Do Collegiate posts college matriculation on ig?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Brearley having another banger year.

How are the completely unconnected kids doing

Right. One reason why MIT matriculation seems salient is that they do not consider legacy in admissions. So 25 girls to Harvard over 5 years is difficult to read in terms of the unconnected success indication, whereas only one (1) MIT matriculation (and also only 1 to Caltech, another legacy blind, though much smaller, school) gives you pause, at least if you have a STEM-oriented kid -- which we do.

I can’t speak for students at these schools as I’ve never attended. But if a student loves the liberal arts focused curriculum at a place like Brearley, Trinity or Collegiate, a place like MIT would not be as appealing. Saying this as an alum of MIT.

I agree with this, and I made this point further up thread and on another thread where someone else brought up the lack of MIT at NYC TT private schools. My DD is at one of these SS girls schools, and I’ve never heard her or her friends and classmates even mention MIT. For whatever reason, it’s not on their radar as far as schools they’d like to attend.

Anonymous wrote:In that regard, Stuy/Bx Sci are not all that much better off than HM then?

They're pretty similar, yes. I think we may end up in a system where basically everybody wants their kid to attend a school where they'll be in the top 10% of the class

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
https://www.instagram.com/maroonlions26/

Decent outcomes for sure, but so far, seems like one person got into Stanford (English) and none to HYPM. I do like the variety of interests/declared majors. It's a little depressing when given all the opportunities in the world, a lot of students end up congregating around the most safely financially-oriented careers.

Sure but they can do STEM at a Stanford or an Ivy League school as well. MIT is a very specific culture. But you make a good point. I think though that it’s important to remember how small the SS schools are relative to other public and even other private schools.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I suppose that bodes well for unconnected families then? I.e. if a university has an informal cap on how many students they take from a particular school, they would now be considering all applicants for those spots, rather than first filling them up with legacies? Or is there a trend on overall de-emphasizing admissions from established private schools as well?

I don't know if it's that they're de-emphasizing private schools specifically as much as that they're using schools and zip codes as proxies for diversity since they're not allowed to look at other measures of it; they no longer want to take more than a couple of applicants from any one place.

In that regard, Stuy/Bx Sci are not all that much better off than HM then?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Brearley having another banger year.

How are the completely unconnected kids doing

Right. One reason why MIT matriculation seems salient is that they do not consider legacy in admissions. So 25 girls to Harvard over 5 years is difficult to read in terms of the unconnected success indication, whereas only one (1) MIT matriculation (and also only 1 to Caltech, another legacy blind, though much smaller, school) gives you pause, at least if you have a STEM-oriented kid -- which we do.

I can’t speak for students at these schools as I’ve never attended. But if a student loves the liberal arts focused curriculum at a place like Brearley, Trinity or Collegiate, a place like MIT would not be as appealing. Saying this as an alum of MIT.

Of course! The thing is, one of the main selling points for SS girls' schools at their tours is that in the absence of boys girls can be unimpeded in traditionally boy-dominated fields (math, comp sci, etc), and the schools would support and nurture that. So presumably, this is geared towards at least *some* science-oriented girls. (And one of the draws of private schools to us is the strength of the liberal arts curriculum, which I think is hugely valuable - maybe even more so - for a kid going into science.)

Anonymous wrote:
https://www.instagram.com/maroonlions26/

Decent outcomes for sure, but so far, seems like one person got into Stanford (English) and none to HYPM. I do like the variety of interests/declared majors. It's a little depressing when given all the opportunities in the world, a lot of students end up congregating around the most safely financially-oriented careers.

Anonymous wrote:I suppose that bodes well for unconnected families then? I.e. if a university has an informal cap on how many students they take from a particular school, they would now be considering all applicants for those spots, rather than first filling them up with legacies? Or is there a trend on overall de-emphasizing admissions from established private schools as well?

I don't know if it's that they're de-emphasizing private schools specifically as much as that they're using schools and zip codes as proxies for diversity since they're not allowed to look at other measures of it; they no longer want to take more than a couple of applicants from any one place.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Brearley having another banger year.

How are the completely unconnected kids doing

Right. One reason why MIT matriculation seems salient is that they do not consider legacy in admissions. So 25 girls to Harvard over 5 years is difficult to read in terms of the unconnected success indication, whereas only one (1) MIT matriculation (and also only 1 to Caltech, another legacy blind, though much smaller, school) gives you pause, at least if you have a STEM-oriented kid -- which we do.

I can’t speak for students at these schools as I’ve never attended. But if a student loves the liberal arts focused curriculum at a place like Brearley, Trinity or Collegiate, a place like MIT would not be as appealing. Saying this as an alum of MIT.

Anonymous wrote:A lot of schools are dropping or de-emphasizing legacy admissions, it's not just MIT; I suspect that explains some - but not all - of the recent decline in fortunes at HM for example, which is positively riddled with Ivy parents.

I think it’s legacy + $$$ that helps. Horace Mann may have legacy but fewer big development cases. I know Spence has a lot of big money, at least one person posted is the grandchild of a notable billionaire.

Anonymous wrote:A lot of schools are dropping or de-emphasizing legacy admissions, it's not just MIT; I suspect that explains some - but not all - of the recent decline in fortunes at HM for example, which is positively riddled with Ivy parents.

I suppose that bodes well for unconnected families then? I.e. if a university has an informal cap on how many students they take from a particular school, they would now be considering all applicants for those spots, rather than first filling them up with legacies? Or is there a trend on overall de-emphasizing admissions from established private schools as well?

A lot of schools are dropping or de-emphasizing legacy admissions, it's not just MIT; I suspect that explains some - but not all - of the recent decline in fortunes at HM for example, which is positively riddled with Ivy parents.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Brearley having another banger year.

How are the completely unconnected kids doing

Right. One reason why MIT matriculation seems salient is that they do not consider legacy in admissions. So 25 girls to Harvard over 5 years is difficult to read in terms of the unconnected success indication, whereas only one (1) MIT matriculation (and also only 1 to Caltech, another legacy blind, though much smaller, school) gives you pause, at least if you have a STEM-oriented kid -- which we do.

Anonymous wrote:Brearley having another banger year.

How are the completely unconnected kids doing

Anonymous wrote:Brearley having another banger year.

OP here: that’s wonderful! Just wanted to confirm that.