Are BSs really a crapshoot for all?

Prep School Admissions
1

First, this is just my opinion, and I’m completely open for anyone else’s ideas.
A lot of people on CC often repeat to hopeful applicants that it’s all a crapshoot, and that is all comes down to luck. I actually got my idea from a very informative passage about college applications (Harvard). And although colleges and BSs have minor differences, I think that they both have similar admissions patterns (I guess).

  1. Most people who are exceptional in one field (ie. a particular sport, an instrument, or a subject) are very likely to impress more than well-rounded applicants, also commonly known as a spike. This would entail national or even international recognition.
  2. If we subtract all the ‘spiked’ applicants, we are left with what many CCers refer to as ‘qualifiable applicant’, and this is just pretty much a crapshoot.

I was wondering if any others share this view at all on elite BSs, and if any of you all disagree?
Thanks!

2

I think I would agree. You skipped the legacy category as well as underrepresented students the institution seeks to include.

3

I think it depends on the school. Smaller schools might need kids who can play multiple roles in different areas vs. ones who spend most of their free time specializing in one singular activity where they already excel. There might be more room for “spikey” kids at the very large schools.

A small school might need a kid who plays multiple sports, AND violin in the orchestra, AND can edit the yearbook, AND be part of the debate team. A larger school might prefer having the country’s best debater, even if they don’t play sports or an instrument… Or the fastest swimmer in the age group, even if they aren’t interested in other activities.

4

@CaliMex - exactly.

5

@babymalcolm I agree with you.

6

This is my general sense of how admissions committee goes:

First they look at the development kids and decide who to take
Next comes the faculty and legacy children
Third is the athletes
Fourth is the URM and other special talents (music, arts, etc)
Then whatever space is leftover is split in half (males vs females) and then they simply take the best of whatever is left. This is the stage where financial aid plays a huge role at most schools.

There aren’t many spots leftover at the end. So being able to stand out in a distinguished pool certainly helps. Now some schools may slightly change the order a bit (prefer URM over athletes), but in general most schools follow some similar type of approach.

7

Boarding schools need at least 50% of students that are full pay… And if you are a high donor they need you too. Being full pay or a large donor can make up for weaker ECs or grades. Usually not both, but depends on the school and the year.

8

Some further stats for other applicants, from my opinion (with some estimates):

As mentioned above, there are ‘strong legacy’ applicants (and faculty) as well as development cases. URMs and those with unique stories would go next. Of course there are athletes, which can be an easy shoe-in. The rest, which I would estimate at 2500 (rather generously) out of 3000 applicants, are suddenly vying for at most 200 spots. That’s a crapshoot with an 8% success rate.

That’s a pretty tough lottery to win, unless of course you have on of those hooks.

9

I read all the above posts and all I can say is this: It’s only December and I am so depressed :((

10

@golfgr8: don’t be depressed. Just learn how the system works, and adjust strategy accordingly. Just be wise in how the application states your achievements. Try to fit yourself into one of the buckets above.

11

The silver lining is that you don’t need to be someone you’re not or do things you dislike to get into BS. They either need you or they don’t, just as you are.

But take heart… if you have the stats to get into a truly crapshoot school and are worried about bad luck, you have the stats to get into many BS. Make your list carefully and don’t believe for a second that you won’t get a great education or have an amazing experience at a school that is not an acronym school.

12

From what I hear the acceptance rate for legacy is only marginally better than acceptance rate without legacy (2-3 percentage point difference), also there are only a few kids who are sports stars, majority of kids who are admitted are good in sports but not necessarily stars…Some don’t do sports at all. URMs are also small percent of overall…I think it is good to be strong in something or somethings but not necessarily exceptional. I think even if you take out spikes, star atheletes, URMs …there should still be a good number of spots for everyone especially if you consider private schools which are not necessarily acronym schools. Being FP increases your chances because that’s a separate pool compared to FA pool which is more competitive. Where you are from also matters…schools take a lot of pride in showing how many countries or states the kids are coming from…I think in the end there is a bit of luck …being the right fit for the available slot probably matters…Those are my two cents any way…

13

@Sush2016 WRONG. Each school wants smart kids to fill teams Varsity and JV; the schools are aiming for 50% persons of color; legacy and development pay the bills. At PA and PEA , SPS and a few others full pay matters less. the endowments give them a lot of freedom.

14

@center you probably know more than me regarding percentage of various categories…so won’t argue…It just doesn’t seem like there are 50% persons of color and legacy in a few schools I have seen…what’s development by the way? Places like PA and PEA and other top schools are of course going to be very selective and high academic performance is to be expected …but hard to imagine that’s the case everywhere …right?

I do agree that even with FP…it is highly competitive …and yes, I do agree they are looking for smart kids, who can play in various teams and play instruments, represent the school in various ways…etc etc…

15

I doubt most admissions committees expect 13/14 year olds (age of most applicants) to be “spikey” because most aren’t at that age.

16

I guess, but I think it’s important to have a clear passion on an application, not just a bunch of clubs and whatnot. Of course, I don’t expect applicants to have won prestigious international competitions already (although some have), but as long as an applicant has a clear passion, and something to prove it, eg. awards, research, etc. then it will make a large difference to just an ‘average’ applicant

17

Let’s not confuse applying for 9th grade with applying to college or grad school. How much “research” could a 13/14 year old have?

Sure, BSs look for older students who are impact players in sports, younger students with potential to be one of those impact players, kids who can contribute to plays, band, orchestra, the student newspaper, etc., and most importantly, IMO, kids who are willing to try new things and join. But, being well rounded is perfectly fine. In fact, I think it is favored unless you are maybe going to the few schools that number 1,000 kids or more. Most schools want - really need - students who are joiners and wear many hats to populate all those teams, clubs, activities. It’s why most schools require students to participate in sports every term. 13/14 year olds start as well-rounded and then might become more pointy throughout their high school years, many trying and excelling at an activity for the very first time. Example: most students who wind up rowing on the crew teams did not have previous experience at all.

Signed,
Parent of two successful applicants who were much more well-rounded than pointy

18

@Sush2016 sorry I was so blunt —but I think people way under-estimate how many spots are actually available for every class. Because there are so many slots with a a need attached. Every year they need X number of kids for each sporting team (JV and Varsity multiplied by 30, 40 or 50 teams) and for music and theater and everything else. So there are so many moving parts that I do think its a “crap shoot” in so far as do you fit the right bucket in the right year at the right school. You are right that there arent 50% persons of color and legacy but there are goals that are there…and they fill the spots to achieve those goals as best they can and then whatever is left open is just a fluke for the right candidate. Look I know two kids personally who didnt get into Exeter and another who didnt get into PA and SPS --all of those kids were just stellar all the way around. Now: one kid was applying for 11th and is a very good athlete but there were too many of his position at that school. Another candidate was waitlisted. I dont know --its just crazy

19

Also with regards to this post…

"This is my general sense of how admissions committee goes:

First they look at the development kids and decide who to take
Next comes the faculty and legacy children
Third is the athletes
Fourth is the URM and other special talents (music, arts, etc)
Then whatever space is leftover is split in half (males vs females) and then they simply take the best of whatever is left. This is the stage where financial aid plays a huge role at most schools.

There aren’t many spots leftover at the end. So being able to stand out in a distinguished pool certainly helps. Now some schools may slightly change the order a bit (prefer URM over athletes), but in general most schools follow some similar type of approach."

…I would describe it differently. Sure, schools have spots for development cases, fac brats, legacies, URMs and kids with special talents, but a lot of the percentages of such students varies little from year to year.

Applying as a faculty child, you have no guarantees of getting in, even if you have the stats that qualify you. Most schools have many more faculty/staff children applying than could possibly get accepted. One year at my kids’ school, I heard there were around 40 applicants for around 6-7 spots. Those applicants are competing against other faculty children, not your typical applicant with zero connection to the school. Your child, who isn’t a faculty child, isn’t losing a spot to a faculty child because those spots were never going to be open to him/her.

Ditto for legacies, URMs. It’s a pretty set percentage from year to year. You don’t see big swings. If you don’t fit the profile of that attribute, those seats aren’t open to you. It’s not really a matter of “leftover”. Semantics, I guess, but there is a difference, IMO. There isn’t a pecking order where you can peg them 1, 2, 3 in order of preference and let’s just slot in the best of the leftovers.

Athletes, other special talents and such, there is a little more wiggle room because the school’s needs/wants and who applies to fit those needs/wants will vary from year to year. Did the bass player graduate? Did half the varsity boys’ squash team graduate?

And remember that a student could fill many slots (getting back to that well-rounded thing again :wink: ) - the minority student who is good in the arts and on the sports field.

Development cases probably have no limit. Assuming the kid is a capable student and appears to be a nice kid, yeah, that kid might be taking your kid’s spot.

20

As mentioned above, a school with a small population would probably favor well-rounded applicants as they need someone who can do everything, due to having a small class.

However, I was wondering at top tier schools such as A/E, would angular or well-rounded triumph. Of course, there would still be some well-rounded students at both schools, but which would impress more.
Thanks, @doschicos for your opinion