We have an 8th grade son and have gone to open house nights at most of the local selective preps.

I think my dream for my son would be that he drops out of Stanford undergraduate and never gets his degree. That would mean something really good.

The posters are being a bit defensive here. If 3-4 is normative, and 11 is extraordinary the attribution analysis is not possibly that Sidwell just had the greatest applicants in the pile. This is a school that declines over 3,000 HS valedictorians each year. Accepting that 1 was sports, 3 were legacies that would to me impute sons or daughters of head's of state, senator kin, etc. On any given year Yale could burst and go 10+ from any Founders league boarding prep or St Albans or Harvard Westlake in Los Angeles to throw a list out there. In the data, you don't see that though...especially when you pick the nit on WHY there was a bounce on a given year. Sidwell is one fine school, but to believe that the merits of one class were so profound and special that it had to go 11 rather than 3-4 is a bridge too far. The admissions ecosystem doesn't allow for it unless there are serious concentrated hooks in one year.

Anonymous wrote:I believe 11 were admitted and 10 are attending. One went to MIT instead. 1 was a sports recruit, 3 were legacies, one had a prominent parent, at least three were URMs, and one was exceptionally talented in the arts.

Yale got a lot of criticism last year for admitting 1% of its student body from a single school. I suspect it will not happen again on that scale. Yale often admits 3-5 from Sidwell though -- nothing to sneeze at -- and I expect that will be the range this year.

My advice to parents is this. You should not post in real-time on a public blog or website about your school's amazing(!) college admissions success using specific numbers and naming actual schools. It can potentially open up the colleges and universities who admitted so many of your school's students to scrutiny or questions (why so many from one school? why no students from some other schools?). I think discretion is better in the matter for many reasons, including the emotions and feelings of fellow classmates still working through the admissions process.

If you absolutely need to know, then having the students themselves publish an end-of-year student college list in the high school newspaper, or through a school newsletter, is better advised. Those end-of-year methods are different because (1) by that point everyone has been admitted to some college, and thus fewer anxious students and parents pay attention, or care so much anymore; and (2) its distribution is mainly limited to those within the school community.

I believe 11 were admitted and 10 are attending. One went to MIT instead. 1 was a sports recruit, 3 were legacies, one had a prominent parent, at least three were URMs, and one was exceptionally talented in the arts.

Yale got a lot of criticism last year for admitting 1% of its student body from a single school. I suspect it will not happen again on that scale. Yale often admits 3-5 from Sidwell though -- nothing to sneeze at -- and I expect that will be the range this year.

Anonymous wrote:I've read others on this forum say that of the 11 admits (I believe it was 11, not 10, and those were admits, not eventual matriculations) there were 8 who were not legacies and not athletes. I don't know all 11 of those kids but I do know 3 of them fairly well. They are just very bright, very interesting kids who did not go to Yale to play sports and who don't come from big donor families. So I believe the claim that a substantial number of those kids were unhooked.

+1 to my knowledge 11 actually went to Yale. I do not know if there were other accepted sudents that went elsewhere. Of the 11, 1 was a sports recruit, and 3 were legacies. Say what you like, but to me that means that at least Yale does not impose a quota from a single school. My DC knows many of the kids and they were all over the map in terms of interests, etc. All were very bright and dedicated students.

I've read others on this forum say that of the 11 admits (I believe it was 11, not 10, and those were admits, not eventual matriculations) there were 8 who were not legacies and not athletes. I don't know all 11 of those kids but I do know 3 of them fairly well. They are just very bright, very interesting kids who did not go to Yale to play sports and who don't come from big donor families. So I believe the claim that a substantial number of those kids were unhooked.

That is an excellent point. A feast year could have a more adverse impact on the future period run-rate than positive. I don't think administrators at this particular boarding school were too excited about the terrific 8 count that one year. It impacts parents and kids to rationalize that the higher count is repeat obtainable, and it isn't unless again the condition is a future year concentration of Bass or Johnson family kin and the like plus ice hockey ringers. Another point is at this particular boarding prep there is a lot of latent hostility from parents and kids who are in the top tier for grades and scores, don't have the hooks and all around them are families with hooks. I can never forget the stress and anxiety we had as a family just praying our son's merits would not get totally smoked out by the kids who had hooks. He applied to all 8 Ivies and to two little Ivies and we were just so ecstatic to see the first admit package come. He wound up with a choice between three schools and is really happy, and I don't discount that he was lucky considering the density function of qualified and preferred candidates out of his prep. It was almost a curse in some ways to be an applicant from the prep he attended.

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, maybe the point back wasn't blunt enough. The Sidwell 10-11 or my son's school 8 does nothing to disprove the "school quota" claim. The quota gets blown if - and only if - there are factors like recruited athletes or the types of alum donor kin the college can't say no to. Those statistical outliers are not a candle that burns for hope, and does nothing to prove there really isn't a hard cap for concentration to one quality prep. Remember, in New England there are at least a dozen boarding preps believing they are the special one, and in DC alone there are a few day preps thinking so as well. That doesn't make it so. The 8 to Yale from this boarding school one year over the usual 3 maybe 4 was explained by legacy big bucks, soccer, ice hockey and lacrosse...not by the very special talents of that class at that school on itself. I would impute with due respect that the Sidwell 10-11 was constituted with several super freaky prestige / big money / legacy / political hooks and then sports. To believe otherwise is nuts.

It's also the case that the pendulum will swing back the next year, as other members of the college admission committee will look to redress the balance with "their" geographical areas and schools.

Sorry, maybe the point back wasn't blunt enough. The Sidwell 10-11 or my son's school 8 does nothing to disprove the "school quota" claim. The quota gets blown if - and only if - there are factors like recruited athletes or the types of alum donor kin the college can't say no to. Those statistical outliers are not a candle that burns for hope, and does nothing to prove there really isn't a hard cap for concentration to one quality prep. Remember, in New England there are at least a dozen boarding preps believing they are the special one, and in DC alone there are a few day preps thinking so as well. That doesn't make it so. The 8 to Yale from this boarding school one year over the usual 3 maybe 4 was explained by legacy big bucks, soccer, ice hockey and lacrosse...not by the very special talents of that class at that school on itself. I would impute with due respect that the Sidwell 10-11 was constituted with several super freaky prestige / big money / legacy / political hooks and then sports. To believe otherwise is nuts.

Anonymous wrote:I think that invites picking the nit on certain kids per their "story" and that is not for best. 10 from Sidwell to Yale is a freakish outlier, there is no other way to put it. My son's boarding prep one year had 8 kids to Yale, which hadn't happened before and is unlikely to again. 6 kids were sports related recruits, and the other two were good students with hooks royale. One was a Bass family from Texas kin, and the other was Charles Johnson's nephew. Yes, THAT Charles Johnson.

9:39 posting. I'm not asking for any details on particular students or their stories -- I agree with you that it's inappropriate to post such details. I'm just asking for clarification on the numbers. Was it 10 or 11? Is that an admitted number or a matriculating number?

And of course, my real question is ... Why doesn't the high number of Sidwell students to Yale disprove the "school quota" claim? Or alternatively, why doesn't the high number of students from your son's boarding school that one year disprove the school quota claim? When they occur, those high numbers are obviously statistical outliers, but why don't they prove that there really is no hard quota for any school?

I think that invites picking the nit on certain kids per their "story" and that is not for best. 10 from Sidwell to Yale is a freakish outlier, there is no other way to put it. My son's boarding prep one year had 8 kids to Yale, which hadn't happened before and is unlikely to again. 6 kids were sports related recruits, and the other two were good students with hooks royale. One was a Bass family from Texas kin, and the other was Charles Johnson's nephew. Yes, THAT Charles Johnson.

NP. Here's something I don't understand about this discussion -- We know Sidwell had at least 10-11 students admitted to Yale last school year. Doesn't that irrefutable fact prove that the people are wrong when they claim colleges place quotas on how many students they will accept from one school? Yes, I understand the 10-11 students is an abnormally high number, but it's still the number that Yale admitted. So regardless of whether it's a high-water mark or not, it still demonstrates that there's no quota cap, right?

FWIW, this question isn't really about Sidwell. It's more of a general question about college admissions quotas. It's just that Sidwell's huge number into Yale brings the question to the forefront.

Spin-off question -- What's the actual story on the Sidwell students admitted to Yale? I recall it was either 10 or 11, but cannot remember which. Is that 10-11 admitted, or is it 10-11 matriculating? If 10-11 matriculating, could that conceivably mean even more were admitted but chose another college? I just did not follow that discussion closely enough in the spring, so any explanation appreciated.

This is very true. Even though Sidwell had a banner year at Yale last year, it is unlikely to happen again. No Ivy is regularly going to take more than 5 students from a single, small prep school. The Sidwell kids know there is already one athlete committed to Yale and lots of legacy kids applying. And legacy is not a guarantee. I suspect some of those legacy kids will be disappointed.

I think it really does work out though, and more students are looking beyond Ivies to other excellent schools like Chicago and Washington University.

Colleges have no choice but to compare kids within schools, because no college can really afford to concentrate away from other comparatives (geographical, gender/ethnic, recruited athletes, legacies with a bias to donors, etc.). Having a kid who was of equal merit to get into any school, who actually did apply to all 8 Ivies and got into 2, we realized that the algorithm is complicated down to the prep level. The reason why he didn't have a chance at Brown or Yale that year? Simple, the per diem for those spots went to a couple kids recruited for sports and a couple more who were donor legacies with a real family hook. We knew that going in, and could accept it in the end. I think at a school like Sidwell the parents should be informed enough to know there will be certain classes where the 8-ball rolls for against the general population of great candidates at certain Ivies on certain years, and you can predict that well in advance.

The college counselors aren't always honest arbiters. What are they supposed to say? Yes, you just spent a quarter mil on a private secondary education but you really should know now that the 2-3 spots at Brown in your son's class are a closed loop because of that soccer player and those two kids with the hooks? The reality is the queue is not a true one, and there are some ways the application folders jump from high piles to the skinny piles and we can all guess how that happens, and we all know how that applies or does not to our family situation. Our son didn't get into 6 Ivies, but is very happy at the one he did pull through at after being wait listed then finally admitted. It works out well for the very qualified kids at a great place. I think that is what matters most, and, of course, in the world today most of the desired professions require a graduate degree and the next rodeo always awaits.

I wasn't clear. It wasn't Sidwell that was saying that they wouldn't push for my kid because there
Was another in the pipeline with better grades, it was the college. But if Sidwell told me that they advocated for the most qualified candidate, I would understand that. Why even give grades if you are just going to turn the admissions process into a popularity contest.