do you, or would you prefer truths veiled and delivered by slight of hand and tongue.

I heard this at the open house as well. I thought he made the comment in jest, but there was a ring enough of truth to it that it did seem in poor taste.

The LS head mentioned more than once at the open house that they are "waiting for someone" to write a multimillion dollar check to fund new athletic fields. I thought it was pretty tacky.

What's tacky about this? It's a tough economy today. This is how private educational institutions in this country have operated for centuries? Are you surprised? Or do you, or would you prefer truths veiled and delivered by slight of hand and tongue.