Anonymous wrote:Of course, bad shit happens everywhere but I have just found among TT families, as someone who went to a BIG Ivy, but isn’t from NYC, there is a sort of third rail about these places where you just aren’t allowed to talk about how they function or if they academics are any good. Part of why I left one was because I thought the academics were getting really watered down and weak after a change in direction in the school and the teachers were bad. I didn’t think the lower and middle school was prepping the girls for high,
but if I said that people gasped like I’d just said the Pope wasn’t the actual mouthpiece of God but a political leader. Turned out everyone was using outside tutoring rather than complain that the 70, 000 school wasn’t hiring good teachers and was following every stupid trend in education. Part of why I left was because I found the other parents too willing to put up with anything the school decided to do. I can see how people who do abuse children end up in these places for so long. No one questions anything, and people will put up with things they really shouldn’t. I didn’t want to teach my daughter to be that subservient.

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.

My experience at Trinity was that money did not equal popularity. Some of the least well-off kids in my class were very popular and the son of a well-known NYC billionaire was basically a social pariah.

As for the networking, I haven't used a Trinity connection my entire career. That's because I live in DC and don't work in finance. My point being is that a TT network is great if your kid plans to stay in NYC, otherwise, it's probably going to be useless.

If you leave the tristate then the TT network is what you make of it. A 22 year old college senior who went to Dalton can go on LinkedIn and find dozens of alums in any major city on LinkedIn who can help them out (and will). You don’t get that growing up in Port Washington or Montclair.

Anonymous wrote:We went to a K8. It’s a lot more normal and they teach math facts. High school we have to figure out but super high erb so fine. What’s the point of alum networks if you can’t do arithmetic in your head? I knew people applying to T2 and T3 HS who were denied because they weren’t academically prepped by a T1 girl school known for academics.

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.

My experience at Trinity was that money did not equal popularity. Some of the least well-off kids in my class were very popular and the son of a well-known NYC billionaire was basically a social pariah.

As for the networking, I haven't used a Trinity connection my entire career. That's because I live in DC and don't work in finance. My point being is that a TT network is great if your kid plans to stay in NYC, otherwise, it's probably going to be useless.

Anonymous wrote:Of course, bad shit happens everywhere but I have just found among TT families, as someone who went to a BIG Ivy, but isn’t from NYC, there is a sort of third rail about these places where you just aren’t allowed to talk about how they function or if they academics are any good. Part of why I left one was because I thought the academics were getting really watered down and weak after a change in direction in the school and the teachers were bad. I didn’t think the lower and middle school was prepping the girls for high,
but if I said that people gasped like I’d just said the Pope wasn’t the actual mouthpiece of God but a political leader. Turned out everyone was using outside tutoring rather than complain that the 70, 000 school wasn’t hiring good teachers and was following every stupid trend in education. Part of why I left was because I found the other parents too willing to put up with anything the school decided to do. I can see how people who do abuse children end up in these places for so long. No one questions anything, and people will put up with things they really shouldn’t. I didn’t want to teach my daughter to be that subservient.

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.

My experience at Trinity was that money did not equal popularity. Some of the least well-off kids in my class were very popular and the son of a well-known NYC billionaire was basically a social pariah.

As for the networking, I haven't used a Trinity connection my entire career. That's because I live in DC and don't work in finance. My point being is that a TT network is great if your kid plans to stay in NYC, otherwise, it's probably going to be useless.

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.

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:

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.

Yep. They want to convince themselves that even if they could afford TT Manhattan schools (the critics usually cannot on a reasonable basis, statistically) that they are terrible. It makes living in a boring suburb with high property taxes but free (passable) education feel better, despite having a lot of the same social shortcomings and BS to deal with.

I don't think anybody's trying to say they're terrible, just that they won't have the purported impact on kids' future prospects relative to public schools. I would not argue that your college prospects are necessarily *worse* at a TT private, just that they're not necessarily better either.

Also, this "even if they could afford" comment undermines most of your argument to an extent you maybe don't appreciate; most rich people are not that smart (just read the Epstein files), the top 25% of a cohort of kids that's determined more by money than brainpower is not going to be all that impressive at all.

Thing is, if you go to a TT you are probably aware that the college you go to is less impactful, career wise and educationally, than the network you are gaining in private school. Going to Trinity and TCU is better than Staples than Harvard for long term success.

I’m not saying rich people are smart. I am saying thousands of parents leave NYC every year in bitterness because they don’t trust the city public schools and cannot pay 70k a year in tuition for K-12. If HM was free, they’d stay in the city and make it work. Many parents in Bronxville and Manhasset regret having that third kid because it forced them out of the city, despite a mid to high six figure income. They often post about it here and then attack the TTs they didn’t have access to.

Why would you assume someone who has the money to send their child to TT school is aware? Many are not from the area and the people who are tend to be dismissive by saying I just wanted to send my child to the school I attended as a child. The school will show you the exmission list and tell you everyone gets into great schools.

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:

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.

Yep. They want to convince themselves that even if they could afford TT Manhattan schools (the critics usually cannot on a reasonable basis, statistically) that they are terrible. It makes living in a boring suburb with high property taxes but free (passable) education feel better, despite having a lot of the same social shortcomings and BS to deal with.

I don't think anybody's trying to say they're terrible, just that they won't have the purported impact on kids' future prospects relative to public schools. I would not argue that your college prospects are necessarily *worse* at a TT private, just that they're not necessarily better either.

Also, this "even if they could afford" comment undermines most of your argument to an extent you maybe don't appreciate; most rich people are not that smart (just read the Epstein files), the top 25% of a cohort of kids that's determined more by money than brainpower is not going to be all that impressive at all.

Thing is, if you go to a TT you are probably aware that the college you go to is less impactful, career wise and educationally, than the network you are gaining in private school. Going to Trinity and TCU is better than Staples than Harvard for long term success.

I’m not saying rich people are smart. I am saying thousands of parents leave NYC every year in bitterness because they don’t trust the city public schools and cannot pay 70k a year in tuition for K-12. If HM was free, they’d stay in the city and make it work. Many parents in Bronxville and Manhasset regret having that third kid because it forced them out of the city, despite a mid to high six figure income. They often post about it here and then attack the TTs they didn’t have access to.

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: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.

Yep. They want to convince themselves that even if they could afford TT Manhattan schools (the critics usually cannot on a reasonable basis, statistically) that they are terrible. It makes living in a boring suburb with high property taxes but free (passable) education feel better, despite having a lot of the same social shortcomings and BS to deal with.

I don't think anybody's trying to say they're terrible, just that they won't have the purported impact on kids' future prospects relative to public schools. I would not argue that your college prospects are necessarily *worse* at a TT private, just that they're not necessarily better either.

Also, this "even if they could afford" comment undermines most of your argument to an extent you maybe don't appreciate; most rich people are not that smart (just read the Epstein files), the top 25% of a cohort of kids that's determined more by money than brainpower is not going to be all that impressive at all.

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: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.

Yep. They want to convince themselves that even if they could afford TT Manhattan schools (the critics usually cannot on a reasonable basis, statistically) that they are terrible. It makes living in a boring suburb with high property taxes but free (passable) education feel better, despite having a lot of the same social shortcomings and BS to deal with.