Anonymous wrote:I have had both my kids in different ones and find it so curious why people don’t want to believe that these schools operate the way that they do. Not every single one and different admin function very differently, but how many vanity fair and nypost stories do you need to read before realizing the TT aren’t bastions of integrity?

It is there from day one. One of the issues in the K12 girls is that they red shirt kids who aren’t obvious fits — they are smart but not high IQ or children of trustees, etc. Those girls socially dominate the younger higher IQ ones just because at that age being older makes you seem cooler and smarter. They also do great in lower school, zip along but then the gap in the younger ones closes. At about 7th, the developmental advantage of being a year older disappears academically and the smart but not as smart as they think they are girls haven’t been taught to work hard and are lapped by the younger girls and it guts them. meanwhile the little ones spend their whole childhood being socially dominated and miserable. from day one, there is a game being played, advantage being taken (in the name of “equity” no less).

I pulled my kid after a few years, sent her to a not TT school. My guess is she will end up at one for HS when she’s old enough to have developed her own integrity and sense of self and find her own way through.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This whole thing seems like another data point in support of the idea that if you're not a rich connected snobby person, you should steer far clear of TTs (and even 2Ts, in NYC at least) - however brilliant your child - because you're never going to be able to thrive in that system.

It's a members-only club and you don't belong; they might barely tolerate your child's presence for a few years because they think their kids should get to know a few 'normal' kids so that their conversations with their future golf caddies will be less awkward, but you're never really going to fit in, and it's a terrible thing to make your child grow up in a place that doesn't really want them.

I won’t comment on the social or cultural aspect. If a child is truly brilliant or gifted and hard working, they will be a top quarter student at a TT. By being that high up, they will get into a top college barring some major disciplinary issue. Whether that is worth it to you is another matter.

This would also be true at a suburban public school, though, and they'll fit in better there. Any kid who's 'top 25% of the class at a TT' level smart is going to get into a good college pretty much regardless of where they attend high school; it's the kids who are already posh who need the connections and resume padding to bolster their standing among fellow posh people.

I don’t think this is true about suburban publics. They run from overly competitive boiler rooms (so you have fifty students with 5.0+ weighted GPAs and 1550 scores, 20+ ECs) to being unconnected and generally off T20 colleges’ radars (so maybe Penn takes a kid there this year, but probably won’t because they haven’t in 15 years). You may get into a top college, you may not, but being ranked third at most of the good ones will put you in a worse position than top quarter at a TT which almost guarantees a top college outcome. TT schools live and die by their matriculation lists. The counselors will spend inordinate amount of time and effort to get a student with good numbers into a top college, whereas no such incentive exists at the suburban publics.

I think you're eliding the middle of that range, though - there are really only a handful of schools in the first category, like Scarsdale, and while there are certainly a ton of totally-off-radar districts too, there are also a LOT of public schools that consistently send, say, a dozen kids to Ivies every year and one or two to HYP, and so are regular enough about it that the admissions officer covering that area will remember them. Hell, there are even a number of publics in NYC that would belong in that group.

The issue is a lot of top students at those middle go to pretty mediocre colleges despite good stats. It’s very difficult to differentiate yourself with grade inflation and the sheer number of students. My point is the best bet to go to an Ivy is to go to a TT and crush academics. Plus, the network of a TT beats any Ivy. The network effect and density of high achieving families is astounding. There are plenty of New Yorkers who make awesome careers off going to St Bs and Collegiate despite winding up at College of Charleston or SMU.

Is that even true now a day? I have become more pessimistic at the possibility of networking given how transient and cliquish the NYC scene is. It is a very transactional experience and you are only as valued by what you can do for others. Attending TT might as well be signing up your child to participate in the hunger games.

This matches our experience - the rich families only want to network with the other rich families.

Parents to parents v students to students are different issues. What would you do with those rich families if you aren’t rich? You aren’t going to Mustique with them or buying a pied a terre next to theirs in London. Why would you hang out regularly?

Sorry, I intended that to apply to students too.

There are plenty of popular non rich kids at these schools. People overthink this and watch too much gossip girl

That’s the crux of the entirety of the last 10 pages of posts. It’s fantasy. Very little of this matches reality.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s very difficult to differentiate yourself with grade inflation and the sheer number of students.

Most of those students aren't getting 1500 SAT's and a stack of good AP scores, though. From what I've seen, each of these schools has a cohort of a couple dozen smart kids whose names show up on every list of winners of blah blah prize or academic honor or whatever, and most of those kids end up doing very well college-wise; as long as your kid is smart enough to be part of that group they're in pretty good shape.

The point by is a lot of students at those schools do get those scores and a much higher proportion fail to get into a top college than their counterparts at TT high schools. It is more unpredictable an outcome from the publics.

I don't think that's true, though - the top kids seem to pretty much all do OK. Or if they don't, it's usually because there's some other problem or even simply that the family doesn't want to spend the money or the kid wants to stay closer to home or whatever.

Also, even if I accepted your proposition that every single kid in the top 25% at a TT high school gets into a top college, in terms of choosing a school for your kid, it's very hard to know whether your kid is going to end up in that top 25% - you may feel like they're very smart but not necessarily at that level of granularity, and it takes more than just smarts anyway. (and of course TT admissions itself is notoriously a crapshoot, so another key question here is 'is it worth going through years of effort to try to get my kid into a TT when it probably won't work or should I just make life easier on our family by putting them in a nice suburban school')

They do “OK” as you said, not great. If your kid is actually gifted and bright, you tend to know that by 5, certainly by 13 when they’d apply to HS. Their best bet to reach their academic and career potential is a TT. Those are circles you just don’t crack by being a run of the mill Rye HS grad in big 4 accounting.

I just don't think that's true - the vast majority of the people in those circles did not in fact attend one of 7 specific NYC private schools or half a dozen boarding schools or a handful of peer institutions in other parts of the country. We're far from a true meritocracy, but we're not so bad at that as to uniquely elevate people who win one specific sequence of lottery tickets over everyone else.

And again, this is all about unconnected kids - I'm not disputing the idea that if you are a rich connected kid your best bet is to enroll at a TT where you'll be surrounded by other rich connected kids and that system will do its best to find you an appropriately lofty niche within it. I do question whether a smart kid who's not particularly wealthy or connected is going to do better duking it out to be in the top 25% at a TT school versus being near the top of their class in a good public.

There are tons of financially successful people, more than the Ivies graduate. When I say those circles, I mean nice clubs, philanthropy boards, school involvement, people with pedigree and real elegance. You can sell a plumbing supply business for 50mm and buy a waterfront house in Fairfield County, but that is not what is being discussed here. An unconnected, unhooked kid will have to duke it out anywhere to get into a top college. There is no easy path. It is better to do it with rich peers who can help him out later on than to live in the boonies up in Bedford with people whose parents own 1mm houses.

But again, why would you expect to be embraced by those rich peers? Yes I saw the earlier comment about boys who've known each other since kindergarten, but I think a lot of this discussion is about 9th grade.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This whole thing seems like another data point in support of the idea that if you're not a rich connected snobby person, you should steer far clear of TTs (and even 2Ts, in NYC at least) - however brilliant your child - because you're never going to be able to thrive in that system.

It's a members-only club and you don't belong; they might barely tolerate your child's presence for a few years because they think their kids should get to know a few 'normal' kids so that their conversations with their future golf caddies will be less awkward, but you're never really going to fit in, and it's a terrible thing to make your child grow up in a place that doesn't really want them.

I won’t comment on the social or cultural aspect. If a child is truly brilliant or gifted and hard working, they will be a top quarter student at a TT. By being that high up, they will get into a top college barring some major disciplinary issue. Whether that is worth it to you is another matter.

This would also be true at a suburban public school, though, and they'll fit in better there. Any kid who's 'top 25% of the class at a TT' level smart is going to get into a good college pretty much regardless of where they attend high school; it's the kids who are already posh who need the connections and resume padding to bolster their standing among fellow posh people.

I don’t think this is true about suburban publics. They run from overly competitive boiler rooms (so you have fifty students with 5.0+ weighted GPAs and 1550 scores, 20+ ECs) to being unconnected and generally off T20 colleges’ radars (so maybe Penn takes a kid there this year, but probably won’t because they haven’t in 15 years). You may get into a top college, you may not, but being ranked third at most of the good ones will put you in a worse position than top quarter at a TT which almost guarantees a top college outcome. TT schools live and die by their matriculation lists. The counselors will spend inordinate amount of time and effort to get a student with good numbers into a top college, whereas no such incentive exists at the suburban publics.

I think you're eliding the middle of that range, though - there are really only a handful of schools in the first category, like Scarsdale, and while there are certainly a ton of totally-off-radar districts too, there are also a LOT of public schools that consistently send, say, a dozen kids to Ivies every year and one or two to HYP, and so are regular enough about it that the admissions officer covering that area will remember them. Hell, there are even a number of publics in NYC that would belong in that group.

The issue is a lot of top students at those middle go to pretty mediocre colleges despite good stats. It’s very difficult to differentiate yourself with grade inflation and the sheer number of students. My point is the best bet to go to an Ivy is to go to a TT and crush academics. Plus, the network of a TT beats any Ivy. The network effect and density of high achieving families is astounding. There are plenty of New Yorkers who make awesome careers off going to St Bs and Collegiate despite winding up at College of Charleston or SMU.

Is that even true now a day? I have become more pessimistic at the possibility of networking given how transient and cliquish the NYC scene is. It is a very transactional experience and you are only as valued by what you can do for others. Attending TT might as well be signing up your child to participate in the hunger games.

This matches our experience - the rich families only want to network with the other rich families.

Parents to parents v students to students are different issues. What would you do with those rich families if you aren’t rich? You aren’t going to Mustique with them or buying a pied a terre next to theirs in London. Why would you hang out regularly?

Sorry, I intended that to apply to students too.

There are plenty of popular non rich kids at these schools. People overthink this and watch too much gossip girl

That’s the crux of the entirety of the last 10 pages of posts. It’s fantasy. Very little of this matches reality.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This whole thing seems like another data point in support of the idea that if you're not a rich connected snobby person, you should steer far clear of TTs (and even 2Ts, in NYC at least) - however brilliant your child - because you're never going to be able to thrive in that system.

It's a members-only club and you don't belong; they might barely tolerate your child's presence for a few years because they think their kids should get to know a few 'normal' kids so that their conversations with their future golf caddies will be less awkward, but you're never really going to fit in, and it's a terrible thing to make your child grow up in a place that doesn't really want them.

I won’t comment on the social or cultural aspect. If a child is truly brilliant or gifted and hard working, they will be a top quarter student at a TT. By being that high up, they will get into a top college barring some major disciplinary issue. Whether that is worth it to you is another matter.

This would also be true at a suburban public school, though, and they'll fit in better there. Any kid who's 'top 25% of the class at a TT' level smart is going to get into a good college pretty much regardless of where they attend high school; it's the kids who are already posh who need the connections and resume padding to bolster their standing among fellow posh people.

I don’t think this is true about suburban publics. They run from overly competitive boiler rooms (so you have fifty students with 5.0+ weighted GPAs and 1550 scores, 20+ ECs) to being unconnected and generally off T20 colleges’ radars (so maybe Penn takes a kid there this year, but probably won’t because they haven’t in 15 years). You may get into a top college, you may not, but being ranked third at most of the good ones will put you in a worse position than top quarter at a TT which almost guarantees a top college outcome. TT schools live and die by their matriculation lists. The counselors will spend inordinate amount of time and effort to get a student with good numbers into a top college, whereas no such incentive exists at the suburban publics.

I think you're eliding the middle of that range, though - there are really only a handful of schools in the first category, like Scarsdale, and while there are certainly a ton of totally-off-radar districts too, there are also a LOT of public schools that consistently send, say, a dozen kids to Ivies every year and one or two to HYP, and so are regular enough about it that the admissions officer covering that area will remember them. Hell, there are even a number of publics in NYC that would belong in that group.

The issue is a lot of top students at those middle go to pretty mediocre colleges despite good stats. It’s very difficult to differentiate yourself with grade inflation and the sheer number of students. My point is the best bet to go to an Ivy is to go to a TT and crush academics. Plus, the network of a TT beats any Ivy. The network effect and density of high achieving families is astounding. There are plenty of New Yorkers who make awesome careers off going to St Bs and Collegiate despite winding up at College of Charleston or SMU.

Is that even true now a day? I have become more pessimistic at the possibility of networking given how transient and cliquish the NYC scene is. It is a very transactional experience and you are only as valued by what you can do for others. Attending TT might as well be signing up your child to participate in the hunger games.

This matches our experience - the rich families only want to network with the other rich families.

Parents to parents v students to students are different issues. What would you do with those rich families if you aren’t rich? You aren’t going to Mustique with them or buying a pied a terre next to theirs in London. Why would you hang out regularly?

Sorry, I intended that to apply to students too.

There are plenty of popular non rich kids at these schools. People overthink this and watch too much gossip girl

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s very difficult to differentiate yourself with grade inflation and the sheer number of students.

Most of those students aren't getting 1500 SAT's and a stack of good AP scores, though. From what I've seen, each of these schools has a cohort of a couple dozen smart kids whose names show up on every list of winners of blah blah prize or academic honor or whatever, and most of those kids end up doing very well college-wise; as long as your kid is smart enough to be part of that group they're in pretty good shape.

The point by is a lot of students at those schools do get those scores and a much higher proportion fail to get into a top college than their counterparts at TT high schools. It is more unpredictable an outcome from the publics.

I don't think that's true, though - the top kids seem to pretty much all do OK. Or if they don't, it's usually because there's some other problem or even simply that the family doesn't want to spend the money or the kid wants to stay closer to home or whatever.

Also, even if I accepted your proposition that every single kid in the top 25% at a TT high school gets into a top college, in terms of choosing a school for your kid, it's very hard to know whether your kid is going to end up in that top 25% - you may feel like they're very smart but not necessarily at that level of granularity, and it takes more than just smarts anyway. (and of course TT admissions itself is notoriously a crapshoot, so another key question here is 'is it worth going through years of effort to try to get my kid into a TT when it probably won't work or should I just make life easier on our family by putting them in a nice suburban school')

They do “OK” as you said, not great. If your kid is actually gifted and bright, you tend to know that by 5, certainly by 13 when they’d apply to HS. Their best bet to reach their academic and career potential is a TT. Those are circles you just don’t crack by being a run of the mill Rye HS grad in big 4 accounting.

I just don't think that's true - the vast majority of the people in those circles did not in fact attend one of 7 specific NYC private schools or half a dozen boarding schools or a handful of peer institutions in other parts of the country. We're far from a true meritocracy, but we're not so bad at that as to uniquely elevate people who win one specific sequence of lottery tickets over everyone else.

And again, this is all about unconnected kids - I'm not disputing the idea that if you are a rich connected kid your best bet is to enroll at a TT where you'll be surrounded by other rich connected kids and that system will do its best to find you an appropriately lofty niche within it. I do question whether a smart kid who's not particularly wealthy or connected is going to do better duking it out to be in the top 25% at a TT school versus being near the top of their class in a good public.

There are tons of financially successful people, more than the Ivies graduate. When I say those circles, I mean nice clubs, philanthropy boards, school involvement, people with pedigree and real elegance. You can sell a plumbing supply business for 50mm and buy a waterfront house in Fairfield County, but that is not what is being discussed here. An unconnected, unhooked kid will have to duke it out anywhere to get into a top college. There is no easy path. It is better to do it with rich peers who can help him out later on than to live in the boonies up in Bedford with people whose parents own 1mm houses.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s very difficult to differentiate yourself with grade inflation and the sheer number of students.

Most of those students aren't getting 1500 SAT's and a stack of good AP scores, though. From what I've seen, each of these schools has a cohort of a couple dozen smart kids whose names show up on every list of winners of blah blah prize or academic honor or whatever, and most of those kids end up doing very well college-wise; as long as your kid is smart enough to be part of that group they're in pretty good shape.

The point by is a lot of students at those schools do get those scores and a much higher proportion fail to get into a top college than their counterparts at TT high schools. It is more unpredictable an outcome from the publics.

I don't think that's true, though - the top kids seem to pretty much all do OK. Or if they don't, it's usually because there's some other problem or even simply that the family doesn't want to spend the money or the kid wants to stay closer to home or whatever.

Also, even if I accepted your proposition that every single kid in the top 25% at a TT high school gets into a top college, in terms of choosing a school for your kid, it's very hard to know whether your kid is going to end up in that top 25% - you may feel like they're very smart but not necessarily at that level of granularity, and it takes more than just smarts anyway. (and of course TT admissions itself is notoriously a crapshoot, so another key question here is 'is it worth going through years of effort to try to get my kid into a TT when it probably won't work or should I just make life easier on our family by putting them in a nice suburban school')

They do “OK” as you said, not great. If your kid is actually gifted and bright, you tend to know that by 5, certainly by 13 when they’d apply to HS. Their best bet to reach their academic and career potential is a TT. Those are circles you just don’t crack by being a run of the mill Rye HS grad in big 4 accounting.

I just don't think that's true - the vast majority of the people in those circles did not in fact attend one of 7 specific NYC private schools or half a dozen boarding schools or a handful of peer institutions in other parts of the country. We're far from a true meritocracy, but we're not so bad at that as to uniquely elevate people who win one specific sequence of lottery tickets over everyone else.

And again, this is all about unconnected kids - I'm not disputing the idea that if you are a rich connected kid your best bet is to enroll at a TT where you'll be surrounded by other rich connected kids and that system will do its best to find you an appropriately lofty niche within it. I do question whether a smart kid who's not particularly wealthy or connected is going to do better duking it out to be in the top 25% at a TT school versus being near the top of their class in a good public.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s very difficult to differentiate yourself with grade inflation and the sheer number of students.

Most of those students aren't getting 1500 SAT's and a stack of good AP scores, though. From what I've seen, each of these schools has a cohort of a couple dozen smart kids whose names show up on every list of winners of blah blah prize or academic honor or whatever, and most of those kids end up doing very well college-wise; as long as your kid is smart enough to be part of that group they're in pretty good shape.

The point by is a lot of students at those schools do get those scores and a much higher proportion fail to get into a top college than their counterparts at TT high schools. It is more unpredictable an outcome from the publics.

I don't think that's true, though - the top kids seem to pretty much all do OK. Or if they don't, it's usually because there's some other problem or even simply that the family doesn't want to spend the money or the kid wants to stay closer to home or whatever.

Also, even if I accepted your proposition that every single kid in the top 25% at a TT high school gets into a top college, in terms of choosing a school for your kid, it's very hard to know whether your kid is going to end up in that top 25% - you may feel like they're very smart but not necessarily at that level of granularity, and it takes more than just smarts anyway. (and of course TT admissions itself is notoriously a crapshoot, so another key question here is 'is it worth going through years of effort to try to get my kid into a TT when it probably won't work or should I just make life easier on our family by putting them in a nice suburban school')

They do “OK” as you said, not great. If your kid is actually gifted and bright, you tend to know that by 5, certainly by 13 when they’d apply to HS. Their best bet to reach their academic and career potential is a TT. Those are circles you just don’t crack by being a run of the mill Rye HS grad in big 4 accounting.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s very difficult to differentiate yourself with grade inflation and the sheer number of students.

Most of those students aren't getting 1500 SAT's and a stack of good AP scores, though. From what I've seen, each of these schools has a cohort of a couple dozen smart kids whose names show up on every list of winners of blah blah prize or academic honor or whatever, and most of those kids end up doing very well college-wise; as long as your kid is smart enough to be part of that group they're in pretty good shape.

The point by is a lot of students at those schools do get those scores and a much higher proportion fail to get into a top college than their counterparts at TT high schools. It is more unpredictable an outcome from the publics.

I don't think that's true, though - the top kids seem to pretty much all do OK. Or if they don't, it's usually because there's some other problem or even simply that the family doesn't want to spend the money or the kid wants to stay closer to home or whatever.

Also, even if I accepted your proposition that every single kid in the top 25% at a TT high school gets into a top college, in terms of choosing a school for your kid, it's very hard to know whether your kid is going to end up in that top 25% - you may feel like they're very smart but not necessarily at that level of granularity, and it takes more than just smarts anyway. (and of course TT admissions itself is notoriously a crapshoot, so another key question here is 'is it worth going through years of effort to try to get my kid into a TT when it probably won't work or should I just make life easier on our family by putting them in a nice suburban school')

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This whole thing seems like another data point in support of the idea that if you're not a rich connected snobby person, you should steer far clear of TTs (and even 2Ts, in NYC at least) - however brilliant your child - because you're never going to be able to thrive in that system.

It's a members-only club and you don't belong; they might barely tolerate your child's presence for a few years because they think their kids should get to know a few 'normal' kids so that their conversations with their future golf caddies will be less awkward, but you're never really going to fit in, and it's a terrible thing to make your child grow up in a place that doesn't really want them.

I won’t comment on the social or cultural aspect. If a child is truly brilliant or gifted and hard working, they will be a top quarter student at a TT. By being that high up, they will get into a top college barring some major disciplinary issue. Whether that is worth it to you is another matter.

This would also be true at a suburban public school, though, and they'll fit in better there. Any kid who's 'top 25% of the class at a TT' level smart is going to get into a good college pretty much regardless of where they attend high school; it's the kids who are already posh who need the connections and resume padding to bolster their standing among fellow posh people.

I don’t think this is true about suburban publics. They run from overly competitive boiler rooms (so you have fifty students with 5.0+ weighted GPAs and 1550 scores, 20+ ECs) to being unconnected and generally off T20 colleges’ radars (so maybe Penn takes a kid there this year, but probably won’t because they haven’t in 15 years). You may get into a top college, you may not, but being ranked third at most of the good ones will put you in a worse position than top quarter at a TT which almost guarantees a top college outcome. TT schools live and die by their matriculation lists. The counselors will spend inordinate amount of time and effort to get a student with good numbers into a top college, whereas no such incentive exists at the suburban publics.

I think you're eliding the middle of that range, though - there are really only a handful of schools in the first category, like Scarsdale, and while there are certainly a ton of totally-off-radar districts too, there are also a LOT of public schools that consistently send, say, a dozen kids to Ivies every year and one or two to HYP, and so are regular enough about it that the admissions officer covering that area will remember them. Hell, there are even a number of publics in NYC that would belong in that group.

The issue is a lot of top students at those middle go to pretty mediocre colleges despite good stats. It’s very difficult to differentiate yourself with grade inflation and the sheer number of students. My point is the best bet to go to an Ivy is to go to a TT and crush academics. Plus, the network of a TT beats any Ivy. The network effect and density of high achieving families is astounding. There are plenty of New Yorkers who make awesome careers off going to St Bs and Collegiate despite winding up at College of Charleston or SMU.

Is that even true now a day? I have become more pessimistic at the possibility of networking given how transient and cliquish the NYC scene is. It is a very transactional experience and you are only as valued by what you can do for others. Attending TT might as well be signing up your child to participate in the hunger games.

This matches our experience - the rich families only want to network with the other rich families.

Parents to parents v students to students are different issues. What would you do with those rich families if you aren’t rich? You aren’t going to Mustique with them or buying a pied a terre next to theirs in London. Why would you hang out regularly?

Sorry, I intended that to apply to students too.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This whole thing seems like another data point in support of the idea that if you're not a rich connected snobby person, you should steer far clear of TTs (and even 2Ts, in NYC at least) - however brilliant your child - because you're never going to be able to thrive in that system.

It's a members-only club and you don't belong; they might barely tolerate your child's presence for a few years because they think their kids should get to know a few 'normal' kids so that their conversations with their future golf caddies will be less awkward, but you're never really going to fit in, and it's a terrible thing to make your child grow up in a place that doesn't really want them.

I won’t comment on the social or cultural aspect. If a child is truly brilliant or gifted and hard working, they will be a top quarter student at a TT. By being that high up, they will get into a top college barring some major disciplinary issue. Whether that is worth it to you is another matter.

This would also be true at a suburban public school, though, and they'll fit in better there. Any kid who's 'top 25% of the class at a TT' level smart is going to get into a good college pretty much regardless of where they attend high school; it's the kids who are already posh who need the connections and resume padding to bolster their standing among fellow posh people.

I don’t think this is true about suburban publics. They run from overly competitive boiler rooms (so you have fifty students with 5.0+ weighted GPAs and 1550 scores, 20+ ECs) to being unconnected and generally off T20 colleges’ radars (so maybe Penn takes a kid there this year, but probably won’t because they haven’t in 15 years). You may get into a top college, you may not, but being ranked third at most of the good ones will put you in a worse position than top quarter at a TT which almost guarantees a top college outcome. TT schools live and die by their matriculation lists. The counselors will spend inordinate amount of time and effort to get a student with good numbers into a top college, whereas no such incentive exists at the suburban publics.

I think you're eliding the middle of that range, though - there are really only a handful of schools in the first category, like Scarsdale, and while there are certainly a ton of totally-off-radar districts too, there are also a LOT of public schools that consistently send, say, a dozen kids to Ivies every year and one or two to HYP, and so are regular enough about it that the admissions officer covering that area will remember them. Hell, there are even a number of publics in NYC that would belong in that group.

The issue is a lot of top students at those middle go to pretty mediocre colleges despite good stats. It’s very difficult to differentiate yourself with grade inflation and the sheer number of students. My point is the best bet to go to an Ivy is to go to a TT and crush academics. Plus, the network of a TT beats any Ivy. The network effect and density of high achieving families is astounding. There are plenty of New Yorkers who make awesome careers off going to St Bs and Collegiate despite winding up at College of Charleston or SMU.

Is that even true now a day? I have become more pessimistic at the possibility of networking given how transient and cliquish the NYC scene is. It is a very transactional experience and you are only as valued by what you can do for others. Attending TT might as well be signing up your child to participate in the hunger games.

This matches our experience - the rich families only want to network with the other rich families.

Parents to parents v students to students are different issues. What would you do with those rich families if you aren’t rich? You aren’t going to Mustique with them or buying a pied a terre next to theirs in London. Why would you hang out regularly?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s very difficult to differentiate yourself with grade inflation and the sheer number of students.

Most of those students aren't getting 1500 SAT's and a stack of good AP scores, though. From what I've seen, each of these schools has a cohort of a couple dozen smart kids whose names show up on every list of winners of blah blah prize or academic honor or whatever, and most of those kids end up doing very well college-wise; as long as your kid is smart enough to be part of that group they're in pretty good shape.

The point by is a lot of students at those schools do get those scores and a much higher proportion fail to get into a top college than their counterparts at TT high schools. It is more unpredictable an outcome from the publics.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This whole thing seems like another data point in support of the idea that if you're not a rich connected snobby person, you should steer far clear of TTs (and even 2Ts, in NYC at least) - however brilliant your child - because you're never going to be able to thrive in that system.

It's a members-only club and you don't belong; they might barely tolerate your child's presence for a few years because they think their kids should get to know a few 'normal' kids so that their conversations with their future golf caddies will be less awkward, but you're never really going to fit in, and it's a terrible thing to make your child grow up in a place that doesn't really want them.

I won’t comment on the social or cultural aspect. If a child is truly brilliant or gifted and hard working, they will be a top quarter student at a TT. By being that high up, they will get into a top college barring some major disciplinary issue. Whether that is worth it to you is another matter.

This would also be true at a suburban public school, though, and they'll fit in better there. Any kid who's 'top 25% of the class at a TT' level smart is going to get into a good college pretty much regardless of where they attend high school; it's the kids who are already posh who need the connections and resume padding to bolster their standing among fellow posh people.

I don’t think this is true about suburban publics. They run from overly competitive boiler rooms (so you have fifty students with 5.0+ weighted GPAs and 1550 scores, 20+ ECs) to being unconnected and generally off T20 colleges’ radars (so maybe Penn takes a kid there this year, but probably won’t because they haven’t in 15 years). You may get into a top college, you may not, but being ranked third at most of the good ones will put you in a worse position than top quarter at a TT which almost guarantees a top college outcome. TT schools live and die by their matriculation lists. The counselors will spend inordinate amount of time and effort to get a student with good numbers into a top college, whereas no such incentive exists at the suburban publics.

I think you're eliding the middle of that range, though - there are really only a handful of schools in the first category, like Scarsdale, and while there are certainly a ton of totally-off-radar districts too, there are also a LOT of public schools that consistently send, say, a dozen kids to Ivies every year and one or two to HYP, and so are regular enough about it that the admissions officer covering that area will remember them. Hell, there are even a number of publics in NYC that would belong in that group.

The issue is a lot of top students at those middle go to pretty mediocre colleges despite good stats. It’s very difficult to differentiate yourself with grade inflation and the sheer number of students. My point is the best bet to go to an Ivy is to go to a TT and crush academics. Plus, the network of a TT beats any Ivy. The network effect and density of high achieving families is astounding. There are plenty of New Yorkers who make awesome careers off going to St Bs and Collegiate despite winding up at College of Charleston or SMU.

Is that even true now a day? I have become more pessimistic at the possibility of networking given how transient and cliquish the NYC scene is. It is a very transactional experience and you are only as valued by what you can do for others. Attending TT might as well be signing up your child to participate in the hunger games.

This matches our experience - the rich families only want to network with the other rich families.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This whole thing seems like another data point in support of the idea that if you're not a rich connected snobby person, you should steer far clear of TTs (and even 2Ts, in NYC at least) - however brilliant your child - because you're never going to be able to thrive in that system.

It's a members-only club and you don't belong; they might barely tolerate your child's presence for a few years because they think their kids should get to know a few 'normal' kids so that their conversations with their future golf caddies will be less awkward, but you're never really going to fit in, and it's a terrible thing to make your child grow up in a place that doesn't really want them.

I won’t comment on the social or cultural aspect. If a child is truly brilliant or gifted and hard working, they will be a top quarter student at a TT. By being that high up, they will get into a top college barring some major disciplinary issue. Whether that is worth it to you is another matter.

This would also be true at a suburban public school, though, and they'll fit in better there. Any kid who's 'top 25% of the class at a TT' level smart is going to get into a good college pretty much regardless of where they attend high school; it's the kids who are already posh who need the connections and resume padding to bolster their standing among fellow posh people.

I don’t think this is true about suburban publics. They run from overly competitive boiler rooms (so you have fifty students with 5.0+ weighted GPAs and 1550 scores, 20+ ECs) to being unconnected and generally off T20 colleges’ radars (so maybe Penn takes a kid there this year, but probably won’t because they haven’t in 15 years). You may get into a top college, you may not, but being ranked third at most of the good ones will put you in a worse position than top quarter at a TT which almost guarantees a top college outcome. TT schools live and die by their matriculation lists. The counselors will spend inordinate amount of time and effort to get a student with good numbers into a top college, whereas no such incentive exists at the suburban publics.

I think you're eliding the middle of that range, though - there are really only a handful of schools in the first category, like Scarsdale, and while there are certainly a ton of totally-off-radar districts too, there are also a LOT of public schools that consistently send, say, a dozen kids to Ivies every year and one or two to HYP, and so are regular enough about it that the admissions officer covering that area will remember them. Hell, there are even a number of publics in NYC that would belong in that group.

The issue is a lot of top students at those middle go to pretty mediocre colleges despite good stats. It’s very difficult to differentiate yourself with grade inflation and the sheer number of students. My point is the best bet to go to an Ivy is to go to a TT and crush academics. Plus, the network of a TT beats any Ivy. The network effect and density of high achieving families is astounding. There are plenty of New Yorkers who make awesome careers off going to St Bs and Collegiate despite winding up at College of Charleston or SMU.

Is that even true now a day? I have become more pessimistic at the possibility of networking given how transient and cliquish the NYC scene is. It is a very transactional experience and you are only as valued by what you can do for others. Attending TT might as well be signing up your child to participate in the hunger games.