Anonymous wrote:My third child is about to apply to a few boarding schools. He really wants an involved peer community and rich social life. Less time on phones/video games He also wants less time commuting, as he thrives academically and athletically after good sleep. Our house has become too quiet now that the older ones are at college and beyond. There are a few other personal reasons as well.

We have explained in clear terms that the larger the school, the more difficult his college path will be. He will be competing against his school peers, many of whom will be donor class or recruited athletes. He might be recruit material. Too soon to know, and we are very aware of the slim odds. Lots of support and motivation from us, but no sugarcoating.

He has two small (sub 400) schools on his list. Two medium (400-800) and one large (800+). All have rich programming for his interests.

He understands that he would probably fare best, statistically, from his current day school. He has seen two siblings navigate the process. Yet, he has made plain that he is aware of the drawbacks of applying to college from a competitive bs, and wants to attend nonetheless for the reasons listed above. He has shown maturity in his assessment and decision making.

We want him to get the best education possible in high school and beyond. We don’t believe bs will be hook. But we do think it will be the start of a challenging and rewarding young adulthood. We have agreed he can apply and attend, if the financial aid piece (partial need) makes sense.

I will note that his first choice is a medium school. Close second is a small one. I might send a tiny prayer to the universe that he is accepted at both but offered better aid at the smaller school. That would be a fine reason to choose the school that also improves his odds for college. It’s a factor, just not the primary one.

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:Yes of course, it signals full pay.

Why would it need to "signal" anything?

Need aware schools get all the finance info and the small number of need blind/meet full need schools don't consider.

Yes but full pay is more complicated than that. They are looking for other signals.
Schools are looking for potential donors/ speakers/ networkers or ppl who will employ graduates. We are seeing how hard it is for grads to get jobs…

Our college counselor said it was important for both parents to have updated LinkedIn with clear senior leadership/executive titles conveyed in job titles in common app.

The signaling is very important for AO (many of who do look at LinkedIn after 1st pass). The $$$ privilege may not hurt at all at certain private colleges and can actually help.

Please name which schools look at these factors. Or is this the rumor mill?

It’s pretty easy to figure out if you parse through data….

Vanderbilt; Rice; Cornell; Dartmouth; WashU

Look at the % of admitted students in the top 1% of HHI (or better top 0.5% of HHI if they break it down that far). Vanderbilt; Dartmouth & WashU make sense.

But isn’t this thread about advantages for boarding school students? Some boarding schools are feeders. Not shocking news.

Again you are saying "look at these numbers" without any direct evidence or even a logic chain.

At best this is a "post hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy.

There is no evidence need blind schools make admissions decisions based on economics.

Wow. That Reddit link makes a crazy case for his income/wealth subtly impact admissions decisions.

“I also think that if there was any doubt beforehand, this further magnifies the questionable priorities that many of these institutions have. I was just at Yales admitted students days and I was surprised how it felt like one in every three or four people I met went to one of the big NE boarding schools...”

Sigh... no one doubts the stats show wealthy students are over-represented at elite schools. It's because they have every advantage and make better candidates independent of their ability to pay tuition. They are a self-selecting sample.

The question is will an admissions officer at a need blind college admit one student over another because of the "signal" that they will be full pay.

The answer remains "No".

The signal isn't that they may be full pay, it's that they may be a donor. Top NYC and LA privates get the same treatment for the same reason

So this is a different claim than the one made in the thread above.

But it is also technically false since donor and potential donor admissions come through the development office.

lol
That’s a ton of naïveté.

lol
That's another BS claim with no evidence that implies you have special knowledge and the conspiracy is in full effect but you have cracked the code because you are special. You're a college admissions flat earther.

Provide some evidence or we can debate who is more naïve.

(ps it's you)

I didn’t make the donor claim, but I’m not sure what’s controversial here?

Donors are given special status and one can assume potential donors (8 figures not 7) would also be given that status? Or celebrities, senior corporate leaders, or politicians?

The thing that I think is wrong in this thread is that it’s not $$$ that matters to certain private colleges but it’s $$$$$. So if you are a random biglaw partner, the school does not care. If you are the head of a giant global company, or a celebrity, they care. For all those other reasons listed in other places here.

And at boarding schools, I’d imagine it’s a lot of Wall Street, hedge fund, billionaire $$$. That counts and matters at certain private schools (prob not T5). A lawyer does not matter. Even if you make $2-3 million a year.

Hope that makes sense?

No, it does not make sense, because that is not how it works.

Donor admissions come through the development office. Admissions officers at need blind schools do not consider an applicant's ability to pay when making admissions decisions. There is no "signal", there is no code, there are no application secrets.

It **IS** that simple.

NP.
I think you are is conflating wealthy applicants with donor applicants. Def not the same. But donors are not the point of this thread! I thought it was about prep school candidates!

Wealthy applicants may get some subtle benefits in the App process - it’s why 10% of a boarding school class goes to HY even after taking out hooked kids (those Reddit links are mindBoggling). I don’t think they are considering ability to pay - they assume a boarding school kid can pay if not applying for aid. They actually actively want/seek out wealthy kids from “feeder” HS. It allows them to do all that rural /FGLI aid/outreach. So yeah, the barbell gets worse.

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:Yes of course, it signals full pay.

Why would it need to "signal" anything?

Need aware schools get all the finance info and the small number of need blind/meet full need schools don't consider.

Yes but full pay is more complicated than that. They are looking for other signals.
Schools are looking for potential donors/ speakers/ networkers or ppl who will employ graduates. We are seeing how hard it is for grads to get jobs…

Our college counselor said it was important for both parents to have updated LinkedIn with clear senior leadership/executive titles conveyed in job titles in common app.

The signaling is very important for AO (many of who do look at LinkedIn after 1st pass). The $$$ privilege may not hurt at all at certain private colleges and can actually help.

Please name which schools look at these factors. Or is this the rumor mill?

It’s pretty easy to figure out if you parse through data….

Vanderbilt; Rice; Cornell; Dartmouth; WashU

Look at the % of admitted students in the top 1% of HHI (or better top 0.5% of HHI if they break it down that far). Vanderbilt; Dartmouth & WashU make sense.

But isn’t this thread about advantages for boarding school students? Some boarding schools are feeders. Not shocking news.

Again you are saying "look at these numbers" without any direct evidence or even a logic chain.

At best this is a "post hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy.

There is no evidence need blind schools make admissions decisions based on economics.

Wow. That Reddit link makes a crazy case for his income/wealth subtly impact admissions decisions.

“I also think that if there was any doubt beforehand, this further magnifies the questionable priorities that many of these institutions have. I was just at Yales admitted students days and I was surprised how it felt like one in every three or four people I met went to one of the big NE boarding schools...”

Sigh... no one doubts the stats show wealthy students are over-represented at elite schools. It's because they have every advantage and make better candidates independent of their ability to pay tuition. They are a self-selecting sample.

The question is will an admissions officer at a need blind college admit one student over another because of the "signal" that they will be full pay.

The answer remains "No".

The signal isn't that they may be full pay, it's that they may be a donor. Top NYC and LA privates get the same treatment for the same reason

So this is a different claim than the one made in the thread above.

But it is also technically false since donor and potential donor admissions come through the development office.

lol
That’s a ton of naïveté.

lol
That's another BS claim with no evidence that implies you have special knowledge and the conspiracy is in full effect but you have cracked the code because you are special. You're a college admissions flat earther.

Provide some evidence or we can debate who is more naïve.

(ps it's you)

I didn’t make the donor claim, but I’m not sure what’s controversial here?

Donors are given special status and one can assume potential donors (8 figures not 7) would also be given that status? Or celebrities, senior corporate leaders, or politicians?

The thing that I think is wrong in this thread is that it’s not $$$ that matters to certain private colleges but it’s $$$$$. So if you are a random biglaw partner, the school does not care. If you are the head of a giant global company, or a celebrity, they care. For all those other reasons listed in other places here.

And at boarding schools, I’d imagine it’s a lot of Wall Street, hedge fund, billionaire $$$. That counts and matters at certain private schools (prob not T5). A lawyer does not matter. Even if you make $2-3 million a year.

Hope that makes sense?

No, it does not make sense, because that is not how it works.

Donor admissions come through the development office. Admissions officers at need blind schools do not consider an applicant's ability to pay when making admissions decisions. There is no "signal", there is no code, there are no application secrets.

It **IS** that simple.

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:Yes of course, it signals full pay.

Why would it need to "signal" anything?

Need aware schools get all the finance info and the small number of need blind/meet full need schools don't consider.

Yes but full pay is more complicated than that. They are looking for other signals.
Schools are looking for potential donors/ speakers/ networkers or ppl who will employ graduates. We are seeing how hard it is for grads to get jobs…

Our college counselor said it was important for both parents to have updated LinkedIn with clear senior leadership/executive titles conveyed in job titles in common app.

The signaling is very important for AO (many of who do look at LinkedIn after 1st pass). The $$$ privilege may not hurt at all at certain private colleges and can actually help.

Please name which schools look at these factors. Or is this the rumor mill?

It’s pretty easy to figure out if you parse through data….

Vanderbilt; Rice; Cornell; Dartmouth; WashU

Look at the % of admitted students in the top 1% of HHI (or better top 0.5% of HHI if they break it down that far). Vanderbilt; Dartmouth & WashU make sense.

But isn’t this thread about advantages for boarding school students? Some boarding schools are feeders. Not shocking news.

Again you are saying "look at these numbers" without any direct evidence or even a logic chain.

At best this is a "post hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy.

There is no evidence need blind schools make admissions decisions based on economics.

Wow. That Reddit link makes a crazy case for his income/wealth subtly impact admissions decisions.

“I also think that if there was any doubt beforehand, this further magnifies the questionable priorities that many of these institutions have. I was just at Yales admitted students days and I was surprised how it felt like one in every three or four people I met went to one of the big NE boarding schools...”

Sigh... no one doubts the stats show wealthy students are over-represented at elite schools. It's because they have every advantage and make better candidates independent of their ability to pay tuition. They are a self-selecting sample.

The question is will an admissions officer at a need blind college admit one student over another because of the "signal" that they will be full pay.

The answer remains "No".

The signal isn't that they may be full pay, it's that they may be a donor. Top NYC and LA privates get the same treatment for the same reason

So this is a different claim than the one made in the thread above.

But it is also technically false since donor and potential donor admissions come through the development office.

lol
That’s a ton of naïveté.

lol
That's another BS claim with no evidence that implies you have special knowledge and the conspiracy is in full effect but you have cracked the code because you are special. You're a college admissions flat earther.

Provide some evidence or we can debate who is more naïve.

(ps it's you)

I didn’t make the donor claim, but I’m not sure what’s controversial here?

Donors are given special status and one can assume potential donors (8 figures not 7) would also be given that status? Or celebrities, senior corporate leaders, or politicians?

The thing that I think is wrong in this thread is that it’s not $$$ that matters to certain private colleges but it’s $$$$$. So if you are a random biglaw partner, the school does not care. If you are the head of a giant global company, or a celebrity, they care. For all those other reasons listed in other places here.

And at boarding schools, I’d imagine it’s a lot of Wall Street, hedge fund, billionaire $$$. That counts and matters at certain private schools (prob not T5). A lawyer does not matter. Even if you make $2-3 million a year.

Hope that makes sense?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes of course, it signals full pay.

Why would it need to "signal" anything?

Need aware schools get all the finance info and the small number of need blind/meet full need schools don't consider.

Yes but full pay is more complicated than that. They are looking for other signals.
Schools are looking for potential donors/ speakers/ networkers or ppl who will employ graduates. We are seeing how hard it is for grads to get jobs…

Our college counselor said it was important for both parents to have updated LinkedIn with clear senior leadership/executive titles conveyed in job titles in common app.

The signaling is very important for AO (many of who do look at LinkedIn after 1st pass). The $$$ privilege may not hurt at all at certain private colleges and can actually help.

Please name which schools look at these factors. Or is this the rumor mill?

It’s pretty easy to figure out if you parse through data….

Vanderbilt; Rice; Cornell; Dartmouth; WashU

Np.
There are some crazy stats in this post: Where the elite study: The
T30 for Selective Prep School
Matriculants

https://www.reddit.com/r/ApplyingToCollege/s/cbRm13RkEp

Ok, so income/SES clearly matters for some candidates.

Is boarding school a marker or signal of wealth, as alluded to? What are the other markers or signals?

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:Yes of course, it signals full pay.

Why would it need to "signal" anything?

Need aware schools get all the finance info and the small number of need blind/meet full need schools don't consider.

Yes but full pay is more complicated than that. They are looking for other signals.
Schools are looking for potential donors/ speakers/ networkers or ppl who will employ graduates. We are seeing how hard it is for grads to get jobs…

Our college counselor said it was important for both parents to have updated LinkedIn with clear senior leadership/executive titles conveyed in job titles in common app.

The signaling is very important for AO (many of who do look at LinkedIn after 1st pass). The $$$ privilege may not hurt at all at certain private colleges and can actually help.

Please name which schools look at these factors. Or is this the rumor mill?

It’s pretty easy to figure out if you parse through data….

Vanderbilt; Rice; Cornell; Dartmouth; WashU

Look at the % of admitted students in the top 1% of HHI (or better top 0.5% of HHI if they break it down that far). Vanderbilt; Dartmouth & WashU make sense.

But isn’t this thread about advantages for boarding school students? Some boarding schools are feeders. Not shocking news.

Again you are saying "look at these numbers" without any direct evidence or even a logic chain.

At best this is a "post hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy.

There is no evidence need blind schools make admissions decisions based on economics.

Wow. That Reddit link makes a crazy case for his income/wealth subtly impact admissions decisions.

“I also think that if there was any doubt beforehand, this further magnifies the questionable priorities that many of these institutions have. I was just at Yales admitted students days and I was surprised how it felt like one in every three or four people I met went to one of the big NE boarding schools...”

Sigh... no one doubts the stats show wealthy students are over-represented at elite schools. It's because they have every advantage and make better candidates independent of their ability to pay tuition. They are a self-selecting sample.

The question is will an admissions officer at a need blind college admit one student over another because of the "signal" that they will be full pay.

The answer remains "No".

The signal isn't that they may be full pay, it's that they may be a donor. Top NYC and LA privates get the same treatment for the same reason

So this is a different claim than the one made in the thread above.

But it is also technically false since donor and potential donor admissions come through the development office.

lol
That’s a ton of naïveté.

lol
That's another BS claim with no evidence that implies you have special knowledge and the conspiracy is in full effect but you have cracked the code because you are special. You're a college admissions flat earther.

Provide some evidence or we can debate who is more naïve.

(ps it's you)

I didn’t make the donor claim, but I’m not sure what’s controversial here?

Donors are given special status and one can assume potential donors (8 figures not 7) would also be given that status? Or celebrities, senior corporate leaders, or politicians?

The thing that I think is wrong in this thread is that it’s not $$$ that matters to certain private colleges but it’s $$$$$. So if you are a random biglaw partner, the school does not care. If you are the head of a giant global company, or a celebrity, they care. For all those other reasons listed in other places here.

And at boarding schools, I’d imagine it’s a lot of Wall Street, hedge fund, billionaire $$$. That counts and matters at certain private schools (prob not T5). A lawyer does not matter. Even if you make $2-3 million a year.

Hope that makes sense?

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:Yes of course, it signals full pay.

Why would it need to "signal" anything?

Need aware schools get all the finance info and the small number of need blind/meet full need schools don't consider.

Yes but full pay is more complicated than that. They are looking for other signals.
Schools are looking for potential donors/ speakers/ networkers or ppl who will employ graduates. We are seeing how hard it is for grads to get jobs…

Our college counselor said it was important for both parents to have updated LinkedIn with clear senior leadership/executive titles conveyed in job titles in common app.

The signaling is very important for AO (many of who do look at LinkedIn after 1st pass). The $$$ privilege may not hurt at all at certain private colleges and can actually help.

Please name which schools look at these factors. Or is this the rumor mill?

It’s pretty easy to figure out if you parse through data….

Vanderbilt; Rice; Cornell; Dartmouth; WashU

Look at the % of admitted students in the top 1% of HHI (or better top 0.5% of HHI if they break it down that far). Vanderbilt; Dartmouth & WashU make sense.

But isn’t this thread about advantages for boarding school students? Some boarding schools are feeders. Not shocking news.

Again you are saying "look at these numbers" without any direct evidence or even a logic chain.

At best this is a "post hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy.

There is no evidence need blind schools make admissions decisions based on economics.

Wow. That Reddit link makes a crazy case for his income/wealth subtly impact admissions decisions.

“I also think that if there was any doubt beforehand, this further magnifies the questionable priorities that many of these institutions have. I was just at Yales admitted students days and I was surprised how it felt like one in every three or four people I met went to one of the big NE boarding schools...”

Sigh... no one doubts the stats show wealthy students are over-represented at elite schools. It's because they have every advantage and make better candidates independent of their ability to pay tuition. They are a self-selecting sample.

The question is will an admissions officer at a need blind college admit one student over another because of the "signal" that they will be full pay.

The answer remains "No".

The signal isn't that they may be full pay, it's that they may be a donor. Top NYC and LA privates get the same treatment for the same reason

So this is a different claim than the one made in the thread above.

But it is also technically false since donor and potential donor admissions come through the development office.

lol
That’s a ton of naïveté.

lol
That's another BS claim with no evidence that implies you have special knowledge and the conspiracy is in full effect but you have cracked the code because you are special. You're a college admissions flat earther.

Provide some evidence or we can debate who is more naïve.

(ps it's you)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes of course, it signals full pay.

Why would it need to "signal" anything?

Need aware schools get all the finance info and the small number of need blind/meet full need schools don't consider.

Yes but full pay is more complicated than that. They are looking for other signals.
Schools are looking for potential donors/ speakers/ networkers or ppl who will employ graduates. We are seeing how hard it is for grads to get jobs…

Our college counselor said it was important for both parents to have updated LinkedIn with clear senior leadership/executive titles conveyed in job titles in common app.

The signaling is very important for AO (many of who do look at LinkedIn after 1st pass). The $$$ privilege may not hurt at all at certain private colleges and can actually help.

Please name which schools look at these factors. Or is this the rumor mill?

It’s pretty easy to figure out if you parse through data….

Vanderbilt; Rice; Cornell; Dartmouth; WashU

Look at the % of admitted students in the top 1% of HHI (or better top 0.5% of HHI if they break it down that far). Vanderbilt; Dartmouth & WashU make sense.

But isn’t this thread about advantages for boarding school students? Some boarding schools are feeders. Not shocking news.

Again you are saying "look at these numbers" without any direct evidence or even a logic chain.

At best this is a "post hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy.

There is no evidence need blind schools make admissions decisions based on economics.

Wow. That Reddit link makes a crazy case for his income/wealth subtly impact admissions decisions.

“I also think that if there was any doubt beforehand, this further magnifies the questionable priorities that many of these institutions have. I was just at Yales admitted students days and I was surprised how it felt like one in every three or four people I met went to one of the big NE boarding schools...”

Sigh... no one doubts the stats show wealthy students are over-represented at elite schools. It's because they have every advantage and make better candidates independent of their ability to pay tuition. They are a self-selecting sample.

The question is will an admissions officer at a need blind college admit one student over another because of the "signal" that they will be full pay.

The answer remains "No".

The signal isn't that they may be full pay, it's that they may be a donor. Top NYC and LA privates get the same treatment for the same reason

So this is a different claim than the one made in the thread above.

But it is also technically false since donor and potential donor admissions come through the development office.

lol
That’s a ton of naïveté.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes of course, it signals full pay.

Why would it need to "signal" anything?

Need aware schools get all the finance info and the small number of need blind/meet full need schools don't consider.

Yes but full pay is more complicated than that. They are looking for other signals.
Schools are looking for potential donors/ speakers/ networkers or ppl who will employ graduates. We are seeing how hard it is for grads to get jobs…

Our college counselor said it was important for both parents to have updated LinkedIn with clear senior leadership/executive titles conveyed in job titles in common app.

The signaling is very important for AO (many of who do look at LinkedIn after 1st pass). The $$$ privilege may not hurt at all at certain private colleges and can actually help.

Please name which schools look at these factors. Or is this the rumor mill?

It’s pretty easy to figure out if you parse through data….

Vanderbilt; Rice; Cornell; Dartmouth; WashU

Look at the % of admitted students in the top 1% of HHI (or better top 0.5% of HHI if they break it down that far). Vanderbilt; Dartmouth & WashU make sense.

But isn’t this thread about advantages for boarding school students? Some boarding schools are feeders. Not shocking news.

Again you are saying "look at these numbers" without any direct evidence or even a logic chain.

At best this is a "post hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy.

There is no evidence need blind schools make admissions decisions based on economics.

Wow. That Reddit link makes a crazy case for his income/wealth subtly impact admissions decisions.

“I also think that if there was any doubt beforehand, this further magnifies the questionable priorities that many of these institutions have. I was just at Yales admitted students days and I was surprised how it felt like one in every three or four people I met went to one of the big NE boarding schools...”

Sigh... no one doubts the stats show wealthy students are over-represented at elite schools. It's because they have every advantage and make better candidates independent of their ability to pay tuition. They are a self-selecting sample.

The question is will an admissions officer at a need blind college admit one student over another because of the "signal" that they will be full pay.

The answer remains "No".

They are not always better candidates though. Just wealthier. Maybe more expansive and robust/niche activities.

I’ve noticed that “wealthy unhooked applicants” from our private HS do better than the average middle class/upper middle class unhooked applicants….(obv with grades/scores/race in mind and adjusted as much as one can for these exercises).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes of course, it signals full pay.

Why would it need to "signal" anything?

Need aware schools get all the finance info and the small number of need blind/meet full need schools don't consider.

Yes but full pay is more complicated than that. They are looking for other signals.
Schools are looking for potential donors/ speakers/ networkers or ppl who will employ graduates. We are seeing how hard it is for grads to get jobs…

Our college counselor said it was important for both parents to have updated LinkedIn with clear senior leadership/executive titles conveyed in job titles in common app.

The signaling is very important for AO (many of who do look at LinkedIn after 1st pass). The $$$ privilege may not hurt at all at certain private colleges and can actually help.

Please name which schools look at these factors. Or is this the rumor mill?

It’s pretty easy to figure out if you parse through data….

Vanderbilt; Rice; Cornell; Dartmouth; WashU

Look at the % of admitted students in the top 1% of HHI (or better top 0.5% of HHI if they break it down that far). Vanderbilt; Dartmouth & WashU make sense.

But isn’t this thread about advantages for boarding school students? Some boarding schools are feeders. Not shocking news.

Again you are saying "look at these numbers" without any direct evidence or even a logic chain.

At best this is a "post hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy.

There is no evidence need blind schools make admissions decisions based on economics.

Wow. That Reddit link makes a crazy case for his income/wealth subtly impact admissions decisions.

“I also think that if there was any doubt beforehand, this further magnifies the questionable priorities that many of these institutions have. I was just at Yales admitted students days and I was surprised how it felt like one in every three or four people I met went to one of the big NE boarding schools...”

Sigh... no one doubts the stats show wealthy students are over-represented at elite schools. It's because they have every advantage and make better candidates independent of their ability to pay tuition. They are a self-selecting sample.

The question is will an admissions officer at a need blind college admit one student over another because of the "signal" that they will be full pay.

The answer remains "No".

The signal isn't that they may be full pay, it's that they may be a donor. Top NYC and LA privates get the same treatment for the same reason

So this is a different claim than the one made in the thread above.

But it is also technically false since donor and potential donor admissions come through the development office.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes of course, it signals full pay.

Why would it need to "signal" anything?

Need aware schools get all the finance info and the small number of need blind/meet full need schools don't consider.

Yes but full pay is more complicated than that. They are looking for other signals.
Schools are looking for potential donors/ speakers/ networkers or ppl who will employ graduates. We are seeing how hard it is for grads to get jobs…

Our college counselor said it was important for both parents to have updated LinkedIn with clear senior leadership/executive titles conveyed in job titles in common app.

The signaling is very important for AO (many of who do look at LinkedIn after 1st pass). The $$$ privilege may not hurt at all at certain private colleges and can actually help.

Please name which schools look at these factors. Or is this the rumor mill?

It’s pretty easy to figure out if you parse through data….

Vanderbilt; Rice; Cornell; Dartmouth; WashU

Look at the % of admitted students in the top 1% of HHI (or better top 0.5% of HHI if they break it down that far). Vanderbilt; Dartmouth & WashU make sense.

But isn’t this thread about advantages for boarding school students? Some boarding schools are feeders. Not shocking news.

Again you are saying "look at these numbers" without any direct evidence or even a logic chain.

At best this is a "post hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy.

There is no evidence need blind schools make admissions decisions based on economics.

Wow. That Reddit link makes a crazy case for his income/wealth subtly impact admissions decisions.

“I also think that if there was any doubt beforehand, this further magnifies the questionable priorities that many of these institutions have. I was just at Yales admitted students days and I was surprised how it felt like one in every three or four people I met went to one of the big NE boarding schools...”

Sigh... no one doubts the stats show wealthy students are over-represented at elite schools. It's because they have every advantage and make better candidates independent of their ability to pay tuition. They are a self-selecting sample.

The question is will an admissions officer at a need blind college admit one student over another because of the "signal" that they will be full pay.

The answer remains "No".

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes of course, it signals full pay.

Why would it need to "signal" anything?

Need aware schools get all the finance info and the small number of need blind/meet full need schools don't consider.

Yes but full pay is more complicated than that. They are looking for other signals.
Schools are looking for potential donors/ speakers/ networkers or ppl who will employ graduates. We are seeing how hard it is for grads to get jobs…

Our college counselor said it was important for both parents to have updated LinkedIn with clear senior leadership/executive titles conveyed in job titles in common app.

The signaling is very important for AO (many of who do look at LinkedIn after 1st pass). The $$$ privilege may not hurt at all at certain private colleges and can actually help.

Please name which schools look at these factors. Or is this the rumor mill?

It’s pretty easy to figure out if you parse through data….

Vanderbilt; Rice; Cornell; Dartmouth; WashU

Look at the % of admitted students in the top 1% of HHI (or better top 0.5% of HHI if they break it down that far). Vanderbilt; Dartmouth & WashU make sense.

But isn’t this thread about advantages for boarding school students? Some boarding schools are feeders. Not shocking news.

Again you are saying "look at these numbers" without any direct evidence or even a logic chain.

At best this is a "post hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy.

There is no evidence need blind schools make admissions decisions based on economics.

Wow. That Reddit link makes a crazy case for his income/wealth subtly impact admissions decisions.

“I also think that if there was any doubt beforehand, this further magnifies the questionable priorities that many of these institutions have. I was just at Yales admitted students days and I was surprised how it felt like one in every three or four people I met went to one of the big NE boarding schools...”

Sigh... no one doubts the stats show wealthy students are over-represented at elite schools. It's because they have every advantage and make better candidates independent of their ability to pay tuition. They are a self-selecting sample.

The question is will an admissions officer at a need blind college admit one student over another because of the "signal" that they will be full pay.

The answer remains "No".

The signal isn't that they may be full pay, it's that they may be a donor. Top NYC and LA privates get the same treatment for the same reason

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes of course, it signals full pay.

Why would it need to "signal" anything?

Need aware schools get all the finance info and the small number of need blind/meet full need schools don't consider.

Yes but full pay is more complicated than that. They are looking for other signals.
Schools are looking for potential donors/ speakers/ networkers or ppl who will employ graduates. We are seeing how hard it is for grads to get jobs…

Our college counselor said it was important for both parents to have updated LinkedIn with clear senior leadership/executive titles conveyed in job titles in common app.

The signaling is very important for AO (many of who do look at LinkedIn after 1st pass). The $$$ privilege may not hurt at all at certain private colleges and can actually help.

Please name which schools look at these factors. Or is this the rumor mill?

It’s pretty easy to figure out if you parse through data….

Vanderbilt; Rice; Cornell; Dartmouth; WashU

Look at the % of admitted students in the top 1% of HHI (or better top 0.5% of HHI if they break it down that far). Vanderbilt; Dartmouth & WashU make sense.

But isn’t this thread about advantages for boarding school students? Some boarding schools are feeders. Not shocking news.

Again you are saying "look at these numbers" without any direct evidence or even a logic chain.

At best this is a "post hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy.

There is no evidence need blind schools make admissions decisions based on economics.

Wow. That Reddit link makes a crazy case for his income/wealth subtly impact admissions decisions.

“I also think that if there was any doubt beforehand, this further magnifies the questionable priorities that many of these institutions have. I was just at Yales admitted students days and I was surprised how it felt like one in every three or four people I met went to one of the big NE boarding schools...”

Sigh... no one doubts the stats show wealthy students are over-represented at elite schools. It's because they have every advantage and make better candidates independent of their ability to pay tuition. They are a self-selecting sample.

The question is will an admissions officer at a need blind college admit one student over another because of the "signal" that they will be full pay.

The answer remains "No".

The signal isn't that they may be full pay, it's that they may be a donor. Top NYC and LA privates get the same treatment for the same reason

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes of course, it signals full pay.

Why would it need to "signal" anything?

Need aware schools get all the finance info and the small number of need blind/meet full need schools don't consider.

Yes but full pay is more complicated than that. They are looking for other signals.
Schools are looking for potential donors/ speakers/ networkers or ppl who will employ graduates. We are seeing how hard it is for grads to get jobs…

Our college counselor said it was important for both parents to have updated LinkedIn with clear senior leadership/executive titles conveyed in job titles in common app.

The signaling is very important for AO (many of who do look at LinkedIn after 1st pass). The $$$ privilege may not hurt at all at certain private colleges and can actually help.

Please name which schools look at these factors. Or is this the rumor mill?

It’s pretty easy to figure out if you parse through data….

Vanderbilt; Rice; Cornell; Dartmouth; WashU

Np.
There are some crazy stats in this post: Where the elite study: The
T30 for Selective Prep School
Matriculants

https://www.reddit.com/r/ApplyingToCollege/s/cbRm13RkEp

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes of course, it signals full pay.

Why would it need to "signal" anything?

Need aware schools get all the finance info and the small number of need blind/meet full need schools don't consider.

Yes but full pay is more complicated than that. They are looking for other signals.
Schools are looking for potential donors/ speakers/ networkers or ppl who will employ graduates. We are seeing how hard it is for grads to get jobs…

Our college counselor said it was important for both parents to have updated LinkedIn with clear senior leadership/executive titles conveyed in job titles in common app.

The signaling is very important for AO (many of who do look at LinkedIn after 1st pass). The $$$ privilege may not hurt at all at certain private colleges and can actually help.

Please name which schools look at these factors. Or is this the rumor mill?

It’s pretty easy to figure out if you parse through data….

Vanderbilt; Rice; Cornell; Dartmouth; WashU

Look at the % of admitted students in the top 1% of HHI (or better top 0.5% of HHI if they break it down that far). Vanderbilt; Dartmouth & WashU make sense.

But isn’t this thread about advantages for boarding school students? Some boarding schools are feeders. Not shocking news.

Again you are saying "look at these numbers" without any direct evidence or even a logic chain.

At best this is a "post hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy.

There is no evidence need blind schools make admissions decisions based on economics.

Wow. That Reddit link makes a crazy case for his income/wealth subtly impact admissions decisions.

“I also think that if there was any doubt beforehand, this further magnifies the questionable priorities that many of these institutions have. I was just at Yales admitted students days and I was surprised how it felt like one in every three or four people I met went to one of the big NE boarding schools...”

Sigh... no one doubts the stats show wealthy students are over-represented at elite schools. It's because they have every advantage and make better candidates independent of their ability to pay tuition. They are a self-selecting sample.

The question is will an admissions officer at a need blind college admit one student over another because of the "signal" that they will be full pay.

The answer remains "No".