Anonymous wrote:Way too many people are selling the right college admission as a ticket to success. It's not, as evidenced by the large number of aimless, frustrated young adults I encounter.

Depends on how you define "ticket to success" IMO. If folks sell admission to HYPS undergrad as a ticket to automatic professional success and riches, then yeah, of course that's misguided. But I think a degree from those schools absolutely provides a ticket to a very enhanced opportunity for professional success and riches provided that you at least do decently academically because the margin for error is so much greater there than elsewhere (i.e., you don't have to be anywhere near the top 5-10 percent of your class for admission to a top graduate program). Just like, if you attend a top 5 law school, just finishing in the top third to half of your class is usually enough to land a decent big law firm job. At least it was back in my day. Things may have changed somewhat with the legal job market, but the general "increasing margin for error the more prestigious your undergrad" principle still seems to be true writ large.

In many ways, I see attending the "Big 3" HS as the same thing. No guaranteed ticket to a top undergrad, but your margin for error is much greater. We're willing to pay $40K a year for that (plus the actual benefits of a private school learning environment), as are many others. Reasonable minds can disagree on this of course.

Start now talking about college being a tool, not a goal. If your child is mature enough to excel, they can excel anywhere. Malcolm Gladwell has a lot to say on this, so maybe encourage reading some of his books.
Way too many people are selling the right college admission as a ticket to success. It's not, as evidenced by the large number of aimless, frustrated young adults I encounter.

Anonymous wrote:I read the same thread every year on DCUM, and I always offer the same story and advice.

My child was rejected from Beauvoir (NCS/STA), Georgetown Day School (GDS), and Sidwell -- from all three(!) -- when we applied for them in kindergarten. They enrolled in the only school to admit them, one further down the list, and it was the perfect school for them.

Fast forward nine years and that same child was accepted to all of those schools for upper school. Of course, by eighth grade they had the benefit of years of excellent grades, strong ERB testing, and a 99th %ile standardized test score. They currently attend Harvard.

Do not worry, as things have a way of working out. In our child's case, the non-Big 3 school they attended from kinder-8th was the perfect school for them.

For all of you who say that you will be disappointed by a particular school's decision to decline your child in prek or k, remember that many children with great potential are turned away in those admission years, for reasons having nothing to do with their talent, intelligence, or ability. The schools they are admitted to may not be the most prestigious, but there are many schools at which your child will thrive.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If we are disappointed come March, it will be much easier for us to handle if we go in thinking that this is all basically a lottery still -- albeit one where the odds are "rigged" (I don't mean this in a malicious way) slightly for or against you based on test scores, demographics, connections, etc.

This comment touches close to what bothers me about the process. We are applying to kindergarten. I am 100 percent fine with using assessments to understand and place children into classes or even programs. However, the idea that developmental information is being used not to see what a child needs, but rather to make lists of children who schools want to recruit, bugs me. At 4 and 5, perfectly normal and smart kids are all at somewhat different points in their development. How can you be sorting them into little categories at this age?

I almost feel guilty subjecting my kid to the process, but at least s/he has no idea I am doing it.

PP who made the earlier comment here -- not defending or liking the process at all, but in some ways I'm glad that, based on older threads where admissions folks gave first-hand information about how they make decisions, it's good to know that no one thing is completely dispositive or disqualifying for an application. That they really do take the totality of play visit, test scores, recommendations, connections, etc. and then make the best consensus-based admissions decisions they can with so few spots available.

Of course, selfishly, I would love it if the fact that my DD did quite well on the WPPSI was, by itself, enough for the Big 3 to accept her. But we also have zero connections and she attends a no-name, non-"feeder" (whatever that means) preschool, and we wouldn't want those things to sink her application either. So I readily accept the uncertainty and stress of the next five weeks, for better or worse.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If we are disappointed come March, it will be much easier for us to handle if we go in thinking that this is all basically a lottery still -- albeit one where the odds are "rigged" (I don't mean this in a malicious way) slightly for or against you based on test scores, demographics, connections, etc.

This comment touches close to what bothers me about the process. We are applying to kindergarten. I am 100 percent fine with using assessments to understand and place children into classes or even programs. However, the idea that developmental information is being used not to see what a child needs, but rather to make lists of children who schools want to recruit, bugs me. At 4 and 5, perfectly normal and smart kids are all at somewhat different points in their development. How can you be sorting them into little categories at this age?

I almost feel guilty subjecting my kid to the process, but at least s/he has no idea I am doing it.

I agree. It almost feels a bit absurd subjecting my DS to this process in middle school. There are just very few spots. He's a great kid with good scores and good grades, and he shouldn't take it personally if not admitted.

And if he does get in at one of the stretch schools, I might kind of downplay it because it doesn't mean you're set for life or guaranteed lifelong happiness.

Anonymous wrote:If we are disappointed come March, it will be much easier for us to handle if we go in thinking that this is all basically a lottery still -- albeit one where the odds are "rigged" (I don't mean this in a malicious way) slightly for or against you based on test scores, demographics, connections, etc.

This comment touches close to what bothers me about the process. We are applying to kindergarten. I am 100 percent fine with using assessments to understand and place children into classes or even programs. However, the idea that developmental information is being used not to see what a child needs, but rather to make lists of children who schools want to recruit, bugs me. At 4 and 5, perfectly normal and smart kids are all at somewhat different points in their development. How can you be sorting them into little categories at this age?

I almost feel guilty subjecting my kid to the process, but at least s/he has no idea I am doing it.

If we are disappointed come March, it will be much easier for us to handle if we go in thinking that this is all basically a lottery still -- albeit one where the odds are "rigged" (I don't mean this in a malicious way) slightly for or against you based on test scores, demographics, connections, etc.

Poorly. And I don't expect to handle it any better if DC is rejected this spring (nine years after those kindergarten applications). But I'll hide it from my kids and, if need be, we'll make lemonade from lemons once again.

One thing OP after being "in" on the other side, I realize that it really may not be a problem with your child. If there is one opening in 4th grade eg and they have 15 boys and 9 girls and you have a boy/ someone else a girl...guess who is more likely to get admitted?

Likewise if you have one child and someone else has three and two of the three grades has openings and the grade your child is in doesn't have an opening...they may over enroll the one grade you are interested in for your child to fill the other grades with the other family.

In these cases, it's not a reflection on you or your family at all.

I know it's easier to write this from Cyberspace than to be on the receiving side...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ice cream for the kid, and a couple drinks for the still proud parents.

+1 Hope it goes well for your child, OP.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read the same thread every year on DCUM, and I always offer the same story and advice.

My child was rejected from Beauvoir (NCS/STA), Georgetown Day School (GDS), and Sidwell -- from all three(!) -- when we applied for them in kindergarten. They enrolled in the only school to admit them, one further down the list, and it was the perfect school for them.

Fast forward nine years and that same child was accepted to all of those schools for upper school. Of course, by eighth grade they had the benefit of years of excellent grades, strong ERB testing, and a 99th %ile standardized test score. They currently attend Harvard.

Do not worry, as things have a way of working out. In our child's case, the non-Big 3 school they attended from kinder-8th was the perfect school for them.

So clearly the kid was not a legacy at Harvard. "They" is plural. He or she attends. Furthermore, if you are so proud of the K-8 school, why not post it? And which Big 3 did he/she (sorry "they") attend?

Drive-by correction: "They" can be used in the singular, when one wishes to write to remain gender-neutral.

No, it can't. S/he or He or she is the correct gender-neutral term.

I hate to be a stinker, but ... http://www.npr.org/2016/01/13/462906419/everyone-uses-singular-they-whether-they-realize-it-or-not

I love "it"! Thank you for setting us all straight.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read the same thread every year on DCUM, and I always offer the same story and advice.

My child was rejected from Beauvoir (NCS/STA), Georgetown Day School (GDS), and Sidwell -- from all three(!) -- when we applied for them in kindergarten. They enrolled in the only school to admit them, one further down the list, and it was the perfect school for them.

Fast forward nine years and that same child was accepted to all of those schools for upper school. Of course, by eighth grade they had the benefit of years of excellent grades, strong ERB testing, and a 99th %ile standardized test score. They currently attend Harvard.

Do not worry, as things have a way of working out. In our child's case, the non-Big 3 school they attended from kinder-8th was the perfect school for them.

So clearly the kid was not a legacy at Harvard. "They" is plural. He or she attends. Furthermore, if you are so proud of the K-8 school, why not post it? And which Big 3 did he/she (sorry "they") attend?

Drive-by correction: "They" can be used in the singular, when one wishes to write to remain gender-neutral.

No, it can't. S/he or He or she is the correct gender-neutral term.

I hate to be a stinker, but ... http://www.npr.org/2016/01/13/462906419/everyone-uses-singular-they-whether-they-realize-it-or-not

Anonymous wrote:"It" might be an even more PC gender neutral term. Just use "it", s/he is so heteronormative.

My post is the one that used "they" to protect the privacy of my "he, she, or it", and I had a little bit of fun with my post above as a retort to those posters criticizing my use of "they".

Anonymous wrote:^dear parents hung up on criticizing use of the word "they", please selfsegregate yourselves into one school somewhere, and let us all know where so that the rest of us can avoid it.

+1