Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our public school college and career admissions counselor has lectured parents several times about “equity” and how college admissions committees are trained to screen out students who had “pay to play” opportunities. She gave the example of high test scores due to tutoring, a non-profit, international service trips and expensive enrichment opportunities.

But here’s the thing. What I spend on my child to prep for the SAT is a tiny tiny fraction of what some parents spend for a private high school.

Curious as to others thoughts.

Your counselor was right - at least as far as this year's admissions goes. Things went very differently than they had in previous years for full pay unhooked kids who had top stats and were applying to top schools (I'd say this is not just T20 but even trickling down into T30/T40).

Have you participated in one of the junior/senior parent college case studies where you play the role of an admissions officer reading fictional files and making a decision? Playing the role of being on the other side, I was looking for consistency in the narrative/profile - why is going on an international service trip part important to you as a person and how is it consistent with other things presented in the application. What will you do with it to enhance our college community? That was only one aspect combined with looking at GPA, class rigor, recommendations and institutional priorities …and those decisions were in context of who else applied.

Yes I have - I’m
Not talking about kids with international service trips (this is a cohort that was hit with COVID in freshman year- not so much world travel). Things shifted this year - either heed the warning or not…

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many children go to private school with financial aid. I wouldn't see it as a negative.

It should be obvious which ECs mainly just cost money and which ones required hard work.

High test scores require hard work and test prep is widely available so calling that "pay to play" is just not accurate.

I am certain that any kid at an elite private with financial aid would find a way to make that clear.

How? My kids receive aid at an "elite private". How do i make that clear?

This can be an easy essay reference - do you not know this? If I were at a Big X private with aid, I’d definitely signal that somehow. I mean - gratitude is an easy one, pride of earning a spot along with support, giving back to community that gave to me… there are so many quick drops of 2 sentences to relay that you are not just another rich kid from a privileged family and school

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our public school college and career admissions counselor has lectured parents several times about “equity” and how college admissions committees are trained to screen out students who had “pay to play” opportunities. She gave the example of high test scores due to tutoring, a non-profit, international service trips and expensive enrichment opportunities.

But here’s the thing. What I spend on my child to prep for the SAT is a tiny tiny fraction of what some parents spend for a private high school.

Curious as to others thoughts.

This post is quite amusing because it only proves that the college counseling at public schools is subpar.

Pay to play does not include tutoring because there is no way for an admissions officer to know if a high score is due to tutoring.

Private high schools actually have an advantage because the counseling is much better and students are known to be better prepared for college and they don't have the level of grade inflation of public schools.

LOL - so - this is not the case at our competitive DMV private!

You don't know how bad and impersonal it can be at large size public schools. Warehouse style.

Yes - I do know - and our CCO did nothing more than warehouse level work (but without a warehouse # of students)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No it is not a negative. For the most part, the strong private schools send a higher percentage of graduating seniors to elite schools than public schools. You can't just look at numbers of students because of the stark difference in student population. For example, for class of 22, Churchill HS sent approximately 7% of their graduating seniors to top 20 universities whereas strong private schools were are in the 25-35% range of graduating students. So as a high achieving private school student at a rigorous school, you will have a much stronger chance of admission to an elite school.

There’s a real gap in your logic here, and it hits some private school families really hard in admissions season. The mere fact that a private school sends a higher percentage of the class to elite colleges does not mean that each and every individual student has a better chance of admission from private.

I’m not sure PP is the one with the logic-gap here. The question is whether private schooling is a disadvantage in admissions to top schools, not whether every kid at a private school will get into a top university. The fact that such high proportions of seniors at strong private schools get into top universities each year indicates that it is not disadvantage.

New poster. My kids go to a top private that sends around 40% to Ivy+MIT & Stanford almost every year. All of them are legacies, and occasionally a top URM student. Our kids are neither, so yes, in a way they are disadvantaged. I am aware of that and ok with it. They are smart, hard working children from a stable home and receiving excellent K-12 education. They will be fine in life without an Ivy degree.

Anonymous wrote:Many children go to private school with financial aid. I wouldn't see it as a negative.

It should be obvious which ECs mainly just cost money and which ones required hard work.

High test scores require hard work and test prep is widely available so calling that "pay to play" is just not accurate.

All ECs require hard work, whether you pay a lot for them or not. Id you want to be exceptional at them that is.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No it is not a negative. For the most part, the strong private schools send a higher percentage of graduating seniors to elite schools than public schools. You can't just look at numbers of students because of the stark difference in student population. For example, for class of 22, Churchill HS sent approximately 7% of their graduating seniors to top 20 universities whereas strong private schools were are in the 25-35% range of graduating students. So as a high achieving private school student at a rigorous school, you will have a much stronger chance of admission to an elite school.

You are not accounting for the fact that the reason there are higher percentage from private is because there are more hooked kids at the private. Larger presence of legacy, VIP, URM, athlete to start and especially of kids that overlap multiple categories.

Absolutely true! When assessing college admission rates of public v. private high schools, you can't just calculate percentages. Top privates have a much higher percentage of kids from very wealthy and/or powerful families. (Some of those kids also have multiple hooks, e.g., equestrian sports, sailing, squash, crew, etc.) NOTE: many of those wealthy/VIP kids would not be considered "high achieving", yet they get into top 20 colleges. In fact, they get into top 20 colleges while their unhooked but academically high achieving classmates don't.

Everyone talks about how privates send more kids to top schools. Of course they do -- because they have so many extremely wealthy and VIP families. The great admission stats aren't due to the private school. They're due to the power/wealth of many private school families.

Moral of the story, seldom talked about in the press: If you have an unhooked UMC kid, chances for top college admissions are better at a good public school.

Anonymous wrote:Our private high school (240 boys in the class) did insanely well this admissions cycle. So many top 10-20 schools among the masses.

So- at our school, they did not. In fact, I was told by an AO they know the rigor of the school and the AP test profile is that the majority of students score 5s.

Some private schools are good enough, and have a long-standing enough relationship with adcoms, to qualify as "feeder schools". Going to such schools is a definite advantage.

What about more average private schools? What about say SSSAS? Probably neither helps not hurts.

Schools care about equity primarily in terms of race, not wealth. The ideal candidate is the son of a black doctor. Almost everything OP posted is false. High SAT scores are always a plus, etc. Private school is not a minus in most cases.

Anonymous wrote:Privilege is out.

Privilege fine when it comes with major donor bucks.

Anonymous wrote:"Ahh you've gone to the finest schools, alright Miss Lonely
But you know you only used to get juiced in it"
this ^ won't work

You used to laugh about
Everybody that was hanging out
Now you don't talk so loud
Now you don't seem so proud

Privilege is out.

"Ahh you've gone to the finest schools, alright Miss Lonely
But you know you only used to get juiced in it"
this ^ won't work

Anonymous wrote:the AP test profile is that the majority of students score 5s.

I thought they didn't care about AP test scores?

Anonymous wrote:The education level of the parents will tell you more about the outcome than whether the kid went public or private.

This. And color.

Our private high school (240 boys in the class) did insanely well this admissions cycle. So many top 10-20 schools among the masses.

So- at our school, they did not. In fact, I was told by an AO they know the rigor of the school and the AP test profile is that the majority of students score 5s.