Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, I just have now been at a TT school for a number of years and have heard enough stories/been told this by faculty, admin, etc. Literally four hours ago, an acquaintance was complaining about how Horace Mann didn’t support her niece’s application to an Ivy despite the fact she was in the top 5 percent of her class. It’s a known thing at most of these places. If your main goal is Ivy League admission, you have to know it’s a game. All these people on here doing percentage odds. My guess is their kids will go to great schools, but the kids who get the HYP spots are often rich and connected.

(my kid isn’t at Horace Mann)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It can depend on the school and the college. Sometimes a college counselor can really mess up a relationship with a school and you that school will no longer take its calls. A huge part of being the head of a TT schools is managing the egoes of admissions people at Ivy League schools and keeping up a relationship. They actually will quash the applications of students and not “back” certain kids if they need to reserve a space for a high value family (aka big donors). Some schools are more fair than others.

This is fascinating to me. Assume you work in admissions or in a school college counseling office? Any other interesting nuggets you can share?

Was this a specific Ivy? Considering that they send over 40/yr to Cornell+Chicago, it does seem like they would discourage unconnected kids from applying to at least some top schools.

Anonymous wrote:No, I just have now been at a TT school for a number of years and have heard enough stories/been told this by faculty, admin, etc. Literally four hours ago, an acquaintance was complaining about how Horace Mann didn’t support her niece’s application to an Ivy despite the fact she was in the top 5 percent of her class. It’s a known thing at most of these places. If your main goal is Ivy League admission, you have to know it’s a game. All these people on here doing percentage odds. My guess is their kids will go to great schools, but the kids who get the HYP spots are often rich and connected.

(my kid isn’t at Horace Mann)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It can depend on the school and the college. Sometimes a college counselor can really mess up a relationship with a school and you that school will no longer take its calls. A huge part of being the head of a TT schools is managing the egoes of admissions people at Ivy League schools and keeping up a relationship. They actually will quash the applications of students and not “back” certain kids if they need to reserve a space for a high value family (aka big donors). Some schools are more fair than others.

This is fascinating to me. Assume you work in admissions or in a school college counseling office? Any other interesting nuggets you can share?

Anonymous wrote:No, I just have now been at a TT school for a number of years and have heard enough stories/been told this by faculty, admin, etc. Literally four hours ago, an acquaintance was complaining about how Horace Mann didn’t support her niece’s application to an Ivy despite the fact she was in the top 5 percent of her class. It’s a known thing at most of these places. If your main goal is Ivy League admission, you have to know it’s a game. All these people on here doing percentage odds. My guess is their kids will go to great schools, but the kids who get the HYP spots are often rich and connected.

(my kid isn’t at Horace Mann)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It can depend on the school and the college. Sometimes a college counselor can really mess up a relationship with a school and you that school will no longer take its calls. A huge part of being the head of a TT schools is managing the egoes of admissions people at Ivy League schools and keeping up a relationship. They actually will quash the applications of students and not “back” certain kids if they need to reserve a space for a high value family (aka big donors). Some schools are more fair than others.

This is fascinating to me. Assume you work in admissions or in a school college counseling office? Any other interesting nuggets you can share?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It can depend on the school and the college. Sometimes a college counselor can really mess up a relationship with a school and you that school will no longer take its calls. A huge part of being the head of a TT schools is managing the egoes of admissions people at Ivy League schools and keeping up a relationship. They actually will quash the applications of students and not “back” certain kids if they need to reserve a space for a high value family (aka big donors). Some schools are more fair than others.

This is fascinating to me. Assume you work in admissions or in a school college counseling office? Any other interesting nuggets you can share?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Almost all these endowments were in early rounds at SpaceX, Anthropic, OpenAI etc. They're about to reap huge gains. (WashU has already announced). They do using federal cuts as cover to cut things they've wanted to cut, and add some public facing cuts (no more food to-go containers at Yale!), but they're richer than ever. And all WASPS were unaffected as they had under 3000 students. Richest schools like Princeton that had under 3000 "tuition-paying" students also unaffected.

These top college would like to keep tuition-paying enrollment under 3k. Which means increasing aid to full-tuition packages to more not less

They're going to get their research grants back somewhere from 1-3 years from now too, they still have to cover payroll in the meantime. Harvard took out a dang bridge loan, I don't think they're tapping into their credit rating and paying out interest for funsies.

And again, most of the endowment money can't be used to cover operating expenses - if your endowment grows by 30%, that's great for the stuff you're allowed to spend your endowment on, but you can't simply cash out a billion dollars and use it to pay for whatever.

Universities routinely issue debt for projects and operations. They have been doing it for decades. Harvard issued bonds earlier this year. Their cost of capital was under 3% as the rating agencies (which know much more about this than you) continue to rate them AAA and investors (who also know more about this than you) have strong faith in Harvard. And they are usually able to issue tax-exempt debt so the interest rates they pay are lower than corporate debt. Doesn't it make sense to borrow at these low rates rather than tap into your endowment which will likely be returning a much higher interest rate? It is basic math.

I can't stand people who ignorantly think that universities/hospitals/municipalities issuing debt is a sign of weakness. It is a sign of using their brains. Leverage is great when used wisely. If a university starts going overboard with the leverage, the rating agencies call them out on it. That is far from the case here, and with most other schools issuing debt.

I didn't say it was a sign of weakness. I think it's reasonable to say that they're under more financial strain than normal - the grant cuts have been very widely reported - and that they might want to take some modest measures like letting in an extra 50 rich kids (who happen to be predominately white yes I said it look at the demographics for most of these schools) to help close the gap.

Actually, there is a good chance the rich kids are Asian. Though again, not sure why race is relevant or needs to be mentioned. But you keep on winning. Clearly not a Harvard grad. Or even Yale. Or Cornell.

I cannot tell you how delightful I find it that "private school matriculations are doing well because colleges are letting in more rich kids for financial reasons" is upsetting you in this way. (I did in fact go to Harvard though since this is anonymous forum I have no way to prove it, which is also where I formed my cynical views of rich private school kids going to Harvard)

For a Harvard alum you completely lack reading comprehension as well as EQ skills. And lack understanding of basic statistics. Or for a citizen of the world for that matter. Jeez. Sorry you have kept such a chip on your shoulder about people with wealth. Not a fun way to go through life. Your four years at Harvard (or however long you were there) must have been miserable.

When I interact with people I try not to focus on race, gender, wealth, etc. But if someone proves themselves repeatedly not to be that sharp I do notice that...

Yeah, now you're also demonstrating why I feel the way I do about rich people so kudos for helping to reconfirm me in my life choices.

I'm not rich. Comfortably UMC. But definitely not rich. Keep on digging.

So you're a UMC person pushing back against my besmirching of rich people, even more delightful.

Again - I did not "push back against besmirching of rich people." I pushed back primarily against the fact that you said it was only white rich people. Race has zero to do with this. By the law of averages, yes, if this were to happen (which is subject to debate but is not the point I am debating) then a lot of them would likely be white. But plenty could be other races. And their race should have nothing to do with the logic of this argument. But your need to drop race into this completely blows up your potential point.

Though to what seems to be your point, I do hate people who insist that all "rich people," regardless of race, who get into these schools are "mediocre" (hate that word - usage of it in this context is ironically a sign of "mediocrity"). Yes, there are plenty of less qualified people who get into top schools because of their money - I would never deny that (certified moron and your fellow Harvard alum Jared Kushner says hi). But just because someone is wealthy and got into a top school doesn't make them dumb and doesn't mean they just got in because they are rich. Kind of like just because someone is a minority or FGLI or an athlete or whatever else doesn't mean they wouldn't have gotten in regardless of their preferred quality. That is an incredibly simplistic way of looking at the world. MLK would be rolling over in his grave...

You just acknowledged that most of these kids are white and acknowledged that less qualified people get into schools because of their money, I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with me on here other than my tone/attitude.

If you have a better explanation for why so many more private school kids are getting into top colleges this year than last year other than money I'd love to hear it.

It is your tone and attitude. Why did you need to mention race? Especially because it likely isn't true (particularly if you don't consider Asians to be white). If you hadn't mentioned race I likely would not have responded. Then you got belligerent, antagonistic, rude, and continued to make worse and worse points that fabricated a story line that didn't exist. There is no penalty for saying "oops, my bad" here. I have done it many times. I'm not perfect. You shouldn't have mentioned it in the first place but you just compounded it by getting worse and worse. Not sure why I even engaged this far. Should have just moved on. My bad. Or maybe not. Who knows.

I also am not 100% convinced that many more private school kids are getting into top colleges this year. It is extremely anecdotal at this point. I would be willing to bet that on the margins that might be true, but it likely isn't a statistically significant number. But we won't know for a while. And I'm not drawing major conclusions based on one year of data where the numbers likely didn't move dramatically. Instagram postings from NYC private school kids do not prove a lot.

Anonymous wrote:It can depend on the school and the college. Sometimes a college counselor can really mess up a relationship with a school and you that school will no longer take its calls. A huge part of being the head of a TT schools is managing the egoes of admissions people at Ivy League schools and keeping up a relationship. They actually will quash the applications of students and not “back” certain kids if they need to reserve a space for a high value family (aka big donors). Some schools are more fair than others.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Only these schools changed adding MIT: Spence +1, Dalton +1, Regis +2, Hunter +2, Fieldston +1.

Also added Hunter, Browning, and Dwight-Englewood

School (N): Ivy+WASP; H/Y/P/S/M; Ivy+

Brearley (46): 36 (78%); 14 (30%); 32 (70%)
Spence (64): 41 (64%); 12 (19%); 38 (59%)
Chapin (52): 32 (62%); 6 (12%); 28 (54%)
Dalton (59): 33 (56%); 13 (22%); 32 (54%)
Saint Ann's (73): 36 (49%); 7 (10%); 27 (37%)
Horace Mann (131): 64 (49%); 6 (5%); 63 (48%)
Trinity (109): 52 (48%); 13 (12%); 49 (45%)
Regis (79): 35 (44%); 6 (8%); 29 (37%)
Nightingale (57): 24 (42%); 1 (2%); 22 (39%)
Riverdale (128): 53 (41%); 11 (9%); 48 (38%)
Hunter (114): 46 (40%); 12 (11%); 42 (37%)
Browning (27): 10 (37%); 2 (7%); 10 (37%)
Packer (92): 28 (30%); 3 (3%); 23 (25%)
Fieldston (141): 42 (30%); 12 (9%); 40 (28%)
Friends Seminary (39): 11 (28%); 2 (5%); 10 (26%)
CGPS (119): 32 (27%); 3 (3%); 28 (24%)
Dwight-Englewood (124): 31 (25%); 8 (6%); 28 (23%)
Avenues (91): 21 (23%); 4 (4%); 20 (22%)
Trevor (87): 16 (18%); 1 (1%); 16 (18%)
Berkeley Carroll (77): 14 (18%); 0 (0%); 9 (12%)
Poly Prep (123): 22 (18%); 2 (2%); 22 (18%)
Grace Church (80): 14 (18%); 1 (1%); 13 (16%)
Sacred Heart (61): 10 (16%); 2 (3%); 10 (16%)
Marymount (70): 8 (11%); 1 (1%); 7 (10%)
Brooklyn Friends (48): 5 (10%); 0 (0%); 3 (6%)

H/Y/P/S/M = Harvard + Yale + Princeton + Stanford + MIT
Ivy+ = Ivy League + Stanford + MIT + Caltech + UChicago + Duke + Johns Hopkins + Northwestern + Vanderbilt
Ivy+WASP = Ivy+ + Williams + Amherst + Swarthmore + Pomona

Actual data from schools' websites. 5 year averages where available, otherwise, latest year(s) available averaged.

School N/yr Ivy+WASP H/Y/P/S/M Ivy+ Years (Averaged)
Brearley 61 60% 19% 53% 2021-2025
Spence 64 54% 17% 50% 2021-2025
Dalton 87 52% 16% 48% 2019-2024
Riverdale 116 46% 11% 43% 2020-2025
Saint Ann's 86 45% 13% 35% 2024-2025
Chapin 60 43% 11% 38% 2021-2025
Nightingale 57 33% 6% 28% 2021-2025
Fieldston 120 28% 3% 24% 2020-2025
Browning 25 25% 3% 23% 2021-2025
Regis 130 25% 6% 22% 2022-2025
Friends Seminary 74 24% 5% 21% 2021-2025
Packer 96 19% 5% 16% 2021-2025
Avenues 91 19% 3% 17% 2023
Dwight-Englewood 124 17% 3% 16% 2023-2025
Sacred Heart 56 16% 3% 15% 2021-2025
Poly Prep 128 15% 2% 12% 2021-2025
Marymount 50 14% 3% 13% 2020-2024

Horace Mann 180 42% 6% 42% 2023-2025 *** lower bound; missing Stanford, MIT, Caltech, Amherst, Williams; <5 students

BCS, BFS, CGPS, GCS, Hunter, Trevor, Trinity don't report #s, just schools.

I believe Collegiate also reports 5-year data on it's website.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Only these schools changed adding MIT: Spence +1, Dalton +1, Regis +2, Hunter +2, Fieldston +1.

Also added Hunter, Browning, and Dwight-Englewood

School (N): Ivy+WASP; H/Y/P/S/M; Ivy+

Brearley (46): 36 (78%); 14 (30%); 32 (70%)
Spence (64): 41 (64%); 12 (19%); 38 (59%)
Chapin (52): 32 (62%); 6 (12%); 28 (54%)
Dalton (59): 33 (56%); 13 (22%); 32 (54%)
Saint Ann's (73): 36 (49%); 7 (10%); 27 (37%)
Horace Mann (131): 64 (49%); 6 (5%); 63 (48%)
Trinity (109): 52 (48%); 13 (12%); 49 (45%)
Regis (79): 35 (44%); 6 (8%); 29 (37%)
Nightingale (57): 24 (42%); 1 (2%); 22 (39%)
Riverdale (128): 53 (41%); 11 (9%); 48 (38%)
Hunter (114): 46 (40%); 12 (11%); 42 (37%)
Browning (27): 10 (37%); 2 (7%); 10 (37%)
Packer (92): 28 (30%); 3 (3%); 23 (25%)
Fieldston (141): 42 (30%); 12 (9%); 40 (28%)
Friends Seminary (39): 11 (28%); 2 (5%); 10 (26%)
CGPS (119): 32 (27%); 3 (3%); 28 (24%)
Dwight-Englewood (124): 31 (25%); 8 (6%); 28 (23%)
Avenues (91): 21 (23%); 4 (4%); 20 (22%)
Trevor (87): 16 (18%); 1 (1%); 16 (18%)
Berkeley Carroll (77): 14 (18%); 0 (0%); 9 (12%)
Poly Prep (123): 22 (18%); 2 (2%); 22 (18%)
Grace Church (80): 14 (18%); 1 (1%); 13 (16%)
Sacred Heart (61): 10 (16%); 2 (3%); 10 (16%)
Marymount (70): 8 (11%); 1 (1%); 7 (10%)
Brooklyn Friends (48): 5 (10%); 0 (0%); 3 (6%)

H/Y/P/S/M = Harvard + Yale + Princeton + Stanford + MIT
Ivy+ = Ivy League + Stanford + MIT + Caltech + UChicago + Duke + Johns Hopkins + Northwestern + Vanderbilt
Ivy+WASP = Ivy+ + Williams + Amherst + Swarthmore + Pomona

Actual data from schools' websites. 5 year averages where available, otherwise, latest year(s) available averaged.

School N/yr Ivy+WASP H/Y/P/S/M Ivy+ Years (Averaged)
Brearley 61 60% 19% 53% 2021-2025
Spence 64 54% 17% 50% 2021-2025
Dalton 87 52% 16% 48% 2019-2024
Riverdale 116 46% 11% 43% 2020-2025
Saint Ann's 86 45% 13% 35% 2024-2025
Chapin 60 43% 11% 38% 2021-2025
Nightingale 57 33% 6% 28% 2021-2025
Fieldston 120 28% 3% 24% 2020-2025
Browning 25 25% 3% 23% 2021-2025
Regis 130 25% 6% 22% 2022-2025
Friends Seminary 74 24% 5% 21% 2021-2025
Packer 96 19% 5% 16% 2021-2025
Avenues 91 19% 3% 17% 2023
Dwight-Englewood 124 17% 3% 16% 2023-2025
Sacred Heart 56 16% 3% 15% 2021-2025
Poly Prep 128 15% 2% 12% 2021-2025
Marymount 50 14% 3% 13% 2020-2024

Horace Mann 180 42% 6% 42% 2023-2025 *** lower bound; missing Stanford, MIT, Caltech, Amherst, Williams; <5 students

BCS, BFS, CGPS, GCS, Hunter, Trevor, Trinity don't report #s, just schools.

Woow this is much more meaningful data! Thanks for putting this together

she still won't add the other colleges. this is Ivy+ or bust mom!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Only these schools changed adding MIT: Spence +1, Dalton +1, Regis +2, Hunter +2, Fieldston +1.

Also added Hunter, Browning, and Dwight-Englewood

School (N): Ivy+WASP; H/Y/P/S/M; Ivy+

Brearley (46): 36 (78%); 14 (30%); 32 (70%)
Spence (64): 41 (64%); 12 (19%); 38 (59%)
Chapin (52): 32 (62%); 6 (12%); 28 (54%)
Dalton (59): 33 (56%); 13 (22%); 32 (54%)
Saint Ann's (73): 36 (49%); 7 (10%); 27 (37%)
Horace Mann (131): 64 (49%); 6 (5%); 63 (48%)
Trinity (109): 52 (48%); 13 (12%); 49 (45%)
Regis (79): 35 (44%); 6 (8%); 29 (37%)
Nightingale (57): 24 (42%); 1 (2%); 22 (39%)
Riverdale (128): 53 (41%); 11 (9%); 48 (38%)
Hunter (114): 46 (40%); 12 (11%); 42 (37%)
Browning (27): 10 (37%); 2 (7%); 10 (37%)
Packer (92): 28 (30%); 3 (3%); 23 (25%)
Fieldston (141): 42 (30%); 12 (9%); 40 (28%)
Friends Seminary (39): 11 (28%); 2 (5%); 10 (26%)
CGPS (119): 32 (27%); 3 (3%); 28 (24%)
Dwight-Englewood (124): 31 (25%); 8 (6%); 28 (23%)
Avenues (91): 21 (23%); 4 (4%); 20 (22%)
Trevor (87): 16 (18%); 1 (1%); 16 (18%)
Berkeley Carroll (77): 14 (18%); 0 (0%); 9 (12%)
Poly Prep (123): 22 (18%); 2 (2%); 22 (18%)
Grace Church (80): 14 (18%); 1 (1%); 13 (16%)
Sacred Heart (61): 10 (16%); 2 (3%); 10 (16%)
Marymount (70): 8 (11%); 1 (1%); 7 (10%)
Brooklyn Friends (48): 5 (10%); 0 (0%); 3 (6%)

H/Y/P/S/M = Harvard + Yale + Princeton + Stanford + MIT
Ivy+ = Ivy League + Stanford + MIT + Caltech + UChicago + Duke + Johns Hopkins + Northwestern + Vanderbilt
Ivy+WASP = Ivy+ + Williams + Amherst + Swarthmore + Pomona

Actual data from schools' websites. 5 year averages where available, otherwise, latest year(s) available averaged.

School N/yr Ivy+WASP H/Y/P/S/M Ivy+ Years (Averaged)
Brearley 61 60% 19% 53% 2021-2025
Spence 64 54% 17% 50% 2021-2025
Dalton 87 52% 16% 48% 2019-2024
Riverdale 116 46% 11% 43% 2020-2025
Saint Ann's 86 45% 13% 35% 2024-2025
Chapin 60 43% 11% 38% 2021-2025
Nightingale 57 33% 6% 28% 2021-2025
Fieldston 120 28% 3% 24% 2020-2025
Browning 25 25% 3% 23% 2021-2025
Regis 130 25% 6% 22% 2022-2025
Friends Seminary 74 24% 5% 21% 2021-2025
Packer 96 19% 5% 16% 2021-2025
Avenues 91 19% 3% 17% 2023
Dwight-Englewood 124 17% 3% 16% 2023-2025
Sacred Heart 56 16% 3% 15% 2021-2025
Poly Prep 128 15% 2% 12% 2021-2025
Marymount 50 14% 3% 13% 2020-2024

Horace Mann 180 42% 6% 42% 2023-2025 *** lower bound; missing Stanford, MIT, Caltech, Amherst, Williams; <5 students

BCS, BFS, CGPS, GCS, Hunter, Trevor, Trinity don't report #s, just schools.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Almost all these endowments were in early rounds at SpaceX, Anthropic, OpenAI etc. They're about to reap huge gains. (WashU has already announced). They do using federal cuts as cover to cut things they've wanted to cut, and add some public facing cuts (no more food to-go containers at Yale!), but they're richer than ever. And all WASPS were unaffected as they had under 3000 students. Richest schools like Princeton that had under 3000 "tuition-paying" students also unaffected.

These top college would like to keep tuition-paying enrollment under 3k. Which means increasing aid to full-tuition packages to more not less

They're going to get their research grants back somewhere from 1-3 years from now too, they still have to cover payroll in the meantime. Harvard took out a dang bridge loan, I don't think they're tapping into their credit rating and paying out interest for funsies.

And again, most of the endowment money can't be used to cover operating expenses - if your endowment grows by 30%, that's great for the stuff you're allowed to spend your endowment on, but you can't simply cash out a billion dollars and use it to pay for whatever.

Universities routinely issue debt for projects and operations. They have been doing it for decades. Harvard issued bonds earlier this year. Their cost of capital was under 3% as the rating agencies (which know much more about this than you) continue to rate them AAA and investors (who also know more about this than you) have strong faith in Harvard. And they are usually able to issue tax-exempt debt so the interest rates they pay are lower than corporate debt. Doesn't it make sense to borrow at these low rates rather than tap into your endowment which will likely be returning a much higher interest rate? It is basic math.

I can't stand people who ignorantly think that universities/hospitals/municipalities issuing debt is a sign of weakness. It is a sign of using their brains. Leverage is great when used wisely. If a university starts going overboard with the leverage, the rating agencies call them out on it. That is far from the case here, and with most other schools issuing debt.

I didn't say it was a sign of weakness. I think it's reasonable to say that they're under more financial strain than normal - the grant cuts have been very widely reported - and that they might want to take some modest measures like letting in an extra 50 rich kids (who happen to be predominately white yes I said it look at the demographics for most of these schools) to help close the gap.

Actually, there is a good chance the rich kids are Asian. Though again, not sure why race is relevant or needs to be mentioned. But you keep on winning. Clearly not a Harvard grad. Or even Yale. Or Cornell.

I cannot tell you how delightful I find it that "private school matriculations are doing well because colleges are letting in more rich kids for financial reasons" is upsetting you in this way. (I did in fact go to Harvard though since this is anonymous forum I have no way to prove it, which is also where I formed my cynical views of rich private school kids going to Harvard)

For a Harvard alum you completely lack reading comprehension as well as EQ skills. And lack understanding of basic statistics. Or for a citizen of the world for that matter. Jeez. Sorry you have kept such a chip on your shoulder about people with wealth. Not a fun way to go through life. Your four years at Harvard (or however long you were there) must have been miserable.

When I interact with people I try not to focus on race, gender, wealth, etc. But if someone proves themselves repeatedly not to be that sharp I do notice that...

Yeah, now you're also demonstrating why I feel the way I do about rich people so kudos for helping to reconfirm me in my life choices.

I'm not rich. Comfortably UMC. But definitely not rich. Keep on digging.

So you're a UMC person pushing back against my besmirching of rich people, even more delightful.

Again - I did not "push back against besmirching of rich people." I pushed back primarily against the fact that you said it was only white rich people. Race has zero to do with this. By the law of averages, yes, if this were to happen (which is subject to debate but is not the point I am debating) then a lot of them would likely be white. But plenty could be other races. And their race should have nothing to do with the logic of this argument. But your need to drop race into this completely blows up your potential point.

Though to what seems to be your point, I do hate people who insist that all "rich people," regardless of race, who get into these schools are "mediocre" (hate that word - usage of it in this context is ironically a sign of "mediocrity"). Yes, there are plenty of less qualified people who get into top schools because of their money - I would never deny that (certified moron and your fellow Harvard alum Jared Kushner says hi). But just because someone is wealthy and got into a top school doesn't make them dumb and doesn't mean they just got in because they are rich. Kind of like just because someone is a minority or FGLI or an athlete or whatever else doesn't mean they wouldn't have gotten in regardless of their preferred quality. That is an incredibly simplistic way of looking at the world. MLK would be rolling over in his grave...

You just acknowledged that most of these kids are white and acknowledged that less qualified people get into schools because of their money, I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with me on here other than my tone/attitude.

If you have a better explanation for why so many more private school kids are getting into top colleges this year than last year other than money I'd love to hear it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Only these schools changed adding MIT: Spence +1, Dalton +1, Regis +2, Hunter +2, Fieldston +1.

Also added Hunter, Browning, and Dwight-Englewood

School (N): Ivy+WASP; H/Y/P/S/M; Ivy+

Brearley (46): 36 (78%); 14 (30%); 32 (70%)
Spence (64): 41 (64%); 12 (19%); 38 (59%)
Chapin (52): 32 (62%); 6 (12%); 28 (54%)
Dalton (59): 33 (56%); 13 (22%); 32 (54%)
Saint Ann's (73): 36 (49%); 7 (10%); 27 (37%)
Horace Mann (131): 64 (49%); 6 (5%); 63 (48%)
Trinity (109): 52 (48%); 13 (12%); 49 (45%)
Regis (79): 35 (44%); 6 (8%); 29 (37%)
Nightingale (57): 24 (42%); 1 (2%); 22 (39%)
Riverdale (128): 53 (41%); 11 (9%); 48 (38%)
Hunter (114): 46 (40%); 12 (11%); 42 (37%)
Browning (27): 10 (37%); 2 (7%); 10 (37%)
Packer (92): 28 (30%); 3 (3%); 23 (25%)
Fieldston (141): 42 (30%); 12 (9%); 40 (28%)
Friends Seminary (39): 11 (28%); 2 (5%); 10 (26%)
CGPS (119): 32 (27%); 3 (3%); 28 (24%)
Dwight-Englewood (124): 31 (25%); 8 (6%); 28 (23%)
Avenues (91): 21 (23%); 4 (4%); 20 (22%)
Trevor (87): 16 (18%); 1 (1%); 16 (18%)
Berkeley Carroll (77): 14 (18%); 0 (0%); 9 (12%)
Poly Prep (123): 22 (18%); 2 (2%); 22 (18%)
Grace Church (80): 14 (18%); 1 (1%); 13 (16%)
Sacred Heart (61): 10 (16%); 2 (3%); 10 (16%)
Marymount (70): 8 (11%); 1 (1%); 7 (10%)
Brooklyn Friends (48): 5 (10%); 0 (0%); 3 (6%)

H/Y/P/S/M = Harvard + Yale + Princeton + Stanford + MIT
Ivy+ = Ivy League + Stanford + MIT + Caltech + UChicago + Duke + Johns Hopkins + Northwestern + Vanderbilt
Ivy+WASP = Ivy+ + Williams + Amherst + Swarthmore + Pomona

Actual data from schools' websites. 5 year averages where available, otherwise, latest year(s) available averaged.

School N/yr Ivy+WASP H/Y/P/S/M Ivy+ Years (Averaged)
Brearley 61 60% 19% 53% 2021-2025
Spence 64 54% 17% 50% 2021-2025
Dalton 87 52% 16% 48% 2019-2024
Riverdale 116 46% 11% 43% 2020-2025
Saint Ann's 86 45% 13% 35% 2024-2025
Chapin 60 43% 11% 38% 2021-2025
Nightingale 57 33% 6% 28% 2021-2025
Fieldston 120 28% 3% 24% 2020-2025
Browning 25 25% 3% 23% 2021-2025
Regis 130 25% 6% 22% 2022-2025
Friends Seminary 74 24% 5% 21% 2021-2025
Packer 96 19% 5% 16% 2021-2025
Avenues 91 19% 3% 17% 2023
Dwight-Englewood 124 17% 3% 16% 2023-2025
Sacred Heart 56 16% 3% 15% 2021-2025
Poly Prep 128 15% 2% 12% 2021-2025
Marymount 50 14% 3% 13% 2020-2024

Horace Mann 180 42% 6% 42% 2023-2025 *** lower bound; missing Stanford, MIT, Caltech, Amherst, Williams; <5 students

BCS, BFS, CGPS, GCS, Hunter, Trevor, Trinity don't report #s, just schools.

Woow this is much more meaningful data! Thanks for putting this together

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if you should have done this with last year's data. This year is still coming in. I know Regis, for example, hasn't posted a kid who got into Harvard.

HYPS is weird, no? Isn't it usually HYPSM?

Most of the schools post 5 year matriculation on their websites. That would be the most fulsome data.

this year is across the board better than the five year average

Anyone knows why ?

Every university in America is financially struggling right now and every TT/2T/3T has an abundance of families that can help with that problem.

Schools with $10BN+ endowments aren't financially struggling.

Actually they are; they're generally extremely limited in what they can do with most of that endowment money and they're neither willing nor able to dip into it to sustain operations. And in general, the richer the university, the more money they're getting from research grants and the more eager the current administration is to hurt them by cutting those.