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.

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.

SAT may reward students who have grit, who don’t easily give up - but isn’t that the type of student who universities want? Kids who have mental fortitude? By the way student are usually dynamic in many other ways too - passionate, sense of humor, self motivated, courageous.

I know so many students who are children of immigrants who self study for the SATs (and the APs) who do extremely well. Yes, they are intelligence and that’s what the test captures to a degree, but they also have grit. Boatloads of it.

The kids who don’t do well are missing academic foundations and tend to give up easily. It doesn’t mean they’re not intelligent, they’re just missing some core knowledge.

You're putting too much stock in the SAT.

It's all based on test preparation. That's it.

Some posters try to romanticize the poor (Asian or Indian) immigrants who self study for the SAT. False. The South Asian and Asian culture is rampant with test prep cram mills. The kids all prep for these exams via test prep services. Yes, the UMC households can afford test prep, but it doesn't negate the fact that Asian households- regardless of income- use test prep services extensively.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That totally explains things. Those darn Asians with their cash only businesses. So clever.

Anonymous wrote:Guess everyone agrees now?

Trump’s Deals With Top Colleges May Give Rich Applicants a Bigger Edge

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/07/upshot/trump-college-admissions-race-wealth.html

The public release of data on test scores and race could wind up making wealth even more influential in admissions.

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.”

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.

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.

SAT may reward students who have grit, who don’t easily give up - but isn’t that the type of student who universities want? Kids who have mental fortitude? By the way student are usually dynamic in many other ways too - passionate, sense of humor, self motivated, courageous.

I know so many students who are children of immigrants who self study for the SATs (and the APs) who do extremely well. Yes, they are intelligence and that’s what the test captures to a degree, but they also have grit. Boatloads of it.

The kids who don’t do well are missing academic foundations and tend to give up easily. It doesn’t mean they’re not intelligent, they’re just missing some core knowledge.

You're putting too much stock in the SAT.

It's all based on test preparation. That's it.

Some posters try to romanticize the poor (Asian or Indian) immigrants who self study for the SAT. False. The South Asian and Asian culture is rampant with test prep cram mills. The kids all prep for these exams via test prep services. Yes, the UMC households can afford test prep, but it doesn't negate the fact that Asian households- regardless of income- use test prep services extensively.

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.

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.

SAT may reward students who have grit, who don’t easily give up - but isn’t that the type of student who universities want? Kids who have mental fortitude? By the way student are usually dynamic in many other ways too - passionate, sense of humor, self motivated, courageous.

I know so many students who are children of immigrants who self study for the SATs (and the APs) who do extremely well. Yes, they are intelligence and that’s what the test captures to a degree, but they also have grit. Boatloads of it.

The kids who don’t do well are missing academic foundations and tend to give up easily. It doesn’t mean they’re not intelligent, they’re just missing some core knowledge.

You're putting too much stock in the SAT.

It's all based on test preparation. That's it.

Some posters try to romanticize the poor (Asian or Indian) immigrants who self study for the SAT. False. The South Asian and Asian culture is rampant with test prep cram mills. The kids all prep for these exams via test prep services. Yes, the UMC households can afford test prep, but it doesn't negate the fact that Asian households- regardless of income- use test prep services extensively.

NP. If it were all based on test prep, there wouldn't be so many UMC and wealthy families advocating for test optional. More would have high scores.

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.

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.

SAT may reward students who have grit, who don’t easily give up - but isn’t that the type of student who universities want? Kids who have mental fortitude? By the way student are usually dynamic in many other ways too - passionate, sense of humor, self motivated, courageous.

I know so many students who are children of immigrants who self study for the SATs (and the APs) who do extremely well. Yes, they are intelligence and that’s what the test captures to a degree, but they also have grit. Boatloads of it.

The kids who don’t do well are missing academic foundations and tend to give up easily. It doesn’t mean they’re not intelligent, they’re just missing some core knowledge.

You're putting too much stock in the SAT.

It's all based on test preparation. That's it.

Some posters try to romanticize the poor (Asian or Indian) immigrants who self study for the SAT. False. The South Asian and Asian culture is rampant with test prep cram mills. The kids all prep for these exams via test prep services. Yes, the UMC households can afford test prep, but it doesn't negate the fact that Asian households- regardless of income- use test prep services extensively.

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.

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.

SAT may reward students who have grit, who don’t easily give up - but isn’t that the type of student who universities want? Kids who have mental fortitude? By the way student are usually dynamic in many other ways too - passionate, sense of humor, self motivated, courageous.

I know so many students who are children of immigrants who self study for the SATs (and the APs) who do extremely well. Yes, they are intelligence and that’s what the test captures to a degree, but they also have grit. Boatloads of it.

The kids who don’t do well are missing academic foundations and tend to give up easily. It doesn’t mean they’re not intelligent, they’re just missing some core knowledge.

Anonymous wrote:Guess everyone agrees now?

Trump’s Deals With Top Colleges May Give Rich Applicants a Bigger Edge

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/07/upshot/trump-college-admissions-race-wealth.html

The public release of data on test scores and race could wind up making wealth even more influential in admissions.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You think the asian business owners live in NYC rather than Long island, new Jersey, white plains or connecticut?
And they are running cash businesses that report under $50K/year in income?

GTFOH.

When you go to successful chinese restaurants, there are more waiters than owners, the waiters are poor.
When you go to the korean supermarket, there are more korean workers than owners, the workers are poor.
The poverty rate among asians in NYC is higher than in any other group except maybe hispanics depending on the year.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s not that full pay matters, it’s that rich people spend more $$$s on SAT prep and other things that help applicants. Thats what the article says.

One could argue it means you should spend more on that stuff vs saving for college to gain admittance to schools with great aid.

Your headline implies that schools are looking for more full pay applicants which is not what the story mentions at all.

Exactly. Elites spend more money on coaches, club sports fees, houses to get into better school districts, private school tuition, summer programs, math tutors, spanish tutors, AP test tutors, SAT tutors, ACT tutors, writing tutors, pay to play summer programs at colleges they want admission into, you name it ... It's not just about being able to pay college tuition and not need aid. It's about all the advantages Larlo has growing up high income and spoiled (in the top 5%-ish). But let's all pretend SAT scores and GPA are all "merit" and not paid improvements.

they may be paid for but they are real improvements. Larlo will have higher cognitive ability than the non-larlos of the world

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.

I agree. I am the earlier poster who gave examples of expensive ECs. We could afford private, but choose to live in a wealthy neighborhood where my kids attend public school. Half my neighborhood sends their kids to various privates, including Sidwell (grandparents pay for tuition) and Landon. The other half is like us. The wealthiest are not necessarily the ones who choose private, let's leave it at that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s not that full pay matters, it’s that rich people spend more $$$s on SAT prep and other things that help applicants. Thats what the article says.

One could argue it means you should spend more on that stuff vs saving for college to gain admittance to schools with great aid.

Your headline implies that schools are looking for more full pay applicants which is not what the story mentions at all.

Yes, looks like OP can't even read the articles she links to. Or is she deliberately trying to mislead people?

It’s the article’s title.

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.

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.