Athletes and legacies are more likely to be privately schooled. Private schoolers also tend to be less delusional about their abilities and thus are less likely to use their ED on a super reach like Brown unless they are very strong.

My private school child is at Dartmouth and says that most of the private school kids are legacies or athletes. She knows very few private school kids who aren't one or the other.

So this is a large part of why 50% of the kids at some of the Ivies are privately schooled. Because they fulfill these other institutional priorities:

50% private school: many/most of the athletes and legacies. All of the development ($$) and VIP kids.
50% public school: Questbridge kids, FGLI kids, a few athletes and legacies and then a fraction of spots left for middle/upper middle class public school kids

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More surprising from that article is that they significantly decreased the number of QuestBridge acceptances from last year. I wonder if they’re aiming for a different percentage on FA (even if technically “need blind”) with the research funding troubles nowadays?

Its funding cuts for every T25. There will be less aid all around. They need (1) a lot more donors (even small 7 figure donors) and (2) a lot more full pay.

I imagine you’re right, it’s just the first time I’ve seen any stats pointing to this so far in the class of 2030 admissions cycle.

Lacrosse players and rowing bros are usually from private high schools. Donors too. Then for the 51% public school kids, half of them are first gen low income. Yes, OP. Your great school district is not helping much.

Anonymous wrote:More surprising from that article is that they significantly decreased the number of QuestBridge acceptances from last year. I wonder if they’re aiming for a different percentage on FA (even if technically “need blind”) with the research funding troubles nowadays?

Its funding cuts for every T25. There will be less aid all around. They need (1) a lot more donors (even small 7 figure donors) and (2) a lot more full pay.

More surprising from that article is that they significantly decreased the number of QuestBridge acceptances from last year. I wonder if they’re aiming for a different percentage on FA (even if technically “need blind”) with the research funding troubles nowadays?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Correlation =/= causation. There are a lot of reasons private school kids get accepted at higher rates that likely have to do with demographics, including legacy and athlete status, access to test prep and tutors, knowledge about the college process and ED, etc.

+1 Also ED requires you to accept irrespective of the financial aid package you receive. ED has always been affirmative action for the rich, and private school kids are disproportionately richer on average than their public school counterparts.

This is flat out wrong. The only way to get out of ED is if the financial package is not what was expected.

The accurate statement is “ED requires you to accept without discovering whether similar schools might charge you less. Therefore no one who is price sensitive can afford to ED. Therefore ED is affirmative action for the rich.”

This. Plus I don’t think Brown is even remotely on the radar for most public school kids in the U.S. Yes, maybe in stand out “top” public high schools, but the average public high school has probably 0 kids applying to Brown most years

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Correlation =/= causation. There are a lot of reasons private school kids get accepted at higher rates that likely have to do with demographics, including legacy and athlete status, access to test prep and tutors, knowledge about the college process and ED, etc.

This is true. But in addition, there is a freedom of exploration afforded in private schools that can not be matched in public education. This lends itself to creative thought, wordly perspective, deep exploration and many other features that top universities value and pursue. While of course, there are exceptions. As a general rule a private school education more directly correlates to the intwllextual exploration at top universities. Sure, there are smart kids in public schools….and they can earn great stats. But public schools have boundaries on what they can offer and allow.

This has a lot more to do with money and maintaining power consolidation. Brown is notorious for admitting more from the top 1% than the entire bottom 60%. Plenty of public school kids have a worldly perspective and do deep exploration on topics in high school. There are more intellectual public school kids in America than private just based on raw numbers. Small class sizes in private schools absolutely afford more attention and allow for more teacher engagement per student, but you could fill an entire entry class at Brown with public school kids who have far more than just stats. It's a good ole boys club and so many Americans confuse it for a meritocracy.

Anonymous wrote:Are you sure they received more ED applications from public school kids? The ED pool skews rich.

All schools data skew toward “full-pay. Plus, ED and private are both solid indicators.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Correlation =/= causation. There are a lot of reasons private school kids get accepted at higher rates that likely have to do with demographics, including legacy and athlete status, access to test prep and tutors, knowledge about the college process and ED, etc.

+1 Also ED requires you to accept irrespective of the financial aid package you receive. ED has always been affirmative action for the rich, and private school kids are disproportionately richer on average than their public school counterparts.

This is flat out wrong. The only way to get out of ED is if the financial package is not what was expected.

The accurate statement is “ED requires you to accept without discovering whether similar schools might charge you less. Therefore no one who is price sensitive can afford to ED. Therefore ED is affirmative action for the rich.”

More accurate:

ED requires you to accept without discovering whether similar schools who may also accept you had you applied might end up charging you less but this is in exchange for a high acceptance rate probability (and if successful, an early notification that effectively ends all the application work.) anyone who is price skittish even with knowing the upfront and accurate net price stated price, should ED to a school.

Plenty of kids ed who have financial needs ed.

Well, Brown has always been a rich kids school. This shouldn’t be a surprise.

Anonymous wrote:Is this unique to Brown? I went l an Ivy in the ‘90’s and most of my friends had gone to private high schools. (some NYC exceptions - Bronx Science, Stuyvesant). My DC is at an Ivy now and I think all of her friends went to private high schools, many to boarding schools.

There are a lot of factors, but private school education has always had a more direct road to the thought leadership that Ivies aim to produce. Public schools have a broader mandate.

Omg. Direct road to thought leadership. Not how I would put it.

Rich people participate in activities suitable for their class.

Public school graduates know that thought leadership can emerge from any setting.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Correlation =/= causation. There are a lot of reasons private school kids get accepted at higher rates that likely have to do with demographics, including legacy and athlete status, access to test prep and tutors, knowledge about the college process and ED, etc.

+1 Also ED requires you to accept irrespective of the financial aid package you receive. ED has always been affirmative action for the rich, and private school kids are disproportionately richer on average than their public school counterparts.

This is flat out wrong. The only way to get out of ED is if the financial package is not what was expected.

The accurate statement is “ED requires you to accept without discovering whether similar schools might charge you less. Therefore no one who is price sensitive can afford to ED. Therefore ED is affirmative action for the rich.”