<p>Parlabane, “faux outrage”? So it’s OK for you to tell ALL the posters on this thread including OP who asked a question and those who simply provided some published statistics without any comments to “get a life”?</p>
<p>DAndrew - IF you read my posts, you would see that I said this thread “started honestly” and THEN devolved into the usual statistical sniping (over immaterial differences among the best boarding schools). It’s enough to make the hardiest prep school reader run for the Ipecac.</p>
<p>Whoa guys, enough mudslinging here.
Parlabane, your comment is very well-taken. I myself was hesitant to make my posts an argument over x% decreases or increases. As quite apparent in my first post in the thread, I never meant this to be a rant on the effect of Gateway on prep school admissions. Nonetheless, I don’t think anyone ever mentioned that school x is better than school y because of some admit rate. We’re all talking about top-tier schools here, and we all know you can’t go wrong at any of these great schools. So by addressing some statistics, I don’t think people here were trying to measure if one school is “better” than another. For me, it was all about an apparent shift in the admissions landscape that seemed to materialize in the admit rates for each school. The Gateway app is definitely worth probing into for its effect so far on admissions.</p>
<p>Also, you’re right in saying mere percentages don’t and shouldn’t be a way to determine the “quality” of each of these amazing boarding schools. But it is also true and understandable that many, if not most, applicants look at admit rates to compile their school lists, and mere percentages could be a significant factor in distinguishing a reach school from a match, or a super reach school from a sort of reach school. Accurate or not, admit rates are, by definition, meant to represent how “difficult” it is to get into a school, and people tend to correlate the “difficulty of getting in” with the popularity, advantages, or even the quality of a school. </p>
<p>But in any case, it seemed to me that most people here were very skeptical about Gateway’s effects on admissions, so I presented some statistics to show a significant change in admissions that could be very important for prospective students to keep in mind. This is much more about the changing admissions landscape (and the misrepresentative admit rates that this shift may have caused) than about some petty details that don’t really matter.</p>
<p>I don’t know how many people here are “making a big deal” of x% of difference in admit rates. In the discussion on Exeter’s admit rate, I didn’t participate much but if I had that’d be because I was curious. Exeter has had higher admit rate than peer schools such as Andover, Deerfield and SPS for at least 3 years now. The other schools’ admit rate was lower each year compared with the last. It didn’t happen just this past year, when Gateway was adopted. I actually don’t see a big impact of Gateway on at least the above mentioned 3 schools. Hotchkiss’ drop in admit rate (16% if true) on the other hand was somewhat “steep” and I don’t know if that had anything to do with Gateway. Why is Exeter’s admit rate higher than some peer schools year after year?</p>
<p>DAndrew, where are you getting info from? I’m just curious. I’m pretty sure the year before I applied and the year I applied, Exeter’s admit rates were 16% and 17%, respectively… I can’t claim to be certain though; those are just the numbers I seem to remember. </p>
<p>If you want some speculation as to the admit rate, here is a sketchy theory I have: about 45-49% of Exonians receive need-based financial aid, while DA, Hotchkiss, and SPS are about 32-36% (ignoring Andover here, because they are the only need-blind school at the moment). Given the significant difference in FA students, maybe PEA feels like we have to accept more rich kids to make up our endowment decrease from over 1 billion to around 800mil. Yet we also can’t just give up poor kids, so we just accept a lot of poor kids and rich kids, pushing up the overall admit rate. Again, very sketchy theory; just thought I would throw it out there.</p>
<p>ah accidental double post. idk how this happened</p>
<p>here we go again, about the “rich kids” theory, that rich kids are somehow unqualified or lesser qualified and because we have to take them for financial reasons, we over admit so that we can take the financially lesser off kids which drives up the overall admit rate.</p>
<p>it’s much more complicated than that. There is no data to support, as a whole, kids who don’t need FA are any less qualified than there FA counterpart.</p>
<p>You have to have some pretty darn good stats either way to get an offer. An applicant who has talent for basoon can be equally poor or rich.</p>
<p>Although some argue that its easier for FA kids to get in, based on the need for the BSs to have diversity, racially, geographically, and financially, I think the playing fields are pretty equal. One could even argue that kids who need FA have an easier time getting in as schools look to give out “opportunities,” and kids who don’t need FA don’t need the opportunity of a BS so much, can afford private tutors etc.</p>
<p>With the admit rate about 50-50% for FA and FP, I’d like to stamp out that spurious assumption.</p>
<p>Admission rates are calculated by number of accepted students over completed applications (hopefully). </p>
<p>But many factors may affect the number of completed applications a school receives - for example numbers of applications to some schools went up (a lot) when they joined the Common Application pool - similar effects are seen in colleges who join the common application process - suddenly they look a lot more selective because it is far easier to apply.</p>
<p>Contrast the difficulty of HAND WRITING pages of essays and mailing them in versus clicking an “apply” button next to the school name on the common app. when you have already filled out the application for another school. Why not ?</p>
<p>Schools are also subject to self-selection bias. Some encourage specific classes of applicants (certain sports, academic interests or programs). Like MIT but on a prep school level. </p>
<p>Lastly, schools that put huge amounts of resources into encouraging applicants nationally and internationally may have an eye towards the “admit rate” looking more selective. </p>
<p>So be careful is assuming a “more selective” school would be harder for you to get in to, or would necessarily mean a higher quality of student…</p>
<p>x% (often < 5%) of difference in admit rate can hardly be used to judge the quality of student body, especially when all the schools compared have < 20% admit rate. Then of course, there’s no reason to speculate a more selective school has poorer quality of students either.</p>
<p>I agree that a certain school can be appealing to a certain type of students, and may “turn off” some other appliants. Whether the school is actively (or how actively) pursue more applicants can be a factor too.</p>
<p>Lexus vs BMW.</p>
<p>^ Exactly!!!</p>
<p>I seem to recall that when my son applied to Exeter he was required to write one of the essays out by hand. Seems that this could significantly discourage “long shot” applications, and significantly reduce the number of completed applications versus peer schools.</p>
<p>I’m backing up my pal RBG2 on the “Rich Kid Theory.” On some rare occasions an alum with a lot of clout (and built a building) can push their kid into the system. But for the most part it is not “easier” for a rich kid to get in regardless of their stats.</p>
<p>What makes it “seem” easier is that the Boarding schools have a limited pool of funds they can use to provide FA. Much of the FA is in the form of partial grants to middle class families with a portion of those funds being made available to students needing full financial aid (many of whom are also middle class). So the bulk of the slots will go to full pay students simply because the economics work out that way.</p>
<p>Within the “full pay” bucket are thousands of children vying for a few hundred spots. So at many schools a lot of full-pay families are being turned down. There just aren’t enough slots for everyone who wants them.</p>
<p>Also - Adcoms are hand selecting their incoming class. I heard that term at a school orientation over the weekend and loved it. Because it implies an imperfect and subjective process to build a strong and diverse class in terms of economics, thought process, general interests, geographic region, etc.</p>
<p>We can all look for loopholes and weaknesses to explain how the “black hole” works. But the reality is - too many good kids all looking for the answers when the answer really is - just be the best you can, stop stressing over the perfect essay length, the perfect grades, the perfect set of EC’s and focus more on quality than quantity. </p>
<p>Be memorable - in a good (albeit flawed) way. You’re app is sitting in a pile of cookie cutter applications that aren’t (because everyone focused on what was obvious instead of what was not). Imperfect kids are more fun to work with than the ones who seem like they “have it all” and won’t grow from or lend something to the campus culture.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Let’s look at something from Groton’s site:
[Groton</a> School :: Admission :: Financial Aid Topics](<a href=“http://www.groton.org/contentPage.aspx?pageId=45465§ionId=404]Groton”>http://www.groton.org/contentPage.aspx?pageId=45465§ionId=404)</p>
<p>It seems like it’s easier for those not applying for financial aid to get in. You know, because the admit rates for them are higher. </p>
<p>Just wanted to point that out. And, I’m not posting again on this thread. It’s mainly just a flame war.</p>
<p>Yes, just to clarify what ifax is saying, no one is suggesting FP kids are in anyways less qualified. All he is saying is that it is more difficult to get in as a FA student in most cases.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There’s no correlation at all, and I’m sorry if I came off as suggesting being rich correlated with being underqualified. Again, in my original post, I said the theory I put forth was sketchy and probably not the case. On the other hand, a slightly more desirable FA student may be passed up for a slightly less desirable EFC=full tuition student, and that’s understandable; it’s to be expected of schools that aren’t need blind. How large the socioeconomic gap can be between these two students to push the richer one over the poorer one is another question. Well, I’m not going to complain either way. Exeter has been over and beyond generous with my financial aid, especially for a non-need-blind school. Again, I’m not posting to make a statement, but rather to just provide some food for thought. I’m sorry you took it so seriously.</p>
<p>Oh, and the other people: have fun arguing about Gateway and non-Gateway usage; personally, I don’t think it makes a big difference. I had fun hand-writing my essay for Exeter.</p>
<p>Socialisgood,</p>
<p>I enjoyed reading your well-written and thoughtful post. </p>
<p>No matter how I parse it, however, your analogy between the Common Application and the Gateway Application remains an imperfect one for me. Think about it this way. The Common Application permits a college applicant to take advantage of the convenience of writing only one generic essay for multiple colleges. By contrast, the Gateway Application requires a prep school applicant to engage in the time-consuming task of writing multiple essays for a single prep school. And that doesnt even include the numerous parents essays and school-specific forms, which each Gateway prep school typically requires. </p>
<p>You are correct to observe that many top colleges require a supplement to the Common Application. But which, for example, is the more daunting and time-consuming prospect: a senior writing one generic and one supplemental essay each for his Common Applications to Harvard and Yale, or an eighth grader composing a total of seven demanding essays for his Gateway Applications to Andover and SPS. </p>
<p>Even if your Common Application analogy applied, the conclusion you draw still misses the mark. You argue by analogy that as Columbias adoption of the Common Application resulted in a decrease of its admissions rate, Exeters failure to become a Gateway school has resulted in a corresponding increase of its admission rate relative to the lower admission rates of Gateway schools such as Andover, Deerfield, SPS, and Hotchkiss. </p>
<p>However, no less an authority than the Dean of Undergraduate Admission at Columbia stated that the Common Application was merely one of several causes that led to the decrease you cite in the admission rate at Columbia. Hence, even if your Columbia example were an apt analogy, no one could use it to argue that Exeters admit rate is higher than the admit rates at Andover, Deerfield, SPS, and Hotchkiss simply because they accept the Gateway application, whereas Exeter does not. </p>
<p>It is true, of course, that the Gateway application allows applicants to re-use their candidate profile if they apply to more than one Gateway school. However, it is equally evident that students apply to prep schools for a host of reasons unrelated to the marginal convenience that the Gateway application thus affords them. For example, thousands of students apply to Exeter every year because it has deservedly carved a niche for itself as a uniquely outstanding school an idiosyncratic status that its non-participation in the Gateway process may cultivate.</p>
<p>Given the multiplicity of reasons that lead students to apply to prep schools, I believe its a stretch to argue that the marginal convenience of the Gateway Application is a pivotal factor in prep school admission rates. This is especially true since prep school recruitment and student perceptions of fit almost certainly play a larger role in determining the number of applications prep schools receive. Hence, I gently suggest that it is important not to overstate the significance of the Gateway application. If it is a factor in prep school admission rates, it is only one factor among many others. And it does not, in any event, alter the fact that Exeter is an excellent school with outstanding students such as yourself.</p>
<p>Again, I enjoyed your post. Best of luck in your upcoming year at Exeter.</p>
<p>Going back to answering the original question of what admissions rates are at different schools, I just found this link: </p>
<p><a href=“http://www.hotchkiss.org/documents/ADMIITED%20CLASS%20PROFILE%20~%20Entry%20Fall%202011.pdf[/url]”>http://www.hotchkiss.org/documents/ADMIITED%20CLASS%20PROFILE%20~%20Entry%20Fall%202011.pdf</a> </p>
<p>I found it informative as it gives a snapshot of what kids are up against at admissions at Hotchkiss. I wonder if other schools post something similar that is up-to-date, because I suspect that many other stats being discussed are from previous years. I am sure a few percentage points in either direction between schools is not very meaningful, but I do think trends are important. My personal sense from going through the application process for two kids this year is that admissions applications were up across the board, and that this trend will continue as long as local options continue to deteriorate.</p>
<p>Day student rates likey affect yield. Andover, for example, is 30% day students. Local students applying as day students are more likely to attend if they are admitted, compared to admitted boarders who have a much wider choice of boarding schools. Schools with higher day student percentages have “higher” yield. SPS is particularly impressive with a high yield and 0% day students. Exeter has 20% day students.</p>
<p>Legacies affect yield. Legacy applicants are much more likely to attend their family legacy school, so schools with more legacy applicants have “higher” yields. SPS legacy has been cited elsewhere on this board as very high (as much as 40% ??). Exeter’s is 13%. Does anyone have Andover’s percentage of attending students who are legacies?</p>
<p>There was a discussion here on the yield with boarding students. It’s said Andover comes on top in that respect, but only 1% higher than SPS. As for number/percentage of legacy students, Exeter seems to be the only school that publishes that data, so there’s no comparison there. SPS number (40%) is probably wrong.</p>