My firstborn is headed unhooked RD to an Ivy next year. Not from a big 3/5. I definitely think the HS mattered and seeing our public school Instagram I really don’t think he would have had all the T10/20 acceptances that he did if he had attended our neighborhood school.

It wasn’t the goal of private for our kids- admissions. We were unhappy with the standards of our public HS. retakes, the class sizes, the lack of rigor or expectations. It was not challenging. Discipline was also lacking.
The public HS is large and has a lot of issues.

My kid is very well prepared for college.

Op thanks for sharing.

I just made the move to put my daughter in an elite private (not in DC) in mid elementary. I am feeling good about it but nothing to do with college placement. The reality is that life is a continuum - high school prepares you for life and so does college. Getting into an elite college doesn’t set you up for life. (I am a prof at an elite university so see a lot of kids on an ongoing basis). It doesn’t even get you the best classes. Or access to professors, who are increasingly busy with non classroom duties. Yes you can do research in my lab but you will probably talk to me twice in person. Not because I am mean but because I do six other jobs as a professor.

I can’t imagine that anyone on this board thought private school would get you into a fancy school. It probably doesn’t rule you out of one. But to the extent it any schooling situation cultivates responsibility, leadership, character, innovation and/or effectiveness these are what is needed.

Really your students are up against those from Tsinghua, Oxford, Stanford and also top land grant universities that provide an extraordinary education and bring needed perspectives and a great attitude and work ethic.

There is no easy answer. Go with the fundamentals, history shows us this long view.

OP is law school still a good deal these days? I have no idea, so asking.

Anonymous wrote:a comfortable lifestyle with a wide range of educational and housing options

Not having this doesn't make you "poor."

I think the anti private school parents who brag about sending their kids to public school on this board should be forced to declare their home value and school district up front. Your put upon ranting will sound hollow when everyone knows you're posting from a $3.5 million McMansion zoned for a greatschools 9.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More platitudes than substance I see.

The meaning of words matter. If over half of Montgomery County, MD is poor in your book, then who is "middle class"?

Certainly not people who have a household income of <$120k/year, and reside in Washington DC Metropolitan area.

If having a median HHI doesn't make one "middle class," then you definitely don't have a grasp of what words mean.

In the DMV, earning a median HHI means you’re poor. There are levels to poverty.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More platitudes than substance I see.

The meaning of words matter. If over half of Montgomery County, MD is poor in your book, then who is "middle class"?

Certainly not people who have a household income of <$120k/year, and reside in Washington DC Metropolitan area.

If having a median HHI doesn't make one "middle class," then you definitely don't have a grasp of what words mean.

Do YOU understand what earning the median HHI means in this area? Just because it’s the median doesn’t mean it affords you a comfortable lifestyle with a wide range of educational and housing options. If you live in this area and earn a median income, you’re poor. You may not be the poorest of the poor, but you’re struggling to make ends meet in the HCOL environment.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More platitudes than substance I see.

The meaning of words matter. If over half of Montgomery County, MD is poor in your book, then who is "middle class"?

Certainly not people who have a household income of <$120k/year, and reside in Washington DC Metropolitan area.

If having a median HHI doesn't make one "middle class," then you definitely don't have a grasp of what words mean.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
LOL. and college admissions have changed dramatically in the last four years. Currently, public kids ARE getting in to top colleges more easily than privates because of the anti-elitism, DEI, URM, minority, etc. push of the elite university and college institutions. So, while the private system worked for HER, currently, you will see most private counselors will say that statistically the great public student has an edge over the great private student

It is not that public school kids “have an edge over private school students.” Historically, public school students were kept out of the running - not invited to the table. When colleges made test score optional, students who were academically ready but test poor (certain minority groups for a variety of reasons) felt invited to the table for the first time.

Many public school kids had never participated in the Ivy/T20 school process. Now that that are, you call it an “edge.” Nonsense. It’s an “opportunity” - one that they should have had all along. They places are rightfully theirs. It is called equity.

It’s not just test optional. It’s that l many more middle class and upper middle class families are optimizing the process just like rich and wealthy families. Paying for or at least planning ahead when it comes to SAT/ACT, doing more extracurricular activities and leadership, hiring tutors, taking advance classes. Once you remove that you’ve gone to a particular private school vs public and judge kids on their demonstrated ability and likelihood to succeed in the future, the divide between them academically begins to fade or erases completely.

As the PP, its an opportunity that many should have had all along.

College seats have not expanded to keep pace with the number of kids now wanting to attend. Society told folks to go to college and now there is competition for the seats.

Anonymous wrote:
LOL. and college admissions have changed dramatically in the last four years. Currently, public kids ARE getting in to top colleges more easily than privates because of the anti-elitism, DEI, URM, minority, etc. push of the elite university and college institutions. So, while the private system worked for HER, currently, you will see most private counselors will say that statistically the great public student has an edge over the great private student

It is not that public school kids “have an edge over private school students.” Historically, public school students were kept out of the running - not invited to the table. When colleges made test score optional, students who were academically ready but test poor (certain minority groups for a variety of reasons) felt invited to the table for the first time.

Many public school kids had never participated in the Ivy/T20 school process. Now that that are, you call it an “edge.” Nonsense. It’s an “opportunity” - one that they should have had all along. They places are rightfully theirs. It is called equity.

Anonymous wrote:More platitudes than substance I see.

The meaning of words matter. If over half of Montgomery County, MD is poor in your book, then who is "middle class"?

Certainly not people who have a household income of <$120k/year, and reside in Washington DC Metropolitan area.

More platitudes than substance I see.

The meaning of words matter. If over half of Montgomery County, MD is poor in your book, then who is "middle class"?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ This is a quote from the same article:

“Children of the top one percent, earning more than $611,000 a year, are significantly overrepresented in the Ivy League — more likely to attend selective private colleges than students from any other income bracket with comparable SAT and ACT scores.”

Have you actually read the Opportunity Insights study cited in the article? Look at Figure 3 and tell me how the lower income brackets are doing in admissions relative to those outside the top 0.1 percent.
https://opportunityinsights.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/CollegeAdmissions_Nontech.pdf

DP. Did you actually read the 2-part post you’re responding to. If you read both posts, you’ll see that you’re saying the same thing (e.g., impoverished students (Pell grant recipients and the like) do slightly less well than the top 1%). It’s those in the top 5-10% income bracket that fare the worst.

Which group do you think is most likely to send their children to public school AND is also responding to this thread? Pell grant recipients, the top 5-10%, or the top 1%?

LOL, you aren't reading the study carefully either. Of course the top 1 percent does the best. But are you claiming that those families in the 20th to 90th income percentiles, which all do better than the top 5 to 10 percent, are all "impoverished"? If not, then your statement is pointless.

Families at the 90th income percentile earn approximately $210,000 (as a household). Look at Figure 3 carefully.
Students from households that make between the 70th to 95th income percentiles fare about the same in college admissions, at Ivy+ schools (which is to say, not great). You have to drop below the 70th percentile to start to see the “poverty bump.” I would say that the vast majority of families that live in/near cities, that fall at or below the 70th income percentile (less than $120,000/year household income), are working poor. Even then, the poverty bump isn’t significant until you reach the 20th to 60th income percentile ($30,000 to $90,000/year household income). For a family, that’s poor. Those people are not posting on this thread. Your public school children won’t benefit from this.

By your definition, 70 percent of families in this country are poor or in poverty? In any case, HYPS is tuition-free for them. For example, Harvard is tuition-free for families making $150,000 or less (i.e., including those above the 70th percentile). Stanford is completely free for families making $100,000 or less.

If a family of 4+, earning less than $120,000/year, lives in or near DC (or any other metropolitan area), they are poor. They will have the same/similar options as families earning $90,000/year. They aren’t really able to choose where to live, educate their children, or access high quality healthcare. They are limited by their low(er) income. These are also the students who are the least likely be admitted to Ivy+ colleges because of the socioeconomic hurdles they have to clear. Once admitted, they are the least likely to graduate. That’s why rich, highly selective colleges can offer such generous financial aid to this low income group. They are a tiny percentage of the overall school population.

Once again, those are not the people (including you) posting here. Your middle/upper middle class public school kid is not the target demographic of which we speak.

Congratulations, you just described 60 percent of MCPS families as poor.
https://statisticalatlas.com/school-district/Maryland/Montgomery-County-Public-Schools/Household-Income

I stand behind what I said. The vast majority of those MCPS families live in the eastern (poorest) half of the county. Go look that up.

Describing over half of families in one of the wealthiest counties in the U.S. as "poor" shows that you have no credibility.

You seem unusually invested in this issue. Are you one of those poor MoCo residents? Did I strike a nerve? A hit dog will holler!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ This is a quote from the same article:

“Children of the top one percent, earning more than $611,000 a year, are significantly overrepresented in the Ivy League — more likely to attend selective private colleges than students from any other income bracket with comparable SAT and ACT scores.”

Have you actually read the Opportunity Insights study cited in the article? Look at Figure 3 and tell me how the lower income brackets are doing in admissions relative to those outside the top 0.1 percent.
https://opportunityinsights.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/CollegeAdmissions_Nontech.pdf

DP. Did you actually read the 2-part post you’re responding to. If you read both posts, you’ll see that you’re saying the same thing (e.g., impoverished students (Pell grant recipients and the like) do slightly less well than the top 1%). It’s those in the top 5-10% income bracket that fare the worst.

Which group do you think is most likely to send their children to public school AND is also responding to this thread? Pell grant recipients, the top 5-10%, or the top 1%?

LOL, you aren't reading the study carefully either. Of course the top 1 percent does the best. But are you claiming that those families in the 20th to 90th income percentiles, which all do better than the top 5 to 10 percent, are all "impoverished"? If not, then your statement is pointless.

Families at the 90th income percentile earn approximately $210,000 (as a household). Look at Figure 3 carefully.
Students from households that make between the 70th to 95th income percentiles fare about the same in college admissions, at Ivy+ schools (which is to say, not great). You have to drop below the 70th percentile to start to see the “poverty bump.” I would say that the vast majority of families that live in/near cities, that fall at or below the 70th income percentile (less than $120,000/year household income), are working poor. Even then, the poverty bump isn’t significant until you reach the 20th to 60th income percentile ($30,000 to $90,000/year household income). For a family, that’s poor. Those people are not posting on this thread. Your public school children won’t benefit from this.

By your definition, 70 percent of families in this country are poor or in poverty? In any case, HYPS is tuition-free for them. For example, Harvard is tuition-free for families making $150,000 or less (i.e., including those above the 70th percentile). Stanford is completely free for families making $100,000 or less.

If a family of 4+, earning less than $120,000/year, lives in or near DC (or any other metropolitan area), they are poor. They will have the same/similar options as families earning $90,000/year. They aren’t really able to choose where to live, educate their children, or access high quality healthcare. They are limited by their low(er) income. These are also the students who are the least likely be admitted to Ivy+ colleges because of the socioeconomic hurdles they have to clear. Once admitted, they are the least likely to graduate. That’s why rich, highly selective colleges can offer such generous financial aid to this low income group. They are a tiny percentage of the overall school population.

Once again, those are not the people (including you) posting here. Your middle/upper middle class public school kid is not the target demographic of which we speak.

Congratulations, you just described 60 percent of MCPS families as poor.
https://statisticalatlas.com/school-district/Maryland/Montgomery-County-Public-Schools/Household-Income

I stand behind what I said. The vast majority of those MCPS families live in the eastern (poorest) half of the county. Go look that up.

Describing over half of families in one of the wealthiest counties in the U.S. as "poor" shows that you have no credibility.

Both my kids went to private schools. I see private school kids performing better in humanities. However, when it comes to STEM the public magnet school kids are just as well (if not better) prepared. Private school is a good experience but how well a kid does in college depends on the work ethic of the kid. My nieces from STEM magnet programs are doing extremely well in college.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ This is a quote from the same article:

“Children of the top one percent, earning more than $611,000 a year, are significantly overrepresented in the Ivy League — more likely to attend selective private colleges than students from any other income bracket with comparable SAT and ACT scores.”

Have you actually read the Opportunity Insights study cited in the article? Look at Figure 3 and tell me how the lower income brackets are doing in admissions relative to those outside the top 0.1 percent.
https://opportunityinsights.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/CollegeAdmissions_Nontech.pdf

DP. Did you actually read the 2-part post you’re responding to. If you read both posts, you’ll see that you’re saying the same thing (e.g., impoverished students (Pell grant recipients and the like) do slightly less well than the top 1%). It’s those in the top 5-10% income bracket that fare the worst.

Which group do you think is most likely to send their children to public school AND is also responding to this thread? Pell grant recipients, the top 5-10%, or the top 1%?

LOL, you aren't reading the study carefully either. Of course the top 1 percent does the best. But are you claiming that those families in the 20th to 90th income percentiles, which all do better than the top 5 to 10 percent, are all "impoverished"? If not, then your statement is pointless.

Families at the 90th income percentile earn approximately $210,000 (as a household). Look at Figure 3 carefully.
Students from households that make between the 70th to 95th income percentiles fare about the same in college admissions, at Ivy+ schools (which is to say, not great). You have to drop below the 70th percentile to start to see the “poverty bump.” I would say that the vast majority of families that live in/near cities, that fall at or below the 70th income percentile (less than $120,000/year household income), are working poor. Even then, the poverty bump isn’t significant until you reach the 20th to 60th income percentile ($30,000 to $90,000/year household income). For a family, that’s poor. Those people are not posting on this thread. Your public school children won’t benefit from this.

By your definition, 70 percent of families in this country are poor or in poverty? In any case, HYPS is tuition-free for them. For example, Harvard is tuition-free for families making $150,000 or less (i.e., including those above the 70th percentile). Stanford is completely free for families making $100,000 or less.

If a family of 4+, earning less than $120,000/year, lives in or near DC (or any other metropolitan area), they are poor. They will have the same/similar options as families earning $90,000/year. They aren’t really able to choose where to live, educate their children, or access high quality healthcare. They are limited by their low(er) income. These are also the students who are the least likely be admitted to Ivy+ colleges because of the socioeconomic hurdles they have to clear. Once admitted, they are the least likely to graduate. That’s why rich, highly selective colleges can offer such generous financial aid to this low income group. They are a tiny percentage of the overall school population.

Once again, those are not the people (including you) posting here. Your middle/upper middle class public school kid is not the target demographic of which we speak.

Congratulations, you just described 60 percent of MCPS families as poor.
https://statisticalatlas.com/school-district/Maryland/Montgomery-County-Public-Schools/Household-Income

I stand behind what I said. The vast majority of those MCPS families live in the eastern (poorest) half of the county. Go look that up.