Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For OP - it seems kind of weird and unprofessional that your PSD would tell people that they recommended a specific child over yours.

Our PSD didn’t as that, I found out from someone else. But also not great to hear that.

I doubt this happened in the way you’re worried it did. These schools don’t operate on slots per preschool, just on overall slots.

You should keep your preschool director on your team and see if there’s a way to get into your second choice while pushing for a waitlist spot at the first choice without blowing up anyone’s relationships.

OP here:

I do not plan on blowing up any relationship or kicking my PSD off "my team." Not even in the slightest. I have talked to two sources about the situation we are in and it truly is the PSD and the admissions director in the other end. It all checks out. BUT myself and my husband made it very clear we plan on staying on the waitlist and we expect that our PSD will push to get our child a space at our favored school.

There are definitely many scenario that can happen. We do not even know for sure that our second choice is going to offer our child a spot, or do we know if our third choice will. We may have all waitlists.

We were just told from the beginning that our PSD was pushing for our child for this school and that our child was the number one choice up until yesterday, so we are trying to match up what happened with the sudden change.

There are so many explanations for how a child could go from having strong positive feedback and being the “top choice” by a school to the waitlist pool. If the other child at your preschool is demographically or temperamentally different from yours, it could be that they fill a hole in the class that needs filling. It’s so common that bright smart lovely kids with kind, involved, wonderful parents don’t get into their first choice school for a bunch of reasons that are not any sort of ding on the child, their parents, or the preschool director. It often comes down to what holes they need to fill as they round out a class. But if you really love the school, it’s great to reply to your waitlist offer by re-iterating it’s your first choice and you will definitely accept a spot of one becomes available. Schools love families that love them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For OP - it seems kind of weird and unprofessional that your PSD would tell people that they recommended a specific child over yours.

Our PSD didn’t as that, I found out from someone else. But also not great to hear that.

I doubt this happened in the way you’re worried it did. These schools don’t operate on slots per preschool, just on overall slots.

You should keep your preschool director on your team and see if there’s a way to get into your second choice while pushing for a waitlist spot at the first choice without blowing up anyone’s relationships.

OP here:

I do not plan on blowing up any relationship or kicking my PSD off "my team." Not even in the slightest. I have talked to two sources about the situation we are in and it truly is the PSD and the admissions director in the other end. It all checks out. BUT myself and my husband made it very clear we plan on staying on the waitlist and we expect that our PSD will push to get our child a space at our favored school.

There are definitely many scenario that can happen. We do not even know for sure that our second choice is going to offer our child a spot, or do we know if our third choice will. We may have all waitlists.

We were just told from the beginning that our PSD was pushing for our child for this school and that our child was the number one choice up until yesterday, so we are trying to match up what happened with the sudden change.

There are so many explanations for how a child could go from having strong positive feedback and being the “top choice” by a school to the waitlist pool. If the other child at your preschool is demographically or temperamentally different from yours, it could be that they fill a hole in the class that needs filling. It’s so common that bright smart lovely kids with kind, involved, wonderful parents don’t get into their first choice school for a bunch of reasons that are not any sort of ding on the child, their parents, or the preschool director. It often comes down to what holes they need to fill as they round out a class. But if you really love the school, it’s great to reply to your waitlist offer by re-iterating it’s your first choice and you will definitely accept a spot of one becomes available. Schools love families that love them.

Are you alluding to DE&I or other minority status to “fill out the hole”?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You need a reality check and God if you are “devastated” over this.

OP here:

WOW! aren't you a ray of sunshine.

"devasted" I agree is a strong word, but yes I am upset. From the start we had only gotten great feedback and even wink winks, so yes I am pretty damn mad/sad. I am not investing in a school I do not think my daughter fits in to or that we are excited about as a family. That is too much money to give away.

I don't think devastated is too strong a word, OP. This decision can and will have a profound effect on the rest of your child's life. Her future schools, university, career prospects, changes for a suitable mate and a happy life - they all hang in the balance.

I know for a fact that some admissions personnel are willing to accept "gifts" in exchange for favorable waitlist consideration - have you considered that option?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For OP - it seems kind of weird and unprofessional that your PSD would tell people that they recommended a specific child over yours.

Our PSD didn’t as that, I found out from someone else. But also not great to hear that.

I doubt this happened in the way you’re worried it did. These schools don’t operate on slots per preschool, just on overall slots.

You should keep your preschool director on your team and see if there’s a way to get into your second choice while pushing for a waitlist spot at the first choice without blowing up anyone’s relationships.

OP here:

I do not plan on blowing up any relationship or kicking my PSD off "my team." Not even in the slightest. I have talked to two sources about the situation we are in and it truly is the PSD and the admissions director in the other end. It all checks out. BUT myself and my husband made it very clear we plan on staying on the waitlist and we expect that our PSD will push to get our child a space at our favored school.

There are definitely many scenario that can happen. We do not even know for sure that our second choice is going to offer our child a spot, or do we know if our third choice will. We may have all waitlists.

We were just told from the beginning that our PSD was pushing for our child for this school and that our child was the number one choice up until yesterday, so we are trying to match up what happened with the sudden change.

There are so many explanations for how a child could go from having strong positive feedback and being the “top choice” by a school to the waitlist pool. If the other child at your preschool is demographically or temperamentally different from yours, it could be that they fill a hole in the class that needs filling. It’s so common that bright smart lovely kids with kind, involved, wonderful parents don’t get into their first choice school for a bunch of reasons that are not any sort of ding on the child, their parents, or the preschool director. It often comes down to what holes they need to fill as they round out a class. But if you really love the school, it’s great to reply to your waitlist offer by re-iterating it’s your first choice and you will definitely accept a spot of one becomes available. Schools love families that love them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For OP - it seems kind of weird and unprofessional that your PSD would tell people that they recommended a specific child over yours.

Our PSD didn’t as that, I found out from someone else. But also not great to hear that.

I doubt this happened in the way you’re worried it did. These schools don’t operate on slots per preschool, just on overall slots.

You should keep your preschool director on your team and see if there’s a way to get into your second choice while pushing for a waitlist spot at the first choice without blowing up anyone’s relationships.

OP here:

I do not plan on blowing up any relationship or kicking my PSD off "my team." Not even in the slightest. I have talked to two sources about the situation we are in and it truly is the PSD and the admissions director in the other end. It all checks out. BUT myself and my husband made it very clear we plan on staying on the waitlist and we expect that our PSD will push to get our child a space at our favored school.

There are definitely many scenario that can happen. We do not even know for sure that our second choice is going to offer our child a spot, or do we know if our third choice will. We may have all waitlists.

We were just told from the beginning that our PSD was pushing for our child for this school and that our child was the number one choice up until yesterday, so we are trying to match up what happened with the sudden change.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This process can become overly transactional. Between PSDs and consultants, families are sometimes pulled into strategies and signaling that feel disconnected from what really matters, the child. And families end up spending enormous amounts of money for guidance that doesn’t serve them well.

Honestly, watching people go through this has made me cynical about the whole system: the culture of a school is defined to a large extent by the families who've been there since kindergarten, and that group is selected through a bunch of backchannel relationships and general skullduggery rather than an earnest desire to find a smart, kind, interesting set of kids to carry a school's traditions forward.

At least the IQ-test-based places like Hunter are going by *something* tangible about the kid, not "your daughter did a good job sorting those blocks and also her PSD was classmates with our admissions director at Bryn Mawr" or whatever.

Fundraising requires legacy advantage otherwise no one going to donate money if their child has no chance of being admitted. In a way, it is paying it forwards. The core of a community is also dependent on how deep the relationships go (multiple generations).

I agree that strong communities are built on long-term relationships. But for kids without legacy ties, the challenge is that those relationships can’t form unless there is meaningful access in the first place. Otherwise the system just reinforces itself rather than renewing itself. You see regression to the mean over time. Even if high school outcomes later prop things up, it’s hard to imagine how vibrant a school can be if it’s built generation after generation on the same relationships.

Because the gatekeeping around the TT schools is about social standing and maintaining the same relationships, not vibrancy and renewal.

That may be part of the picture, but I hope this changes in an ever-changing world. We question global hiring for top tech, yet whether TT schools consistently select the most promising kids for the best education seems less clear.

These institutions were never intended to be egalitarian and they never will be.

The only truly egalitarian system is in other countries where you take a numeric entrance exam to determine whether you get in or not. You are a pure number. Idk if that is the ideal we should strive for either, it seems very harsh

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fundraising requires legacy advantage otherwise no one going to donate money if their child has no chance of being admitted. In a way, it is paying it forwards. The core of a community is also dependent on how deep the relationships go (multiple generations).

Most colleges are eliminating legacy preferences and they seem to be doing OK; if your school can only pay its bills by giving guaranteed spots to middling alumni kids then I don't know what sort of future you imagine for it.

Anonymous wrote:If you think Hunter K is just IQ… I think you didn’t go through process at Hunter. They curate. 1000% I’m so sorry to all it’s frustrating! Should prepare everyone well for when college is equally enraging.

Sorry, I'm aware there's a second round that consists of observation too, but I don't get the impression that either round places much stock in connections / relationships / donor potential / etc; it legitimately is focused on the kid and their potential to thrive at - and contribute positively to - the school community.

No one questions the value of Ivy League or other top colleges. A lot of rich people question the value of private K-8 at 65k a year. Treating legacies well is much more important in that case.

I’m here to say - yes some people question the value of an Ivy League education! Check grade inflation by major, the job prospect by major. It’s definitely not always worth it!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You need a reality check and God if you are “devastated” over this.

OP here:

WOW! aren't you a ray of sunshine.

"devasted" I agree is a strong word, but yes I am upset. From the start we had only gotten great feedback and even wink winks, so yes I am pretty damn mad/sad. I am not investing in a school I do not think my daughter fits in to or that we are excited about as a family. That is too much money to give away.

I don't think devastated is too strong a word, OP. This decision can and will have a profound effect on the rest of your child's life. Her future schools, university, career prospects, changes for a suitable mate and a happy life - they all hang in the balance.

I know for a fact that some admissions personnel are willing to accept "gifts" in exchange for favorable waitlist consideration - have you considered that option?

Anonymous wrote:I don't think devastated is too strong a word, OP. This decision can and will have a profound effect on the rest of your child's life. Her future schools, university, career prospects, changes for a suitable mate and a happy life - they all hang in the balance.

I know for a fact that some admissions personnel are willing to accept "gifts" in exchange for favorable waitlist consideration - have you considered that option?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You need a reality check and God if you are “devastated” over this.

OP here:

WOW! aren't you a ray of sunshine.

"devasted" I agree is a strong word, but yes I am upset. From the start we had only gotten great feedback and even wink winks, so yes I am pretty damn mad/sad. I am not investing in a school I do not think my daughter fits in to or that we are excited about as a family. That is too much money to give away.

Anonymous wrote:No one questions the value of Ivy League or other top colleges. A lot of rich people question the value of private K-8 at 65k a year. Treating legacies well is much more important in that case.

Anonymous wrote:I’m here to say - yes some people question the value of an Ivy League education! Check grade inflation by major, the job prospect by major. It’s definitely not always worth it!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This process can become overly transactional. Between PSDs and consultants, families are sometimes pulled into strategies and signaling that feel disconnected from what really matters, the child. And families end up spending enormous amounts of money for guidance that doesn’t serve them well.

Honestly, watching people go through this has made me cynical about the whole system: the culture of a school is defined to a large extent by the families who've been there since kindergarten, and that group is selected through a bunch of backchannel relationships and general skullduggery rather than an earnest desire to find a smart, kind, interesting set of kids to carry a school's traditions forward.

At least the IQ-test-based places like Hunter are going by *something* tangible about the kid, not "your daughter did a good job sorting those blocks and also her PSD was classmates with our admissions director at Bryn Mawr" or whatever.

Fundraising requires legacy advantage otherwise no one going to donate money if their child has no chance of being admitted. In a way, it is paying it forwards. The core of a community is also dependent on how deep the relationships go (multiple generations).

I agree that strong communities are built on long-term relationships. But for kids without legacy ties, the challenge is that those relationships can’t form unless there is meaningful access in the first place. Otherwise the system just reinforces itself rather than renewing itself. You see regression to the mean over time. Even if high school outcomes later prop things up, it’s hard to imagine how vibrant a school can be if it’s built generation after generation on the same relationships.

Because the gatekeeping around the TT schools is about social standing and maintaining the same relationships, not vibrancy and renewal.

That may be part of the picture, but I hope this changes in an ever-changing world. We question global hiring for top tech, yet whether TT schools consistently select the most promising kids for the best education seems less clear.

These institutions were never intended to be egalitarian and they never will be.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This process can become overly transactional. Between PSDs and consultants, families are sometimes pulled into strategies and signaling that feel disconnected from what really matters, the child. And families end up spending enormous amounts of money for guidance that doesn’t serve them well.

Honestly, watching people go through this has made me cynical about the whole system: the culture of a school is defined to a large extent by the families who've been there since kindergarten, and that group is selected through a bunch of backchannel relationships and general skullduggery rather than an earnest desire to find a smart, kind, interesting set of kids to carry a school's traditions forward.

At least the IQ-test-based places like Hunter are going by *something* tangible about the kid, not "your daughter did a good job sorting those blocks and also her PSD was classmates with our admissions director at Bryn Mawr" or whatever.

Fundraising requires legacy advantage otherwise no one going to donate money if their child has no chance of being admitted. In a way, it is paying it forwards. The core of a community is also dependent on how deep the relationships go (multiple generations).

I agree that strong communities are built on long-term relationships. But for kids without legacy ties, the challenge is that those relationships can’t form unless there is meaningful access in the first place. Otherwise the system just reinforces itself rather than renewing itself. You see regression to the mean over time. Even if high school outcomes later prop things up, it’s hard to imagine how vibrant a school can be if it’s built generation after generation on the same relationships.

Because the gatekeeping around the TT schools is about social standing and maintaining the same relationships, not vibrancy and renewal.

That may be part of the picture, but I hope this changes in an ever-changing world. We question global hiring for top tech, yet whether TT schools consistently select the most promising kids for the best education seems less clear.

These institutions were never intended to be egalitarian and they never will be.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This process can become overly transactional. Between PSDs and consultants, families are sometimes pulled into strategies and signaling that feel disconnected from what really matters, the child. And families end up spending enormous amounts of money for guidance that doesn’t serve them well.

Honestly, watching people go through this has made me cynical about the whole system: the culture of a school is defined to a large extent by the families who've been there since kindergarten, and that group is selected through a bunch of backchannel relationships and general skullduggery rather than an earnest desire to find a smart, kind, interesting set of kids to carry a school's traditions forward.

At least the IQ-test-based places like Hunter are going by *something* tangible about the kid, not "your daughter did a good job sorting those blocks and also her PSD was classmates with our admissions director at Bryn Mawr" or whatever.

Fundraising requires legacy advantage otherwise no one going to donate money if their child has no chance of being admitted. In a way, it is paying it forwards. The core of a community is also dependent on how deep the relationships go (multiple generations).

I agree that strong communities are built on long-term relationships. But for kids without legacy ties, the challenge is that those relationships can’t form unless there is meaningful access in the first place. Otherwise the system just reinforces itself rather than renewing itself. You see regression to the mean over time. Even if high school outcomes later prop things up, it’s hard to imagine how vibrant a school can be if it’s built generation after generation on the same relationships.

Because the gatekeeping around the TT schools is about social standing and maintaining the same relationships, not vibrancy and renewal.

That may be part of the picture, but I hope this changes in an ever-changing world. We question global hiring for top tech, yet whether TT schools consistently select the most promising kids for the best education seems less clear.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fundraising requires legacy advantage otherwise no one going to donate money if their child has no chance of being admitted. In a way, it is paying it forwards. The core of a community is also dependent on how deep the relationships go (multiple generations).

Most colleges are eliminating legacy preferences and they seem to be doing OK; if your school can only pay its bills by giving guaranteed spots to middling alumni kids then I don't know what sort of future you imagine for it.

Anonymous wrote:If you think Hunter K is just IQ… I think you didn’t go through process at Hunter. They curate. 1000% I’m so sorry to all it’s frustrating! Should prepare everyone well for when college is equally enraging.

Sorry, I'm aware there's a second round that consists of observation too, but I don't get the impression that either round places much stock in connections / relationships / donor potential / etc; it legitimately is focused on the kid and their potential to thrive at - and contribute positively to - the school community.

No one questions the value of Ivy League or other top colleges. A lot of rich people question the value of private K-8 at 65k a year. Treating legacies well is much more important in that case.

I’m here to say - yes some people question the value of an Ivy League education! Check grade inflation by major, the job prospect by major. It’s definitely not always worth it!