It's a good question. My own experience probably reflects both sides of the coin.

Like a previous poster, I went to a regular public school (good by California standards, but California public schools are pretty middling by national standards). I went on to Harvard. I'm guessing admissions-wise, I had an easier time standing out than I would have at a top private high school. I had near perfect tests scores and grades and never felt like I had to kill myself to get them.

Arriving at Harvard was a WHOLE other story. My freshman year was completely traumatizing. I was cocky and wildly unprepared -- a dangerous combination. I jumped immediately into sophomore-year advanced-track physics because I assumed I could figure out any prerequisite knowledge on the fly. Yeah, sorry kiddo, I don't think so. I gave up on going to lectures after 6 weeks and barely eeked out a C+ in the class, frantically trying to learn how to study when just sitting in class isn't enough to master the material.

The next 3 years was a slow painful toil as I figured out first how to study at all, and then how to study efficiently, surrounded the whole time by peers who has locked these skills down long ago. I was often jealous of their more rigorous high school educations.

Today, I honestly don't know where I stand. I learned so much in college and being pushed to my edge and learning to push it right back was invaluable, if torturous. I wonder what it would have been like to be in such a stimulating environment from a younger age. But there are also many things I value about my high school experience, not the least of which is that it may well have helped me to get into college in the first place. But also, more of my prep-school friends seem to have chosen "tracky" career paths (lawyer, doctor, banker) compared to those college friends who came from other backgrounds (journalists at high profile publications, scientists, teach entrepreneurs). I don't know if that's because kids who get into prep schools tend to be good at/drawn to excelling in well-defined tracks or if being on such a track in your formative years has an influence. Or it could be entirely a fluke!

Ultimately, I guess I would aim for an environment that balances intellectual-rigor with room for curiosity and exploration and then trust that to lead a child to whatever college experience is right for them.

Anonymous wrote:Give your kids the best education you can.
Set a good example at home through your own dedication and hard work on matters that are important.
Encourage them to stretch themselves and find what truly makes them happy.
Support them in their studies and help them to understand that learning is a reward in and of itself.
The rest will take care of itself.

Finally!! A voice of reason on this board. I bet you have engaging, happy, well-adjusted kids.

Give your kids the best education you can.
Set a good example at home through your own dedication and hard work on matters that are important.
Encourage them to stretch themselves and find what truly makes them happy.
Support them in their studies and help them to understand that learning is a reward in and of itself.
The rest will take care of itself.

Anonymous wrote:shhhh don't tell the parents of the whiteman kids. shhhhhh

Curious--are you the poster who always does this "Whiteman" schtick? I can't believe there are multiple people who think it's funny, but you sure are busy if you are the only one.

We and most of our friends with kids at Whitman were really happy with college acceptances this year, but we went into it understanding that unhooked kids at Whitman don't have any better odds than kids elsewhere at getting into most ivies (other than Cornell, which seems to really like Whitman kids) or other top 10 schools.

shhhh don't tell the parents of the whiteman kids. shhhhhh

NP here. This is something I've struggled with. We are on the west coast and my kid is in a highly rated private school.

My kid, who all her life was a straight-A, is now a B student. And when she applies to college, she's applying as one of these kids, and her GPA won't be competitive in her pool.

I am fairly confident that if she went to our local public HS here, she'd be straight-A. In California, if you graduate in the top 10% of a public HS, you are guaranteed admission to a University of California (Berkely, UCLA, Irvine, Santa Barbara, San Diego, Davis, Merced, Santa Cruz).

The UC system's politics are such that to keep tuition low for in-state kids, which is a mandate, they pack it with out-of-state kids who pay much more and thus subsidize the in-state kids. So they don't let in a lot of in-state kids besides the public HS 10% mandated ones.

So I have spent some time pondering the trade-off between my DD's current educational experience, which is awesome--small classes, incredible teachers, great peer group----vs. her future college choices, which might be better served by going to the public.

We've toured the local public HS and my DD doesn't want to go there, as from that tour she realized she was over a year ahead of her grade there. Also she recognizes that the teacher quality is varied.

So, I've left it alone; we will re-assess every year. I'm now comfortable that she may be getting a bit of a short shrift when it comes to college, but I believe her present educational experience is worth it.

I don't need her to have a big name ivy; I want her to find the right college and area of interest so she loves her career. (fwiw, I did go to a big name ivy but in the wrong fit, so that's part of what informs my decision)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The admit rate includes people with geographic diversity. Compare to a local HS admit rate. We are in the same boat - extremely challenging, highly-ranked school that is smaller than local HS. From what I can tell, we are sending a higher percentage to top schools compared to the local HS.

why do red staters who hate race-based affirmative action never talk about the geographic affirmative action they/their kids receive when it comes to applying to top schools?

Funny, but those blue state folks from Washington, Oregon, New Mexico, Minnesota, etc. likewise have no problem with geographic affirmative action when applying to East Coast schools. Why is that?

I can't speak to all of the states you mentioned but Washington state kids don't really get that much if any bump - there are too many high scoring people in WA, especially high scoring asians.

You aren't getting any geographically adjustment applying out of Lakeside School, Redmond High, Bellevue High, Mercer Island High, etc.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The admit rate includes people with geographic diversity. Compare to a local HS admit rate. We are in the same boat - extremely challenging, highly-ranked school that is smaller than local HS. From what I can tell, we are sending a higher percentage to top schools compared to the local HS.

why do red staters who hate race-based affirmative action never talk about the geographic affirmative action they/their kids receive when it comes to applying to top schools?

Funny, but those blue state folks from Washington, Oregon, New Mexico, Minnesota, etc. likewise have no problem with geographic affirmative action when applying to East Coast schools. Why is that?

oh one other thing about the magnets

I hate to break it to you but the so called teacher quality and curriculum are the exact same at the AP/honors track at almost any decent high school vs what is being taught at the magnet.

For those local to DC this even goes for TJ for most of the kids. There are only a handful of students who actually complete a second year of Calculus there most finish with one year of Calculus just like the top track at any other school in Fairfax County.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I live in San Francisco. The best public high school is Lowell (followed by Sota, a school for the arts, but it has a heavy drug culture). The girl who gave us (me and DD, then an 8th grader) a tour, CRIED DURING THE TOUR. She said she never gets to sleep before 2am, and cries from stress every day. I wouldn't even let DD take the exam to get accepted. I don't want her spending four years being miserable.

She's going to attend a high school that's considered decent (no significant gang or drug culture, engaged and driven teachers) instead. She'll do very well, fairly easily. She will have a higher GPA from this school than if she went to Lowell. She will rank higher among her peers at this school.

DD won't get into Stanford. She'll wind up at some other UC, and do fine. My goal is not an Ivy for her. It's that she learns and has an enjoyable life.

she can always lock down a stanford provider later. it's more important she has fun at her UC and stays fit and happy.

LOL, I never even thought of that; good point. I will hold off mentioning that to her - she doesn't realize yet that she'll never get in there and I want to let that bubble burst naturally.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Your child goes to high school to grow up and have an education. You don't send them to a school just for college admissions. How is sending your child to a less resourced school with less experienced teachers and weaker classmates going to improve their education? Pick the best education you can for your child. If they love the sciences, send them to a specialized magnet program. Even if they end up at the state land grant, they will start with a better foundation than most of their college classmates. No school is going to automatically get them into a top tier college. Exeter and Andover may send 25% of their class to HYPS, but 20% are legacy development cases.

Apply your argument at the college level. How is "sending your child to a less resourced school with less experienced teachers and weaker classmates going to improve their education?" Better to get your kid into a better college.

nope the counter works just as well here but first before we begin let's get one thing out of the way

the teacher/professor has very little impact on the outcome of your child. It's almost all based on two things nature (raw material) and nurture (work ethic). Why else in your average lecture hall of say 150+ freshman students do you end up with so many different results

Now back to my point at the college level. Well almost, first, what is the point of college its to find a job if you don't agree with that then no point in continuing

So since the point of college is to get a job you have two choices. You can either go to the best college and compete against all the best and brightest for a spot or you can go to a decent school and be near the top and have that much of an easier time getting a job at company X. There are very few companies that only recruit at a handful of colleges. Its better to be near the top of your class vs stuck in the middle at some "great" school.

And for those of you looking to go to grad school the same thing applies. Its better to go to a state school and be near the top of your class with a high GPA vs go to say a top 25 college and be in the middle of the pack.

Anonymous wrote:Your child goes to high school to grow up and have an education. You don't send them to a school just for college admissions. How is sending your child to a less resourced school with less experienced teachers and weaker classmates going to improve their education? Pick the best education you can for your child. If they love the sciences, send them to a specialized magnet program. Even if they end up at the state land grant, they will start with a better foundation than most of their college classmates. No school is going to automatically get them into a top tier college. Exeter and Andover may send 25% of their class to HYPS, but 20% are legacy development cases.

Seriously? The high school you go to means nothing at all. What does matter for career prospects and post-graduate plans is the college one attends; you can romanticize and equalize it all you want, but there is an advantage conferred by attending a top college for networking and opportunities.

There are plenty of kids who are locked out of the top colleges because those colleges are picky about taking students ranking within the top 10% of their class. Even automatic admission rules like UT's Top 7% disadvantage excellent students at top schools who could easily be at the top 1% anywhere else. UVA is picky about taking in-state students ranking near the top of their class. The stress and competition of a top school, as well as the lack of concessions made if you're not absolutely at the cream of the crop, actively hinders students who could readily stand out at a worse high school and get into a better college.

Anonymous wrote:Your child goes to high school to grow up and have an education. You don't send them to a school just for college admissions. How is sending your child to a less resourced school with less experienced teachers and weaker classmates going to improve their education? Pick the best education you can for your child. If they love the sciences, send them to a specialized magnet program. Even if they end up at the state land grant, they will start with a better foundation than most of their college classmates. No school is going to automatically get them into a top tier college. Exeter and Andover may send 25% of their class to HYPS, but 20% are legacy development cases.

Apply your argument at the college level. How is "sending your child to a less resourced school with less experienced teachers and weaker classmates going to improve their education?" Better to get your kid into a better college.

Anonymous wrote:The admit rate includes people with geographic diversity. Compare to a local HS admit rate. We are in the same boat - extremely challenging, highly-ranked school that is smaller than local HS. From what I can tell, we are sending a higher percentage to top schools compared to the local HS.

why do red staters who hate race-based affirmative action never talk about the geographic affirmative action they/their kids receive when it comes to applying to top schools?

Anonymous wrote:I live in San Francisco. The best public high school is Lowell (followed by Sota, a school for the arts, but it has a heavy drug culture). The girl who gave us (me and DD, then an 8th grader) a tour, CRIED DURING THE TOUR. She said she never gets to sleep before 2am, and cries from stress every day. I wouldn't even let DD take the exam to get accepted. I don't want her spending four years being miserable.

She's going to attend a high school that's considered decent (no significant gang or drug culture, engaged and driven teachers) instead. She'll do very well, fairly easily. She will have a higher GPA from this school than if she went to Lowell. She will rank higher among her peers at this school.

DD won't get into Stanford. She'll wind up at some other UC, and do fine. My goal is not an Ivy for her. It's that she learns and has an enjoyable life.

she can always lock down a stanford provider later. it's more important she has fun at her UC and stays fit and happy.