Any schools that doesn't provide a matriculation list that identifies where students actually end up is risking disappointment. Schools have tricks to improve the appearance of the matriculation list, such as
" in the past five years students have been ADMITTED to the following schools . . ." to allow listing of all top schools that the one or two superstars were admitted to. Another trick is vague (unverifiable) stats referring to percentages being accepted in to some undefined category of elite schools.

These "tricks" create the impression that the school offers a ticket to a better school than the DC might otherwise qualify for. A list that identifies students by name a school attending provides a far more realistic snapshot and real bench-marking. BUT parents of students attending the less impressive schools are sometimes humiliated by such lists.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Legacies can provide a hook or boost, like other factors, that can help in the crapshoot of whether a well qualified applicant gets a nod over other well qualified students. It very seldom means that what you call an "undeserving" kid gets in. At the iIvy schools the percentage of alumni children rejected for application exceeds those accepted by more than 2:1. And, I this area, if you aren't in the top quarter of your "big 3" class, it doesn't matter if your mommy or daddy went to Yale, you can put away the "Y" cap because you probably arent getting in.

I agree with you, mostly, but I'm not sure what you meant by the bolded part. Legacy does increase your chances of admission well beyond an unhooked kid's chances. At Harvard, for example, the acceptance rate for legacy kids is 30% vs. 6-7% for the school as a whole. Here: http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2011/5/11/admissions-fitzsimmons-legacy-legacies. BTW, note that a 6-7% school-wide acceptance, which includes higher acceptance rates for legacies, athletes and other hooked kids, means the acceptance rate for unhooked kids is more like 3-4%. Anyway, DD graduated from HS this year and I agree that all the kids who got into really selective schools, whether as legacies, athletes or unhooked, were super-qualified with high GPAs, SATs at 2200 or above, and leadership. Yes, even the recruited athletes I know of are amazing academically too.

This is just bs. Many legacies are not in the top 25%, just like athletes and urm. Some are well qualified but many are seriously less qualified. Big thumb on the scale.

No, it's absolutely not BS for the most competitive colleges and universities. You clearly don't know how hard it is to get into the top universities today. You need the GPA, the scores, and something additional and unusual achievement. My kid goes into a school that's in the top 5 of USNWR and almost every other national ranking, and I've seen these kids. I've also seen legacies with URM status and straight A's who were rejected from HYP.

PS. The athletic recruits at DC's top college that entered with DC come from, and only from, the TJ and Blair magnets and one area Top 3. Less qualified? I think not.

What do you know about the Landon kid who was a starter on Havard's basketball team? Was he a strong student at Landon?

I have no clue about that kid because I have no connection to Landon. Even if I did know him, I wouldn't talk about him here, and you'll see my posts above are pretty short on specifics about the kids in question.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Legacies can provide a hook or boost, like other factors, that can help in the crapshoot of whether a well qualified applicant gets a nod over other well qualified students. It very seldom means that what you call an "undeserving" kid gets in. At the iIvy schools the percentage of alumni children rejected for application exceeds those accepted by more than 2:1. And, I this area, if you aren't in the top quarter of your "big 3" class, it doesn't matter if your mommy or daddy went to Yale, you can put away the "Y" cap because you probably arent getting in.

I agree with you, mostly, but I'm not sure what you meant by the bolded part. Legacy does increase your chances of admission well beyond an unhooked kid's chances. At Harvard, for example, the acceptance rate for legacy kids is 30% vs. 6-7% for the school as a whole. Here: http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2011/5/11/admissions-fitzsimmons-legacy-legacies. BTW, note that a 6-7% school-wide acceptance, which includes higher acceptance rates for legacies, athletes and other hooked kids, means the acceptance rate for unhooked kids is more like 3-4%. Anyway, DD graduated from HS this year and I agree that all the kids who got into really selective schools, whether as legacies, athletes or unhooked, were super-qualified with high GPAs, SATs at 2200 or above, and leadership. Yes, even the recruited athletes I know of are amazing academically too.

This is just bs. Many legacies are not in the top 25%, just like athletes and urm. Some are well qualified but many are seriously less qualified. Big thumb on the scale.

No, it's absolutely not BS for the most competitive colleges and universities. You clearly don't know how hard it is to get into the top universities today. You need the GPA, the scores, and something additional and unusual achievement. My kid goes into a school that's in the top 5 of USNWR and almost every other national ranking, and I've seen these kids. I've also seen legacies with URM status and straight A's who were rejected from HYP.

PS. The athletic recruits at DC's top college that entered with DC come from, and only from, the TJ and Blair magnets and one area Top 3. Less qualified? I think not.

What do you know about the Landon kid who was a starter on Havard's basketball team? Was he a strong student at Landon?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Legacies can provide a hook or boost, like other factors, that can help in the crapshoot of whether a well qualified applicant gets a nod over other well qualified students. It very seldom means that what you call an "undeserving" kid gets in. At the iIvy schools the percentage of alumni children rejected for application exceeds those accepted by more than 2:1. And, I this area, if you aren't in the top quarter of your "big 3" class, it doesn't matter if your mommy or daddy went to Yale, you can put away the "Y" cap because you probably arent getting in.

I agree with you, mostly, but I'm not sure what you meant by the bolded part. Legacy does increase your chances of admission well beyond an unhooked kid's chances. At Harvard, for example, the acceptance rate for legacy kids is 30% vs. 6-7% for the school as a whole. Here: http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2011/5/11/admissions-fitzsimmons-legacy-legacies. BTW, note that a 6-7% school-wide acceptance, which includes higher acceptance rates for legacies, athletes and other hooked kids, means the acceptance rate for unhooked kids is more like 3-4%. Anyway, DD graduated from HS this year and I agree that all the kids who got into really selective schools, whether as legacies, athletes or unhooked, were super-qualified with high GPAs, SATs at 2200 or above, and leadership. Yes, even the recruited athletes I know of are amazing academically too.

This is just bs. Many legacies are not in the top 25%, just like athletes and urm. Some are well qualified but many are seriously less qualified. Big thumb on the scale.

No, it's absolutely not BS for the most competitive colleges and universities. You clearly don't know how hard it is to get into the top universities today. You need the GPA, the scores, and something additional and unusual achievement. My kid goes into a school that's in the top 5 of USNWR and almost every other national ranking, and I've seen these kids. I've also seen legacies with URM status and straight A's who were rejected from HYP.

PS. The athletic recruits at DC's top college that entered with DC come from, and only from, the TJ and Blair magnets and one area Top 3. Less qualified? I think not.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Legacies can provide a hook or boost, like other factors, that can help in the crapshoot of whether a well qualified applicant gets a nod over other well qualified students. It very seldom means that what you call an "undeserving" kid gets in. At the iIvy schools the percentage of alumni children rejected for application exceeds those accepted by more than 2:1. And, I this area, if you aren't in the top quarter of your "big 3" class, it doesn't matter if your mommy or daddy went to Yale, you can put away the "Y" cap because you probably arent getting in.

I agree with you, mostly, but I'm not sure what you meant by the bolded part. Legacy does increase your chances of admission well beyond an unhooked kid's chances. At Harvard, for example, the acceptance rate for legacy kids is 30% vs. 6-7% for the school as a whole. Here: http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2011/5/11/admissions-fitzsimmons-legacy-legacies. BTW, note that a 6-7% school-wide acceptance, which includes higher acceptance rates for legacies, athletes and other hooked kids, means the acceptance rate for unhooked kids is more like 3-4%. Anyway, DD graduated from HS this year and I agree that all the kids who got into really selective schools, whether as legacies, athletes or unhooked, were super-qualified with high GPAs, SATs at 2200 or above, and leadership. Yes, even the recruited athletes I know of are amazing academically too.

This is just bs. Many legacies are not in the top 25%, just like athletes and urm. Some are well qualified but many are seriously less qualified. Big thumb on the scale.

No, it's absolutely not BS for the most competitive colleges and universities. You clearly don't know how hard it is to get into the top universities today. You need the GPA, the scores, and something additional and unusual achievement. My kid goes into a school that's in the top 5 of USNWR and almost every other national ranking, and I've seen these kids. I've also seen legacies with URM status and straight A's who were rejected from HYP.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Legacies can provide a hook or boost, like other factors, that can help in the crapshoot of whether a well qualified applicant gets a nod over other well qualified students. It very seldom means that what you call an "undeserving" kid gets in. At the iIvy schools the percentage of alumni children rejected for application exceeds those accepted by more than 2:1. And, I this area, if you aren't in the top quarter of your "big 3" class, it doesn't matter if your mommy or daddy went to Yale, you can put away the "Y" cap because you probably arent getting in.

I agree with you, mostly, but I'm not sure what you meant by the bolded part. Legacy does increase your chances of admission well beyond an unhooked kid's chances. At Harvard, for example, the acceptance rate for legacy kids is 30% vs. 6-7% for the school as a whole. Here: http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2011/5/11/admissions-fitzsimmons-legacy-legacies. BTW, note that a 6-7% school-wide acceptance, which includes higher acceptance rates for legacies, athletes and other hooked kids, means the acceptance rate for unhooked kids is more like 3-4%. Anyway, DD graduated from HS this year and I agree that all the kids who got into really selective schools, whether as legacies, athletes or unhooked, were super-qualified with high GPAs, SATs at 2200 or above, and leadership. Yes, even the recruited athletes I know of are amazing academically too.

This is just bs. Many legacies are not in the top 25%, just like athletes and urm. Some are well qualified but many are seriously less qualified. Big thumb on the scale.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bates. Tulane. SMU. UC Santa Barbara. Ole Miss. Sewanne. Kenyon. Davidson. Wake. Washington and Lee. USC. U Vermont.

All taken from Big 3 matriculation lists this year.

Which ones would you consider "disappointments"?

Adding to this list, what would you say for NYU, U of Wisconsin, Macalester?

NYU is super popular but tuition/books + cost of living in NYC makes it ridiculous. Not sure why people spend the money to send their kids to undergrad there. Med/Law/MBA are a whole different story. U of Wisconsin would be preferred to all the others mentioned on the list unless a UC and from CA. Macalester is a good well know regional school - yes, if you live in Minnesota but why choose it over U of MN?

Wisconsin is behind most on the list except Ole Miss and Sewanee - unless you are a grad student that wants to o research - for undergrad it's not close.

Curious about the Sewanee listing here. Sewanee--University of the South is ranked number 36 for national liberal arts colleges by U.S. News. That ranking is just behind Kenyon (32) and ahead of Tulane, UCSB, SMU, Vermont and Ole Miss from this collection of colleges. Perhaps it is the northeastern orientation of the readers here that considers southern colleges or midwest options inferior. Times are changing, folks.

National Liberal Arts and National Universities are two distinct lists - you are comparing apples and oranges. There is NO WAY Sewanee is better than UCSB, SMU or Tulane.

Agreed re apples and oranges, but what is your basis for saying a school like UCSB is better than Sewanee? The undergraduate educational experience you get at the two institutions in fundamentally different. Whether it's "better" depends on how you learn.

FWIW, Sewanee's 25th and 75th percentile SATs are higher than UCSB, so if we must compare apples to oranges, it would appear Sewanee may in fact be "better".

14:47 again. It just dawned on me, you're saying that 2 legacy applicants are rejected for every legacy applicant that is accepted. So 33% of legacy applicants are accepted, not 100% like some might think. In a world where Ivies take 10% of all applicants, though, that's still a large thumb on the scale.

Anonymous wrote:

Legacies can provide a hook or boost, like other factors, that can help in the crapshoot of whether a well qualified applicant gets a nod over other well qualified students. It very seldom means that what you call an "undeserving" kid gets in. At the iIvy schools the percentage of alumni children rejected for application exceeds those accepted by more than 2:1. And, I this area, if you aren't in the top quarter of your "big 3" class, it doesn't matter if your mommy or daddy went to Yale, you can put away the "Y" cap because you probably arent getting in.

I agree with you, mostly, but I'm not sure what you meant by the bolded part. Legacy does increase your chances of admission well beyond an unhooked kid's chances. At Harvard, for example, the acceptance rate for legacy kids is 30% vs. 6-7% for the school as a whole. Here: http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2011/5/11/admissions-fitzsimmons-legacy-legacies. BTW, note that a 6-7% school-wide acceptance, which includes higher acceptance rates for legacies, athletes and other hooked kids, means the acceptance rate for unhooked kids is more like 3-4%. Anyway, DD graduated from HS this year and I agree that all the kids who got into really selective schools, whether as legacies, athletes or unhooked, were super-qualified with high GPAs, SATs at 2200 or above, and leadership. Yes, even the recruited athletes I know of are amazing academically too.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We all know its very true that legacies play a big part.

Just curious ... how do you know that? I suppose some students need that legacy boost to get admitted to some colleges, but I have no idea how much it matters or for how many students. How do you know?

Not picking out any one student. But, simply go to the particular school's "Common Data Set". It provides a wealth of information about their acceptances/rejections/test scores etc. You will see the legacy admissions. There's no doubt they play a role. Schools do not deny this.

Sure, I've seen college info suggesting that 10-15% of many colleges' students are legacies. I've got no dispute that legacies make up a significant portion of each college's enrollment. What I don't understand is how anyone here can point to any local high school and claim to know for sure that a big portion of the high school's college placement success is from legacies who otherwise would not deserve admission.

Legacies can provide a hook or boost, like other factors, that can help in the crapshoot of whether a well qualified applicant gets a nod over other well qualified students. It very seldom means that what you call an "undeserving" kid gets in. At the iIvy schools the percentage of alumni children rejected for application exceeds those accepted by more than 2:1. And, I this area, if you aren't in the top quarter of your "big 3" class, it doesn't matter if your mommy or daddy went to Yale, you can put away the "Y" cap because you probably arent getting in.

Anonymous wrote:Close family friend had child who went to Sewanee. They were very pleased -- the student made great connections with professors, got amazing internships with loyal Sewanee alums, and got into a fantastic grad school.

So I was pretty impressed. The former President of Middlebury also now heads Sewanee and it sounds like they are moving up the ranks under his leadership.

I'm a Northeast type myself and definitely have had to force myself to think more broadly regionally -- and to move past "what were good schools when I applied to college" (30 years ago)

ITA that parents need to divest themselves of outdated perceptions of schools, as well as getting beyond geocentric thinking . . . but it's funny isn't it that Sewanee's efforts to raise its profile north of the Mason-Dixon line involved importing a new prexy from a Yankee school?

Close family friend had child who went to Sewanee. They were very pleased -- the student made great connections with professors, got amazing internships with loyal Sewanee alums, and got into a fantastic grad school.

So I was pretty impressed. The former President of Middlebury also now heads Sewanee and it sounds like they are moving up the ranks under his leadership.

I'm a Northeast type myself and definitely have had to force myself to think more broadly regionally -- and to move past "what were good schools when I applied to college" (30 years ago)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bates. Tulane. SMU. UC Santa Barbara. Ole Miss. Sewanne. Kenyon. Davidson. Wake. Washington and Lee. USC. U Vermont.

All taken from Big 3 matriculation lists this year.

Which ones would you consider "disappointments"?

Adding to this list, what would you say for NYU, U of Wisconsin, Macalester?

NYU is super popular but tuition/books + cost of living in NYC makes it ridiculous. Not sure why people spend the money to send their kids to undergrad there. Med/Law/MBA are a whole different story. U of Wisconsin would be preferred to all the others mentioned on the list unless a UC and from CA. Macalester is a good well know regional school - yes, if you live in Minnesota but why choose it over U of MN?

Wisconsin is behind most on the list except Ole Miss and Sewanee - unless you are a grad student that wants to o research - for undergrad it's not close.

Curious about the Sewanee listing here. Sewanee--University of the South is ranked number 36 for national liberal arts colleges by U.S. News. That ranking is just behind Kenyon (32) and ahead of Tulane, UCSB, SMU, Vermont and Ole Miss from this collection of colleges. Perhaps it is the northeastern orientation of the readers here that considers southern colleges or midwest options inferior. Times are changing, folks.

National Liberal Arts and National Universities are two distinct lists - you are comparing apples and oranges. There is NO WAY Sewanee is better than UCSB, SMU or Tulane.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bates. Tulane. SMU. UC Santa Barbara. Ole Miss. Sewanne. Kenyon. Davidson. Wake. Washington and Lee. USC. U Vermont.

All taken from Big 3 matriculation lists this year.

Which ones would you consider "disappointments"?

Adding to this list, what would you say for NYU, U of Wisconsin, Macalester?

NYU is super popular but tuition/books + cost of living in NYC makes it ridiculous. Not sure why people spend the money to send their kids to undergrad there. Med/Law/MBA are a whole different story. U of Wisconsin would be preferred to all the others mentioned on the list unless a UC and from CA. Macalester is a good well know regional school - yes, if you live in Minnesota but why choose it over U of MN?

Wisconsin is behind most on the list except Ole Miss and Sewanee - unless you are a grad student that wants to o research - for undergrad it's not close.

Curious about the Sewanee listing here. Sewanee--University of the South is ranked number 36 for national liberal arts colleges by U.S. News. That ranking is just behind Kenyon (32) and ahead of Tulane, UCSB, SMU, Vermont and Ole Miss from this collection of colleges. Perhaps it is the northeastern orientation of the readers here that considers southern colleges or midwest options inferior. Times are changing, folks.

Anonymous wrote:Meritocracy, hahahaha! In the immortal words of Michael Corlene, "Now, who is being Naive?"

A perfect meritocracy doesn't exist, but it is indeed true that a truly well-educated (which is not necessarily the same as “well-credentialed”) person who works hard has a more equal opportunity for success today than at any time in human history. This doesn't mean that some lacking merit won’t be successful or that all those of equal merit with enjoy equal success.