Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sounds like many of you didn’t read the full article…

“ …Even when applicants had the same SAT or ACT scores, those from the richest families were more than twice as likely to be admitted, according to the study, which analyzed data on test scores and parental income taxes for nearly all U.S.”

Sigh. Because wealth doesn't only impact academics. It impacts access and achievements in extra-curriculars. Isn't that OBVIOUS to you??? Extra-curriculars are the single most inequitable category of college admissions, FAR surpassing test scores and grades. Any intelligent child can get good grades and test scores, and there are free or low-cost tutors and test prep available everywhere in the US. But no amount of talent can propel a poor kid to the highest levels of any EC that requires money over a sustained period of time.

My kid will have been playing violin for 14 years by the time she applies to college. Twice a week year round, $100/hr, which is cheap given how reputable her teacher is. The violin cost a lot of money. She has won competitions and achieved a high level. Her STEM-minded friend went to Paris last winter for a genetics competition, and does that sort of thing regularly. And that's nothing compared to travel sports (10K+ a year), horse eventing, polo, sailing, flying, car racing, etc.

You seem to have NO IDEA of how much parents can spend on extra-curriculars, and how it influences college admissions.

This!!!

The SAT test scores are the biggest equalizer for smart poor kids.

Only if the definition of a "good" score can be adjusted based on circumstances/a school's average score. A smart poor kid using free test prep resources, only taking it once, and coming from a less well resourced school is still going to have lower scores than a UMC private school kid with hours of tutoring.

A majority of private school kids (even with hours of tutoring) actually don't have 1500+. The big3, big5, big10 etc type of kids have higher scores because they are smarter.
Magnet and selected public schools have much higher sat average than a regular private school.

People are conflating wealth with private vs public.

25%+ of Sidwell receives decent FA, while almost nobody who attends Whitman or Langley is “poor”.

I would also wager that most of TJ comes from a wealthier demographic as well.

This article is specifically about wealth.

An oversimplified view equating wealth to high test score is obviously incorrect.

Was reading today's NYT.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/08/us/trump-merit-affirmative-action-colleges.html
where it states: "7 percent of white test takers and 27 percent of Asian students scored between 1400 and 1600."
Asian are not four times wealthier than white.
It's more complicated than people would like to think. But there are certainly one or more factors independent of wealth.
And based on the numbers (four times), wealth does not appear to be the dominant factor.

You don't have to be 4x wealthier than someone for the statistics to mean something.

Once you hit a certain level of wealth, then you can afford to spend on all the various things the article talks about.

Median Asian income in the US is $122k which is 30% higher than overall median HHI, and the share of Asians living in UMC households is 27% vs. 17% for the US as a whole. https://www.pewresearch.org/race-and-ethnicity/2024/05/31/the-state-of-the-asian-american-middle-class/

Knowing that many Asian families do in fact invest a ton in extra math, music and other activities, then the article makes sense.

However, perhaps the article should say that households that spend all these extra things have an admissions advantage because many Asian households put a higher priority on these things and even households that aren't wealthy will spend on these activities.

For reference, median Black household income is $54,000. That's how dramatic of a difference we are talking about when people discuss race in admissions.

The Asians in NYC are poorer than the blacks yet Stuyvesant is predominantly Asian. Now what?

They run cash only businesses and cheat on their self reported income and taxes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sounds like many of you didn’t read the full article…

“ …Even when applicants had the same SAT or ACT scores, those from the richest families were more than twice as likely to be admitted, according to the study, which analyzed data on test scores and parental income taxes for nearly all U.S.”

Sigh. Because wealth doesn't only impact academics. It impacts access and achievements in extra-curriculars. Isn't that OBVIOUS to you??? Extra-curriculars are the single most inequitable category of college admissions, FAR surpassing test scores and grades. Any intelligent child can get good grades and test scores, and there are free or low-cost tutors and test prep available everywhere in the US. But no amount of talent can propel a poor kid to the highest levels of any EC that requires money over a sustained period of time.

My kid will have been playing violin for 14 years by the time she applies to college. Twice a week year round, $100/hr, which is cheap given how reputable her teacher is. The violin cost a lot of money. She has won competitions and achieved a high level. Her STEM-minded friend went to Paris last winter for a genetics competition, and does that sort of thing regularly. And that's nothing compared to travel sports (10K+ a year), horse eventing, polo, sailing, flying, car racing, etc.

You seem to have NO IDEA of how much parents can spend on extra-curriculars, and how it influences college admissions.

This!!!

The SAT test scores are the biggest equalizer for smart poor kids.

Only if the definition of a "good" score can be adjusted based on circumstances/a school's average score. A smart poor kid using free test prep resources, only taking it once, and coming from a less well resourced school is still going to have lower scores than a UMC private school kid with hours of tutoring.

A majority of private school kids (even with hours of tutoring) actually don't have 1500+. The big3, big5, big10 etc type of kids have higher scores because they are smarter.
Magnet and selected public schools have much higher sat average than a regular private school.

People are conflating wealth with private vs public.

25%+ of Sidwell receives decent FA, while almost nobody who attends Whitman or Langley is “poor”.

I would also wager that most of TJ comes from a wealthier demographic as well.

This article is specifically about wealth.

An oversimplified view equating wealth to high test score is obviously incorrect.

Was reading today's NYT.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/08/us/trump-merit-affirmative-action-colleges.html
where it states: "7 percent of white test takers and 27 percent of Asian students scored between 1400 and 1600."
Asian are not four times wealthier than white.
It's more complicated than people would like to think. But there are certainly one or more factors independent of wealth.
And based on the numbers (four times), wealth does not appear to be the dominant factor.

You don't have to be 4x wealthier than someone for the statistics to mean something.

Once you hit a certain level of wealth, then you can afford to spend on all the various things the article talks about.

Median Asian income in the US is $122k which is 30% higher than overall median HHI, and the share of Asians living in UMC households is 27% vs. 17% for the US as a whole. https://www.pewresearch.org/race-and-ethnicity/2024/05/31/the-state-of-the-asian-american-middle-class/

Knowing that many Asian families do in fact invest a ton in extra math, music and other activities, then the article makes sense.

However, perhaps the article should say that households that spend all these extra things have an admissions advantage because many Asian households put a higher priority on these things and even households that aren't wealthy will spend on these activities.

For reference, median Black household income is $54,000. That's how dramatic of a difference we are talking about when people discuss race in admissions.

The Asians in NYC are poorer than the blacks yet Stuyvesant is predominantly Asian. Now what?

Niche claims the median Stuy household income is $234k. Doesn’t seem poor at all.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sounds like many of you didn’t read the full article…

“ …Even when applicants had the same SAT or ACT scores, those from the richest families were more than twice as likely to be admitted, according to the study, which analyzed data on test scores and parental income taxes for nearly all U.S.”

Sigh. Because wealth doesn't only impact academics. It impacts access and achievements in extra-curriculars. Isn't that OBVIOUS to you??? Extra-curriculars are the single most inequitable category of college admissions, FAR surpassing test scores and grades. Any intelligent child can get good grades and test scores, and there are free or low-cost tutors and test prep available everywhere in the US. But no amount of talent can propel a poor kid to the highest levels of any EC that requires money over a sustained period of time.

My kid will have been playing violin for 14 years by the time she applies to college. Twice a week year round, $100/hr, which is cheap given how reputable her teacher is. The violin cost a lot of money. She has won competitions and achieved a high level. Her STEM-minded friend went to Paris last winter for a genetics competition, and does that sort of thing regularly. And that's nothing compared to travel sports (10K+ a year), horse eventing, polo, sailing, flying, car racing, etc.

You seem to have NO IDEA of how much parents can spend on extra-curriculars, and how it influences college admissions.

This!!!

The SAT test scores are the biggest equalizer for smart poor kids.

Only if the definition of a "good" score can be adjusted based on circumstances/a school's average score. A smart poor kid using free test prep resources, only taking it once, and coming from a less well resourced school is still going to have lower scores than a UMC private school kid with hours of tutoring.

A majority of private school kids (even with hours of tutoring) actually don't have 1500+. The big3, big5, big10 etc type of kids have higher scores because they are smarter.
Magnet and selected public schools have much higher sat average than a regular private school.

People are conflating wealth with private vs public.

25%+ of Sidwell receives decent FA, while almost nobody who attends Whitman or Langley is “poor”.

I would also wager that most of TJ comes from a wealthier demographic as well.

This article is specifically about wealth.

Actually, it’s 23% of Sidwell students that receive financial aid, and even with the financial aid that 23% is still paying on average of $20,000 a year for school. Trust me, there are many students at even the richest public high schools in the DMV who cannot afford $20,000 a year for private school. So, respectfully, you’re full of shit.

Dipshit...your comment is so stupid it's hard to unravel. The average Whitman or Langley family could easily afford full pay at Sidwell and definitely afford $20,000 per year. They instead decided to purchase their $3MM+ house and are fine with public...their neighbor across the street may decide they want Sidwell or Landon or wherever instead.

But since again, you are a dipshit, you can't even understand what this thread is about...which is that the article mentions nothing about private vs. public, but talks about wealth. So, it doesn't matter which school you attend in the context of this article.

Who’s the dipshit, exactly? Maybe the average Whitman family can, but it’s a big school and there are many below the average. Not to mention that the average family in neither Whitman nor Langley is living in a $3 million home. Not even close. You’re inflating all of the numbers to the extreme. You’re just plain wrong. There are plenty of families living in every public school district in the DMV who cannot reasonably afford to pay $20,000 a year for each of their children to attend private school.

The median home value in the Langley school district is $2.6MM...so correct it is rounded to $3MM. Replace Langley with Palo Alto HS or any other UMC area if you want.

Once more...what is your point? The article is about wealth not public vs. private.

The majority of households are same income as Arlington, etc. which doesn’t have the land to support the mansions. A few $30 mill homes in McLean drive the median up- but the bulk of housing is lower.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sounds like many of you didn’t read the full article…

“ …Even when applicants had the same SAT or ACT scores, those from the richest families were more than twice as likely to be admitted, according to the study, which analyzed data on test scores and parental income taxes for nearly all U.S.”

Sigh. Because wealth doesn't only impact academics. It impacts access and achievements in extra-curriculars. Isn't that OBVIOUS to you??? Extra-curriculars are the single most inequitable category of college admissions, FAR surpassing test scores and grades. Any intelligent child can get good grades and test scores, and there are free or low-cost tutors and test prep available everywhere in the US. But no amount of talent can propel a poor kid to the highest levels of any EC that requires money over a sustained period of time.

My kid will have been playing violin for 14 years by the time she applies to college. Twice a week year round, $100/hr, which is cheap given how reputable her teacher is. The violin cost a lot of money. She has won competitions and achieved a high level. Her STEM-minded friend went to Paris last winter for a genetics competition, and does that sort of thing regularly. And that's nothing compared to travel sports (10K+ a year), horse eventing, polo, sailing, flying, car racing, etc.

You seem to have NO IDEA of how much parents can spend on extra-curriculars, and how it influences college admissions.

This!!!

The SAT test scores are the biggest equalizer for smart poor kids.

Only if the definition of a "good" score can be adjusted based on circumstances/a school's average score. A smart poor kid using free test prep resources, only taking it once, and coming from a less well resourced school is still going to have lower scores than a UMC private school kid with hours of tutoring.

A majority of private school kids (even with hours of tutoring) actually don't have 1500+. The big3, big5, big10 etc type of kids have higher scores because they are smarter.
Magnet and selected public schools have much higher sat average than a regular private school.

People are conflating wealth with private vs public.

25%+ of Sidwell receives decent FA, while almost nobody who attends Whitman or Langley is “poor”.

I would also wager that most of TJ comes from a wealthier demographic as well.

This article is specifically about wealth.

Actually, it’s 23% of Sidwell students that receive financial aid, and even with the financial aid that 23% is still paying on average of $20,000 a year for school. Trust me, there are many students at even the richest public high schools in the DMV who cannot afford $20,000 a year for private school. So, respectfully, you’re full of shit.

Dipshit...your comment is so stupid it's hard to unravel. The average Whitman or Langley family could easily afford full pay at Sidwell and definitely afford $20,000 per year. They instead decided to purchase their $3MM+ house and are fine with public...their neighbor across the street may decide they want Sidwell or Landon or wherever instead.

But since again, you are a dipshit, you can't even understand what this thread is about...which is that the article mentions nothing about private vs. public, but talks about wealth. So, it doesn't matter which school you attend in the context of this article.

Who’s the dipshit, exactly? Maybe the average Whitman family can, but it’s a big school and there are many below the average. Not to mention that the average family in neither Whitman nor Langley is living in a $3 million home. Not even close. You’re inflating all of the numbers to the extreme. You’re just plain wrong. There are plenty of families living in every public school district in the DMV who cannot reasonably afford to pay $20,000 a year for each of their children to attend private school.

The median home value in the Langley school district is $2.6MM...so correct it is rounded to $3MM. Replace Langley with Palo Alto HS or any other UMC area if you want.

Once more...what is your point? The article is about wealth not public vs. private.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sounds like many of you didn’t read the full article…

“ …Even when applicants had the same SAT or ACT scores, those from the richest families were more than twice as likely to be admitted, according to the study, which analyzed data on test scores and parental income taxes for nearly all U.S.”

Sigh. Because wealth doesn't only impact academics. It impacts access and achievements in extra-curriculars. Isn't that OBVIOUS to you??? Extra-curriculars are the single most inequitable category of college admissions, FAR surpassing test scores and grades. Any intelligent child can get good grades and test scores, and there are free or low-cost tutors and test prep available everywhere in the US. But no amount of talent can propel a poor kid to the highest levels of any EC that requires money over a sustained period of time.

My kid will have been playing violin for 14 years by the time she applies to college. Twice a week year round, $100/hr, which is cheap given how reputable her teacher is. The violin cost a lot of money. She has won competitions and achieved a high level. Her STEM-minded friend went to Paris last winter for a genetics competition, and does that sort of thing regularly. And that's nothing compared to travel sports (10K+ a year), horse eventing, polo, sailing, flying, car racing, etc.

You seem to have NO IDEA of how much parents can spend on extra-curriculars, and how it influences college admissions.

This!!!

The SAT test scores are the biggest equalizer for smart poor kids.

Only if the definition of a "good" score can be adjusted based on circumstances/a school's average score. A smart poor kid using free test prep resources, only taking it once, and coming from a less well resourced school is still going to have lower scores than a UMC private school kid with hours of tutoring.

A majority of private school kids (even with hours of tutoring) actually don't have 1500+. The big3, big5, big10 etc type of kids have higher scores because they are smarter.
Magnet and selected public schools have much higher sat average than a regular private school.

People are conflating wealth with private vs public.

25%+ of Sidwell receives decent FA, while almost nobody who attends Whitman or Langley is “poor”.

I would also wager that most of TJ comes from a wealthier demographic as well.

This article is specifically about wealth.

An oversimplified view equating wealth to high test score is obviously incorrect.

Was reading today's NYT.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/08/us/trump-merit-affirmative-action-colleges.html
where it states: "7 percent of white test takers and 27 percent of Asian students scored between 1400 and 1600."
Asian are not four times wealthier than white.
It's more complicated than people would like to think. But there are certainly one or more factors independent of wealth.
And based on the numbers (four times), wealth does not appear to be the dominant factor.

You don't have to be 4x wealthier than someone for the statistics to mean something.

Once you hit a certain level of wealth, then you can afford to spend on all the various things the article talks about.

Median Asian income in the US is $122k which is 30% higher than overall median HHI, and the share of Asians living in UMC households is 27% vs. 17% for the US as a whole. https://www.pewresearch.org/race-and-ethnicity/2024/05/31/the-state-of-the-asian-american-middle-class/

Knowing that many Asian families do in fact invest a ton in extra math, music and other activities, then the article makes sense.

However, perhaps the article should say that households that spend all these extra things have an admissions advantage because many Asian households put a higher priority on these things and even households that aren't wealthy will spend on these activities.

For reference, median Black household income is $54,000. That's how dramatic of a difference we are talking about when people discuss race in admissions.

The Asians in NYC are poorer than the blacks yet Stuyvesant is predominantly Asian. Now what?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sounds like many of you didn’t read the full article…

“ …Even when applicants had the same SAT or ACT scores, those from the richest families were more than twice as likely to be admitted, according to the study, which analyzed data on test scores and parental income taxes for nearly all U.S.”

Sigh. Because wealth doesn't only impact academics. It impacts access and achievements in extra-curriculars. Isn't that OBVIOUS to you??? Extra-curriculars are the single most inequitable category of college admissions, FAR surpassing test scores and grades. Any intelligent child can get good grades and test scores, and there are free or low-cost tutors and test prep available everywhere in the US. But no amount of talent can propel a poor kid to the highest levels of any EC that requires money over a sustained period of time.

My kid will have been playing violin for 14 years by the time she applies to college. Twice a week year round, $100/hr, which is cheap given how reputable her teacher is. The violin cost a lot of money. She has won competitions and achieved a high level. Her STEM-minded friend went to Paris last winter for a genetics competition, and does that sort of thing regularly. And that's nothing compared to travel sports (10K+ a year), horse eventing, polo, sailing, flying, car racing, etc.

You seem to have NO IDEA of how much parents can spend on extra-curriculars, and how it influences college admissions.

This!!!

The SAT test scores are the biggest equalizer for smart poor kids.

Only if the definition of a "good" score can be adjusted based on circumstances/a school's average score. A smart poor kid using free test prep resources, only taking it once, and coming from a less well resourced school is still going to have lower scores than a UMC private school kid with hours of tutoring.

A majority of private school kids (even with hours of tutoring) actually don't have 1500+. The big3, big5, big10 etc type of kids have higher scores because they are smarter.
Magnet and selected public schools have much higher sat average than a regular private school.

People are conflating wealth with private vs public.

25%+ of Sidwell receives decent FA, while almost nobody who attends Whitman or Langley is “poor”.

I would also wager that most of TJ comes from a wealthier demographic as well.

This article is specifically about wealth.

An oversimplified view equating wealth to high test score is obviously incorrect.

Was reading today's NYT.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/08/us/trump-merit-affirmative-action-colleges.html
where it states: "7 percent of white test takers and 27 percent of Asian students scored between 1400 and 1600."
Asian are not four times wealthier than white.
It's more complicated than people would like to think. But there are certainly one or more factors independent of wealth.
And based on the numbers (four times), wealth does not appear to be the dominant factor.

You don't have to be 4x wealthier than someone for the statistics to mean something.

Once you hit a certain level of wealth, then you can afford to spend on all the various things the article talks about.

Median Asian income in the US is $122k which is 30% higher than overall median HHI, and the share of Asians living in UMC households is 27% vs. 17% for the US as a whole. https://www.pewresearch.org/race-and-ethnicity/2024/05/31/the-state-of-the-asian-american-middle-class/

Knowing that many Asian families do in fact invest a ton in extra math, music and other activities, then the article makes sense.

However, perhaps the article should say that households that spend all these extra things have an admissions advantage because many Asian households put a higher priority on these things and even households that aren't wealthy will spend on these activities.

For reference, median Black household income is $54,000. That's how dramatic of a difference we are talking about when people discuss race in admissions.

The Asians in NYC are poorer than the blacks yet Stuyvesant is predominantly Asian. Now what?

Niche claims the median Stuy household income is $234k. Doesn’t seem poor at all.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sounds like many of you didn’t read the full article…

“ …Even when applicants had the same SAT or ACT scores, those from the richest families were more than twice as likely to be admitted, according to the study, which analyzed data on test scores and parental income taxes for nearly all U.S.”

Sigh. Because wealth doesn't only impact academics. It impacts access and achievements in extra-curriculars. Isn't that OBVIOUS to you??? Extra-curriculars are the single most inequitable category of college admissions, FAR surpassing test scores and grades. Any intelligent child can get good grades and test scores, and there are free or low-cost tutors and test prep available everywhere in the US. But no amount of talent can propel a poor kid to the highest levels of any EC that requires money over a sustained period of time.

My kid will have been playing violin for 14 years by the time she applies to college. Twice a week year round, $100/hr, which is cheap given how reputable her teacher is. The violin cost a lot of money. She has won competitions and achieved a high level. Her STEM-minded friend went to Paris last winter for a genetics competition, and does that sort of thing regularly. And that's nothing compared to travel sports (10K+ a year), horse eventing, polo, sailing, flying, car racing, etc.

You seem to have NO IDEA of how much parents can spend on extra-curriculars, and how it influences college admissions.

This!!!

The SAT test scores are the biggest equalizer for smart poor kids.

Only if the definition of a "good" score can be adjusted based on circumstances/a school's average score. A smart poor kid using free test prep resources, only taking it once, and coming from a less well resourced school is still going to have lower scores than a UMC private school kid with hours of tutoring.

A majority of private school kids (even with hours of tutoring) actually don't have 1500+. The big3, big5, big10 etc type of kids have higher scores because they are smarter.
Magnet and selected public schools have much higher sat average than a regular private school.

People are conflating wealth with private vs public.

25%+ of Sidwell receives decent FA, while almost nobody who attends Whitman or Langley is “poor”.

I would also wager that most of TJ comes from a wealthier demographic as well.

This article is specifically about wealth.

An oversimplified view equating wealth to high test score is obviously incorrect.

Was reading today's NYT.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/08/us/trump-merit-affirmative-action-colleges.html
where it states: "7 percent of white test takers and 27 percent of Asian students scored between 1400 and 1600."
Asian are not four times wealthier than white.
It's more complicated than people would like to think. But there are certainly one or more factors independent of wealth.
And based on the numbers (four times), wealth does not appear to be the dominant factor.

You don't have to be 4x wealthier than someone for the statistics to mean something.

Once you hit a certain level of wealth, then you can afford to spend on all the various things the article talks about.

Median Asian income in the US is $122k which is 30% higher than overall median HHI, and the share of Asians living in UMC households is 27% vs. 17% for the US as a whole. https://www.pewresearch.org/race-and-ethnicity/2024/05/31/the-state-of-the-asian-american-middle-class/

Knowing that many Asian families do in fact invest a ton in extra math, music and other activities, then the article makes sense.

However, perhaps the article should say that households that spend all these extra things have an admissions advantage because many Asian households put a higher priority on these things and even households that aren't wealthy will spend on these activities.

For reference, median Black household income is $54,000. That's how dramatic of a difference we are talking about when people discuss race in admissions.

The Asians in NYC are poorer than the blacks yet Stuyvesant is predominantly Asian. Now what?

Niche claims the median Stuy household income is $234k. Doesn’t seem poor at all.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sounds like many of you didn’t read the full article…

“ …Even when applicants had the same SAT or ACT scores, those from the richest families were more than twice as likely to be admitted, according to the study, which analyzed data on test scores and parental income taxes for nearly all U.S.”

Sigh. Because wealth doesn't only impact academics. It impacts access and achievements in extra-curriculars. Isn't that OBVIOUS to you??? Extra-curriculars are the single most inequitable category of college admissions, FAR surpassing test scores and grades. Any intelligent child can get good grades and test scores, and there are free or low-cost tutors and test prep available everywhere in the US. But no amount of talent can propel a poor kid to the highest levels of any EC that requires money over a sustained period of time.

My kid will have been playing violin for 14 years by the time she applies to college. Twice a week year round, $100/hr, which is cheap given how reputable her teacher is. The violin cost a lot of money. She has won competitions and achieved a high level. Her STEM-minded friend went to Paris last winter for a genetics competition, and does that sort of thing regularly. And that's nothing compared to travel sports (10K+ a year), horse eventing, polo, sailing, flying, car racing, etc.

You seem to have NO IDEA of how much parents can spend on extra-curriculars, and how it influences college admissions.

This!!!

The SAT test scores are the biggest equalizer for smart poor kids.

Only if the definition of a "good" score can be adjusted based on circumstances/a school's average score. A smart poor kid using free test prep resources, only taking it once, and coming from a less well resourced school is still going to have lower scores than a UMC private school kid with hours of tutoring.

A majority of private school kids (even with hours of tutoring) actually don't have 1500+. The big3, big5, big10 etc type of kids have higher scores because they are smarter.
Magnet and selected public schools have much higher sat average than a regular private school.

People are conflating wealth with private vs public.

25%+ of Sidwell receives decent FA, while almost nobody who attends Whitman or Langley is “poor”.

I would also wager that most of TJ comes from a wealthier demographic as well.

This article is specifically about wealth.

An oversimplified view equating wealth to high test score is obviously incorrect.

Was reading today's NYT.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/08/us/trump-merit-affirmative-action-colleges.html
where it states: "7 percent of white test takers and 27 percent of Asian students scored between 1400 and 1600."
Asian are not four times wealthier than white.
It's more complicated than people would like to think. But there are certainly one or more factors independent of wealth.
And based on the numbers (four times), wealth does not appear to be the dominant factor.

You don't have to be 4x wealthier than someone for the statistics to mean something.

Once you hit a certain level of wealth, then you can afford to spend on all the various things the article talks about.

Median Asian income in the US is $122k which is 30% higher than overall median HHI, and the share of Asians living in UMC households is 27% vs. 17% for the US as a whole. https://www.pewresearch.org/race-and-ethnicity/2024/05/31/the-state-of-the-asian-american-middle-class/

Knowing that many Asian families do in fact invest a ton in extra math, music and other activities, then the article makes sense.

However, perhaps the article should say that households that spend all these extra things have an admissions advantage because many Asian households put a higher priority on these things and even households that aren't wealthy will spend on these activities.

For reference, median Black household income is $54,000. That's how dramatic of a difference we are talking about when people discuss race in admissions.

The Asians in NYC are poorer than the blacks yet Stuyvesant is predominantly Asian. Now what?

Niche claims the median Stuy household income is $234k. Doesn’t seem poor at all.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sounds like many of you didn’t read the full article…

“ …Even when applicants had the same SAT or ACT scores, those from the richest families were more than twice as likely to be admitted, according to the study, which analyzed data on test scores and parental income taxes for nearly all U.S.”

Sigh. Because wealth doesn't only impact academics. It impacts access and achievements in extra-curriculars. Isn't that OBVIOUS to you??? Extra-curriculars are the single most inequitable category of college admissions, FAR surpassing test scores and grades. Any intelligent child can get good grades and test scores, and there are free or low-cost tutors and test prep available everywhere in the US. But no amount of talent can propel a poor kid to the highest levels of any EC that requires money over a sustained period of time.

My kid will have been playing violin for 14 years by the time she applies to college. Twice a week year round, $100/hr, which is cheap given how reputable her teacher is. The violin cost a lot of money. She has won competitions and achieved a high level. Her STEM-minded friend went to Paris last winter for a genetics competition, and does that sort of thing regularly. And that's nothing compared to travel sports (10K+ a year), horse eventing, polo, sailing, flying, car racing, etc.

You seem to have NO IDEA of how much parents can spend on extra-curriculars, and how it influences college admissions.

Some admissions officers (not many) see through all of this BS and would rather admit the kid who worked at McDonald's to earn spending money and save for college for a few years and had a few promotions over the over-privileged violin playing fencer from Chevy Chase whose SAHM or nanny schlepped them around in the family Range Rover so they can be a superstar at something that they are going to drop like a bad habit once they are into college.

Except the data proves you wrong.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sounds like many of you didn’t read the full article…

“ …Even when applicants had the same SAT or ACT scores, those from the richest families were more than twice as likely to be admitted, according to the study, which analyzed data on test scores and parental income taxes for nearly all U.S.”

Sigh. Because wealth doesn't only impact academics. It impacts access and achievements in extra-curriculars. Isn't that OBVIOUS to you??? Extra-curriculars are the single most inequitable category of college admissions, FAR surpassing test scores and grades. Any intelligent child can get good grades and test scores, and there are free or low-cost tutors and test prep available everywhere in the US. But no amount of talent can propel a poor kid to the highest levels of any EC that requires money over a sustained period of time.

My kid will have been playing violin for 14 years by the time she applies to college. Twice a week year round, $100/hr, which is cheap given how reputable her teacher is. The violin cost a lot of money. She has won competitions and achieved a high level. Her STEM-minded friend went to Paris last winter for a genetics competition, and does that sort of thing regularly. And that's nothing compared to travel sports (10K+ a year), horse eventing, polo, sailing, flying, car racing, etc.

You seem to have NO IDEA of how much parents can spend on extra-curriculars, and how it influences college admissions.

This!!!

The SAT test scores are the biggest equalizer for smart poor kids.

Only if the definition of a "good" score can be adjusted based on circumstances/a school's average score. A smart poor kid using free test prep resources, only taking it once, and coming from a less well resourced school is still going to have lower scores than a UMC private school kid with hours of tutoring.

A majority of private school kids (even with hours of tutoring) actually don't have 1500+. The big3, big5, big10 etc type of kids have higher scores because they are smarter.
Magnet and selected public schools have much higher sat average than a regular private school.

People are conflating wealth with private vs public.

25%+ of Sidwell receives decent FA, while almost nobody who attends Whitman or Langley is “poor”.

I would also wager that most of TJ comes from a wealthier demographic as well.

This article is specifically about wealth.

Actually, it’s 23% of Sidwell students that receive financial aid, and even with the financial aid that 23% is still paying on average of $20,000 a year for school. Trust me, there are many students at even the richest public high schools in the DMV who cannot afford $20,000 a year for private school. So, respectfully, you’re full of shit.

Dipshit...your comment is so stupid it's hard to unravel. The average Whitman or Langley family could easily afford full pay at Sidwell and definitely afford $20,000 per year. They instead decided to purchase their $3MM+ house and are fine with public...their neighbor across the street may decide they want Sidwell or Landon or wherever instead.

But since again, you are a dipshit, you can't even understand what this thread is about...which is that the article mentions nothing about private vs. public, but talks about wealth. So, it doesn't matter which school you attend in the context of this article.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sounds like many of you didn’t read the full article…

“ …Even when applicants had the same SAT or ACT scores, those from the richest families were more than twice as likely to be admitted, according to the study, which analyzed data on test scores and parental income taxes for nearly all U.S.”

Sigh. Because wealth doesn't only impact academics. It impacts access and achievements in extra-curriculars. Isn't that OBVIOUS to you??? Extra-curriculars are the single most inequitable category of college admissions, FAR surpassing test scores and grades. Any intelligent child can get good grades and test scores, and there are free or low-cost tutors and test prep available everywhere in the US. But no amount of talent can propel a poor kid to the highest levels of any EC that requires money over a sustained period of time.

My kid will have been playing violin for 14 years by the time she applies to college. Twice a week year round, $100/hr, which is cheap given how reputable her teacher is. The violin cost a lot of money. She has won competitions and achieved a high level. Her STEM-minded friend went to Paris last winter for a genetics competition, and does that sort of thing regularly. And that's nothing compared to travel sports (10K+ a year), horse eventing, polo, sailing, flying, car racing, etc.

You seem to have NO IDEA of how much parents can spend on extra-curriculars, and how it influences college admissions.

Some admissions officers (not many) see through all of this BS and would rather admit the kid who worked at McDonald's to earn spending money and save for college for a few years and had a few promotions over the over-privileged violin playing fencer from Chevy Chase whose SAHM or nanny schlepped them around in the family Range Rover so they can be a superstar at something that they are going to drop like a bad habit once they are into college.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sounds like many of you didn’t read the full article…

“ …Even when applicants had the same SAT or ACT scores, those from the richest families were more than twice as likely to be admitted, according to the study, which analyzed data on test scores and parental income taxes for nearly all U.S.”

Sigh. Because wealth doesn't only impact academics. It impacts access and achievements in extra-curriculars. Isn't that OBVIOUS to you??? Extra-curriculars are the single most inequitable category of college admissions, FAR surpassing test scores and grades. Any intelligent child can get good grades and test scores, and there are free or low-cost tutors and test prep available everywhere in the US. But no amount of talent can propel a poor kid to the highest levels of any EC that requires money over a sustained period of time.

My kid will have been playing violin for 14 years by the time she applies to college. Twice a week year round, $100/hr, which is cheap given how reputable her teacher is. The violin cost a lot of money. She has won competitions and achieved a high level. Her STEM-minded friend went to Paris last winter for a genetics competition, and does that sort of thing regularly. And that's nothing compared to travel sports (10K+ a year), horse eventing, polo, sailing, flying, car racing, etc.

You seem to have NO IDEA of how much parents can spend on extra-curriculars, and how it influences college admissions.

This!!!

The SAT test scores are the biggest equalizer for smart poor kids.

Only if the definition of a "good" score can be adjusted based on circumstances/a school's average score. A smart poor kid using free test prep resources, only taking it once, and coming from a less well resourced school is still going to have lower scores than a UMC private school kid with hours of tutoring.

A majority of private school kids (even with hours of tutoring) actually don't have 1500+. The big3, big5, big10 etc type of kids have higher scores because they are smarter.
Magnet and selected public schools have much higher sat average than a regular private school.

People are conflating wealth with private vs public.

25%+ of Sidwell receives decent FA, while almost nobody who attends Whitman or Langley is “poor”.

I would also wager that most of TJ comes from a wealthier demographic as well.

This article is specifically about wealth.

An oversimplified view equating wealth to high test score is obviously incorrect.

Was reading today's NYT.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/08/us/trump-merit-affirmative-action-colleges.html
where it states: "7 percent of white test takers and 27 percent of Asian students scored between 1400 and 1600."
Asian are not four times wealthier than white.
It's more complicated than people would like to think. But there are certainly one or more factors independent of wealth.
And based on the numbers (four times), wealth does not appear to be the dominant factor.

You don't have to be 4x wealthier than someone for the statistics to mean something.

Once you hit a certain level of wealth, then you can afford to spend on all the various things the article talks about.

Median Asian income in the US is $122k which is 30% higher than overall median HHI, and the share of Asians living in UMC households is 27% vs. 17% for the US as a whole. https://www.pewresearch.org/race-and-ethnicity/2024/05/31/the-state-of-the-asian-american-middle-class/

Knowing that many Asian families do in fact invest a ton in extra math, music and other activities, then the article makes sense.

However, perhaps the article should say that households that spend all these extra things have an admissions advantage because many Asian households put a higher priority on these things and even households that aren't wealthy will spend on these activities.

For reference, median Black household income is $54,000. That's how dramatic of a difference we are talking about when people discuss race in admissions.

The Asians in NYC are poorer than the blacks yet Stuyvesant is predominantly Asian. Now what?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP here. Ten percent of TJ students qualify for free lunch. You are not seriously contending that 10% of Sidwell’s student population would qualify for free lunches if they were in public school, are you?

How many of Sidwell receive 100% FA...I bet they would qualify for free lunch. BTW, not sure where you are getting your information but 100% of TJ students receive free lunch and breakfast as a perk of the school.

If the average financial aid award is $38,000, then one has to assume that includes a number of families receiving 100% FA and a number receiving just $5,000 or $10,000...right?

You still seem to be missing the forest through the trees...maybe if you get your head out of your ass you will see the forest instead of just staring at the one stick that is shoved into it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sounds like many of you didn’t read the full article…

“ …Even when applicants had the same SAT or ACT scores, those from the richest families were more than twice as likely to be admitted, according to the study, which analyzed data on test scores and parental income taxes for nearly all U.S.”

Sigh. Because wealth doesn't only impact academics. It impacts access and achievements in extra-curriculars. Isn't that OBVIOUS to you??? Extra-curriculars are the single most inequitable category of college admissions, FAR surpassing test scores and grades. Any intelligent child can get good grades and test scores, and there are free or low-cost tutors and test prep available everywhere in the US. But no amount of talent can propel a poor kid to the highest levels of any EC that requires money over a sustained period of time.

My kid will have been playing violin for 14 years by the time she applies to college. Twice a week year round, $100/hr, which is cheap given how reputable her teacher is. The violin cost a lot of money. She has won competitions and achieved a high level. Her STEM-minded friend went to Paris last winter for a genetics competition, and does that sort of thing regularly. And that's nothing compared to travel sports (10K+ a year), horse eventing, polo, sailing, flying, car racing, etc.

You seem to have NO IDEA of how much parents can spend on extra-curriculars, and how it influences college admissions.

This!!!

The SAT test scores are the biggest equalizer for smart poor kids.

Only if the definition of a "good" score can be adjusted based on circumstances/a school's average score. A smart poor kid using free test prep resources, only taking it once, and coming from a less well resourced school is still going to have lower scores than a UMC private school kid with hours of tutoring.

A majority of private school kids (even with hours of tutoring) actually don't have 1500+. The big3, big5, big10 etc type of kids have higher scores because they are smarter.
Magnet and selected public schools have much higher sat average than a regular private school.

People are conflating wealth with private vs public.

25%+ of Sidwell receives decent FA, while almost nobody who attends Whitman or Langley is “poor”.

I would also wager that most of TJ comes from a wealthier demographic as well.

This article is specifically about wealth.

An oversimplified view equating wealth to high test score is obviously incorrect.

Was reading today's NYT.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/08/us/trump-merit-affirmative-action-colleges.html
where it states: "7 percent of white test takers and 27 percent of Asian students scored between 1400 and 1600."
Asian are not four times wealthier than white.
It's more complicated than people would like to think. But there are certainly one or more factors independent of wealth.
And based on the numbers (four times), wealth does not appear to be the dominant factor.

You don't have to be 4x wealthier than someone for the statistics to mean something.

Once you hit a certain level of wealth, then you can afford to spend on all the various things the article talks about.

Median Asian income in the US is $122k which is 30% higher than overall median HHI, and the share of Asians living in UMC households is 27% vs. 17% for the US as a whole. https://www.pewresearch.org/race-and-ethnicity/2024/05/31/the-state-of-the-asian-american-middle-class/

Knowing that many Asian families do in fact invest a ton in extra math, music and other activities, then the article makes sense.

However, perhaps the article should say that households that spend all these extra things have an admissions advantage because many Asian households put a higher priority on these things and even households that aren't wealthy will spend on these activities.

For reference, median Black household income is $54,000. That's how dramatic of a difference we are talking about when people discuss race in admissions.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sounds like many of you didn’t read the full article…

“ …Even when applicants had the same SAT or ACT scores, those from the richest families were more than twice as likely to be admitted, according to the study, which analyzed data on test scores and parental income taxes for nearly all U.S.”

Sigh. Because wealth doesn't only impact academics. It impacts access and achievements in extra-curriculars. Isn't that OBVIOUS to you??? Extra-curriculars are the single most inequitable category of college admissions, FAR surpassing test scores and grades. Any intelligent child can get good grades and test scores, and there are free or low-cost tutors and test prep available everywhere in the US. But no amount of talent can propel a poor kid to the highest levels of any EC that requires money over a sustained period of time.

My kid will have been playing violin for 14 years by the time she applies to college. Twice a week year round, $100/hr, which is cheap given how reputable her teacher is. The violin cost a lot of money. She has won competitions and achieved a high level. Her STEM-minded friend went to Paris last winter for a genetics competition, and does that sort of thing regularly. And that's nothing compared to travel sports (10K+ a year), horse eventing, polo, sailing, flying, car racing, etc.

You seem to have NO IDEA of how much parents can spend on extra-curriculars, and how it influences college admissions.

This!!!

The SAT test scores are the biggest equalizer for smart poor kids.

Only if the definition of a "good" score can be adjusted based on circumstances/a school's average score. A smart poor kid using free test prep resources, only taking it once, and coming from a less well resourced school is still going to have lower scores than a UMC private school kid with hours of tutoring.

A majority of private school kids (even with hours of tutoring) actually don't have 1500+. The big3, big5, big10 etc type of kids have higher scores because they are smarter.
Magnet and selected public schools have much higher sat average than a regular private school.

It's true that not all private schools are alike or have 99ile SATs. But let's not say smarter. SAT scores are not intelligence tests, they are preparation tests. So rather than rewarding the smartest kids, it rewards the grinders. Which is ok but let's not say it measures nuance, intelligence or potential.