Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not upset with the kids or their parents, they have figured out the system and are playing the game. What I find appalling is the elite colleges who claim to want socioeconomic diversity, racial diversity, cultural diversity, regional diversity, etc etc, but then take all these kids from one school. An elite upper class private in NYC.

Wealthy, smart kids concentrate in the same place. What did you expect?

Wealthy, yes. Smart tends to be defined in a way to be synonymous with wealthy in this country, especially by the time you get to high school seniors. Are the kids at Dalton "smart" because they are inherently more intelligent than children elsewhere? Or are they smart because they are of average to above average intelligence and then have had exposure to the best possible education money can buy?

I am always fascinated by how often this argument is made among private school families (of which I am one, but I personally grew up middle class and attended mediocre public schools all the way through college). The smart kids at elite privates are not smarter than the smart kids at even just okay publics. They are more sophisticated (better traveled, more well-spoken, more comfortable with adults, etc.) but that's a different metric. And it's entirely based on exposure, not inherent qualities.

What I've learned is that wealthy people have a coded way of speaking and interacting that they ascribe to intelligence or simply superior choices but are just a form of gatekeeping (to keep people like me out, I think, but being very perceptive I've learned the code and how to fake what I need to fake so that people accept me when that's what I need, for instance in private school circles where this matters so much to people). The children at Dalton are not inherently more intelligent than the upper half of a class at a good suburban public school. In many ways the kids at the public school are more worldly because they have experienced a much wider range of people and usually have not been raised to believe they belong to a special class of humans who deserve more and better of everything. But they are less sophisticated in the ways that count to rich people, so they will be deemed less intelligent. It's all just a self-protective stance.

Right, exactly. I wish UrbanBaby was still around. The exposure starts from birth and you have to be in the know. You sign your baby up for Free to Be Under Three and Diller Quaille and Madison Avenue Playgroup and Carousel of Languages. They help you get to your "Baby Ivies" - 92 Street Y, Episcopal, Brick Church, Temple Emanu-El, etc. If you get the interview with "Babby" at Dalton, you're in. You have to send an ILY letter or you're shut out. Your top tier nursery school brokers admissions to get the kids in. Then comes exposure to everything a millionaire or billionaire in NYC can afford - travel, sports, extra-curriculars, a hamptons house with access to summer camps of all types, then onto the $12,000 a summer sleepaway camp. Private tutors throughout the school year and summer (some sleepaway camps even provide them to you at an extra charge!) This + a substantial donation and/or legacy status puts your kid well on their way to getting into a top college. It's all money and connections.

Urban Baby is gone but there’s Whybemom now (same as old site Youbemom)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not upset with the kids or their parents, they have figured out the system and are playing the game. What I find appalling is the elite colleges who claim to want socioeconomic diversity, racial diversity, cultural diversity, regional diversity, etc etc, but then take all these kids from one school. An elite upper class private in NYC.

Wealthy, smart kids concentrate in the same place. What did you expect?

Wealthy, yes. Smart tends to be defined in a way to be synonymous with wealthy in this country, especially by the time you get to high school seniors. Are the kids at Dalton "smart" because they are inherently more intelligent than children elsewhere? Or are they smart because they are of average to above average intelligence and then have had exposure to the best possible education money can buy?

I am always fascinated by how often this argument is made among private school families (of which I am one, but I personally grew up middle class and attended mediocre public schools all the way through college). The smart kids at elite privates are not smarter than the smart kids at even just okay publics. They are more sophisticated (better traveled, more well-spoken, more comfortable with adults, etc.) but that's a different metric. And it's entirely based on exposure, not inherent qualities.

What I've learned is that wealthy people have a coded way of speaking and interacting that they ascribe to intelligence or simply superior choices but are just a form of gatekeeping (to keep people like me out, I think, but being very perceptive I've learned the code and how to fake what I need to fake so that people accept me when that's what I need, for instance in private school circles where this matters so much to people). The children at Dalton are not inherently more intelligent than the upper half of a class at a good suburban public school. In many ways the kids at the public school are more worldly because they have experienced a much wider range of people and usually have not been raised to believe they belong to a special class of humans who deserve more and better of everything. But they are less sophisticated in the ways that count to rich people, so they will be deemed less intelligent. It's all just a self-protective stance.

Right, exactly. I wish UrbanBaby was still around. The exposure starts from birth and you have to be in the know. You sign your baby up for Free to Be Under Three and Diller Quaille and Madison Avenue Playgroup and Carousel of Languages. They help you get to your "Baby Ivies" - 92 Street Y, Episcopal, Brick Church, Temple Emanu-El, etc. If you get the interview with "Babby" at Dalton, you're in. You have to send an ILY letter or you're shut out. Your top tier nursery school brokers admissions to get the kids in. Then comes exposure to everything a millionaire or billionaire in NYC can afford - travel, sports, extra-curriculars, a hamptons house with access to summer camps of all types, then onto the $12,000 a summer sleepaway camp. Private tutors throughout the school year and summer (some sleepaway camps even provide them to you at an extra charge!) This + a substantial donation and/or legacy status puts your kid well on their way to getting into a top college. It's all money and connections.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So NYC schools have better athletes, more legacies, more donors, more faculty and VIPS than schools here? I guess. I think the NYC schools are just a bit better tbh.

NYC schools definitely have more legacies, donors & VIPs than the DMV. The DMV is mostly upper middle class territory; NYC is far wealthier, bigger and powerful.

Eh, I think DC has a lot of legacies too compared to most metro areas. I work at a prestigious organization and have so many co-workers went to Amherst, Dartmouth, Brown, etc. NYC has more money, and I think nowadays, that’s what matters versus your run of the mill legacy.

Non-politician celebrities & trustafarians choose NYC to reside in; DC is kind of boring

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So NYC schools have better athletes, more legacies, more donors, more faculty and VIPS than schools here? I guess. I think the NYC schools are just a bit better tbh.

NYC schools definitely have more legacies, donors & VIPs than the DMV. The DMV is mostly upper middle class territory; NYC is far wealthier, bigger and powerful.

Eh, I think DC has a lot of legacies too compared to most metro areas. I work at a prestigious organization and have so many co-workers went to Amherst, Dartmouth, Brown, etc. NYC has more money, and I think nowadays, that’s what matters versus your run of the mill legacy.

Anonymous wrote:So NYC schools have better athletes, more legacies, more donors, more faculty and VIPS than schools here? I guess. I think the NYC schools are just a bit better tbh.

NYC has some truly horrible public schools. The magnet schools like Bronx Science or Stuy and the elite privates already mentioned on this thread are very tough to get into. The good private and public schools in NYC are arguably better than in DC but the bad schools (at least when it comes to public schools) are probably worse.

Anonymous wrote:The private schools in nyc have much better college results than local private schools, for sure. Not just Dalton, but HM and Collegiate and Brearley and on and on.

And you can make all the arguments re: privates vs publics.

But what accounts for top publics in NYC doing so much better than the top publics here?

Schools like Bronx Sci & Stuy have HUGE applicant pools to draw from. Think about how big NYC is both in terms of geography & population size, plus how it arguably has the best public transportation system in the US.

Anonymous wrote:The private schools in nyc have much better college results than local private schools, for sure. Not just Dalton, but HM and Collegiate and Brearley and on and on.

And you can make all the arguments re: privates vs publics.

But what accounts for top publics in NYC doing so much better than the top publics here?

I said it at the beginning of the thread - a larger talent pool and more competition. It's the same with "making it" in NYC from a professional standpoint. It's a different beast.

Anonymous wrote:So NYC schools have better athletes, more legacies, more donors, more faculty and VIPS than schools here? I guess. I think the NYC schools are just a bit better tbh.

NYC schools definitely have more legacies, donors & VIPs than the DMV. The DMV is mostly upper middle class territory; NYC is far wealthier, bigger and powerful.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Brearley usually has most HYPSM admits per student in nyc. Then Trinity/Collegiate/Regis/Dalton/HM is race for second.

Riverdale has really strong matriculation nowadays - rivals or is better than Horace Mann. But I know someone who was completely unhooked but really strong student at one of these schools - probably top 20% and ended up at Vassar. It’s the hooks that makes the admissions, not the school.

+1. But you also need to be a good student if you are an athlete or URM. Just being a good athlete or URM will not get you into Harvard. If you are the kid of a wealthy donor it's different.

The private schools in nyc have much better college results than local private schools, for sure. Not just Dalton, but HM and Collegiate and Brearley and on and on.

And you can make all the arguments re: privates vs publics.

But what accounts for top publics in NYC doing so much better than the top publics here?

So NYC schools have better athletes, more legacies, more donors, more faculty and VIPS than schools here? I guess. I think the NYC schools are just a bit better tbh.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not upset with the kids or their parents, they have figured out the system and are playing the game. What I find appalling is the elite colleges who claim to want socioeconomic diversity, racial diversity, cultural diversity, regional diversity, etc etc, but then take all these kids from one school. An elite upper class private in NYC.

Wealthy, smart kids concentrate in the same place. What did you expect?

Wealthy, yes. Smart tends to be defined in a way to be synonymous with wealthy in this country, especially by the time you get to high school seniors. Are the kids at Dalton "smart" because they are inherently more intelligent than children elsewhere? Or are they smart because they are of average to above average intelligence and then have had exposure to the best possible education money can buy?

I am always fascinated by how often this argument is made among private school families (of which I am one, but I personally grew up middle class and attended mediocre public schools all the way through college). The smart kids at elite privates are not smarter than the smart kids at even just okay publics. They are more sophisticated (better traveled, more well-spoken, more comfortable with adults, etc.) but that's a different metric. And it's entirely based on exposure, not inherent qualities.

What I've learned is that wealthy people have a coded way of speaking and interacting that they ascribe to intelligence or simply superior choices but are just a form of gatekeeping (to keep people like me out, I think, but being very perceptive I've learned the code and how to fake what I need to fake so that people accept me when that's what I need, for instance in private school circles where this matters so much to people). The children at Dalton are not inherently more intelligent than the upper half of a class at a good suburban public school. In many ways the kids at the public school are more worldly because they have experienced a much wider range of people and usually have not been raised to believe they belong to a special class of humans who deserve more and better of everything. But they are less sophisticated in the ways that count to rich people, so they will be deemed less intelligent. It's all just a self-protective stance.

Ivies want to appear that they are open to all.
40% of the spots go to Athlete, Legacies, Donors, Administration (Faculty), VIPs

Accepting a fencer is just another way of identifying and accepting privilege. Fencing is a sport that is only offered / available to those with means.

The Supreme Court decision is very interesting - as will donors be apple to continue to buy their kids a spot?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Curious, most of these colleges require As for admission. Do all these kids have As at Dalton? Looks like it must be pretty easy to get As if all these kids are getting them. Grade inflation at Dalton appears to be out of control.

Dalton doesn't seem to publicly list their profile with grade distributions but here is the one for Trinity - https://trinityschoolnyc.myschoolapp.com/ftpimages/390/download/download_4530575.pdf

Trinity is nearly impossible to get into. And they have an enormous endowment so they can take whom they like (I only know two kids in HS right now and one is the son of a building super). So yeah, these kids get As. It's a bit like saying, what's the grade distribution at Princeton .. those grads all get into top graduate programs so I guess that means there's rampant grade inflation there.

Anonymous wrote:One dalton kid has parent on board of HYP and donated a center in their name

These schools are also taking 15-20% of kids who are first gen - so they are walking the walk but the ROI on these NYC kids is pretty good

I checked out the uncommon last names too - the vast majority didn’t just have an alum parent but one that also donated a lecture series, center, building, etc. or on some sort of board (which normally requires major donations).