<p>Of course all of this happens at top prep schools. But what hasn’t been mentioned is that at top prep schools, virtually everything happens in the early round. Early applicants – even at multiple-choice EA schools – always have a much higher yield than regular applicants. Schools are more worried about yield in the regular round, and the top prep kids are often out of the pool at that point.</p>
<p>Are Harvard legacies and likely admits at a disadvantage in EA at other schools? I don’t see it – now that Harvard doesn’t have an early program, most of my interviewees have already been admitted somewhere else early. (Due to local geography, that’s generally U Chicago or Michigan.) The ones who eventually get admitted to Harvard do better, not worse, at competitor schools.</p>
<p>Right, but if you’re talking about a kid who is “only” applying RD to parents’ alma mater, from the viewpoint of the rival school, the reason the kid is applying RD both to parents’ alma mater and to “my” school could be …
he still really loves us – but parents said for him to apply alma mater so he did just to shut them up, but he won’t choose it (and they’re ok with him not choosing it);
he really loves alma mater, but didn’t get his act together in time to apply ED;
he likes both of us equally … if he gets in both, financial aid is going to make the difference.</p>
<p>Either way, it is PRESUMPTIVE on the part of the rival adcom to assume that seeing a kid RD to his legacy school means that therefore he will always choose legacy school over rival school if admitted both, and therefore “punish” him by not admitting him and not giving him the chance to reject us.</p>
<p>For every kid who says “wow, parents’ alma mater, isn’t that so cool, I wanna go there and carry out the family tradition,” isn’t there a kid who says, “no way, I wanna carve out my own space”? How can an adcom assume a kid is in the first camp?</p>
<p>Just as an aside, S is working on his essays for his legacy school and we discussed with him going one of two ways … he could take the “alma mater, praise be thine, I’ve wanted to go here since I learned about it at my parents’ knees” route – the down-on-one-knee declaration of love – or it could be “I deliberately didn’t want to go here, I wanted to look elsewhere, forge my own path, but as I looked elsewhere, all paths led me back here” which would have been a very different approach.</p>
<p>I don’t know about this “mixed marriage” (LOL) couple. The person I was referring to is Katie Fretwell, Amherst’s director of admission, and she is an Amherst alum. I think it’s great that her son goes to Williams. Because of the similarities between the two colleges, it suggests to me that Katie puts her money where her mouth is … i.e., she believes in the type of liberal arts education that Amherst provides. But it also shows that, as a wise mom, she realizes that her child should have a college experience that isn’t right in his own back yard.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is Tom Parker, who is the Dean of Admission and Financial Aid at Amherst, not the “director.” (That’s Katie, as noted above.) Confusing, eh? He indeed graduated from Williams and worked there until about a decade ago. Until recently, his wife was the director of admission at Hampshire. </p>
<p>Which therefore seems a shame if indeed other colleges believe that legacies of other schools “should” have experiences in their own back yards and therefore pre-emptively reject them under the belief they’ll choose their legacy school anyway.</p>
<p>You could second-guess so much about applications, though. If the kid from Missouri applies to two “equal” schools, one in Chicago and one in New York, should the New York school presume that he’d rather go to school in Chicago since it’s closer and pre-emptively reject him? If the rural kid applies to a rural school and an urban school, should the urban school presume that he’d be more comfortable in a rural environment and pre-emptively reject him? This could go on forever!</p>
<p>Actually since a lot of you have experience at high-level prep schools, let me ask another question. I totally get that the Harvards of the world have arrangements with the Exeters of the world, etc. Fine. That isn’t going to change anytime soon.</p>
<p>But … looked at over a long time frame … what % of accepted students come from schools where there simply isn’t any relationship with the school? Not everyone at Harvard can come from Exeter or Harvard-Westlake or Harker or even Short Hills and New Trier. What does that % look like? 10%? 30%? 50%? 80%? IOW, what’s the size of the “you scratch my back I’ll scratch yours” pool relative to the total pool? Simply saying what % of the class comes from private school vs public school doesn’t provide that answer, since private school is not synonymous with “elite private school.” Plenty of nondescript parochial / private schools out there that have no relationships with anyone.</p>
<p>And then looked at the other way … there are 30,000 hs in this country (I’m going to exclude homeschoolers for the moment). What % penetration do elite schools have – in other words, are we all just talking at ourselves if our kids don’t go to one of the top, oh, I don’t know, 500 or so high schools in the country? What’s been the cumulative reach? It’d be interesting to see that distribution.</p>
<p>My kid goes to a highly-rated public high school, and I would be astonished to learn that GCs are having these kinds of conversations with colleges. Maybe they are, and I just don’t know about it. I guess the question is whether kids gunning for highly selective schools should be asking their GCs to make these kinds of calls. If (say) you are a Harvard legacy with high stats, but really want to go to another school that doesn’t have ED, should you ask your GC to make a call and report that you will matriculate if admitted? As long as it’s true, I can’t see the downside. The worst that could happen is that the other college would say that it makes no difference.</p>
<p>And this is where it gets back to - what % of the 30,000 hs in this country even have counselors who would have the time and wherewithal to make these phone calls, and / or what % of school GC’s would even be “meaningful” to the adcom member? Because I have to tell you, if I were an adcom, and someone called me and said, “I’m the GC at Joe Schmoe High School in Unknownville, PA here to talk to you about Sally McApplicant,” how do I know whether that GC is a) who he says he is, b) has anything to say that’s meaningful or that I should listen to?</p>
<p>For many high schools, the adcom has been there for a school visit. Certainly not for the smaller ones, I’m sure. But it seems to me that this is a factual question–do adcoms want to get such calls, and how do they react to them?</p>
<p>What percent? At the ivies about 35% have attended private high schools. Another significant percent attended elite publics. The percent seems pretty significant.</p>
That’s a good question. If an adcom had contacted my S’s GC, I have no idea what she would have said. Maybe she would have asked him and then called back. I haven’t heard of this happening at our school, but maybe it does.</p>
<p>As Pizzagirl pointed out, not all private schools are of the elite prep type. I know the kinds of conversations we’ve be talking about did not go on with the GC at my kids’ independent school, although I don’t doubt our GC has contacts within admissions at certain places and answers their questions.</p>
<p>No, not all are elite, but as much as colleges are working on diversity, there is a strong body of elite prep schools across the country and overseas that send many kids to each ivy and their peers every year. These schools send even more to top LACs. There are public magnets and publics in wealthy enclaves that do the same.</p>
<p>What many don’t realize is that after the recruited athletes, the legacies, the otherwise connected, and kids from feeder schools get in, there is not much space left at elite colleges. Even the bulk of URMs tend to come from the same high schools year after year with feeder programs.</p>
<p>As I said, private does not equal elite or special. There are plenty of “eh”, nondescript private high schools – often parochial ones where the only distinguishing factor is that there is a religious affiliation but it’s otherwise undistinguished. So that 35% is a meaningless number to me. Don’t lump in Exeter, Andover, Harker, Latin School of Chicago and St. Someone’s High.</p>
<p>Right. I get that adcoms at elite schools give a damn what the GC at Exeter says, and they may know the GC at Short Hills or New Trier. Why would they give a damn what the GC at Random Decent Public High says? Why would this disembodied, random voice on the phone be a source they’d care about talking to in the first place (unless the info were of the “this kid likes to blow up buildings” sort)? That’s what I don’t get.</p>
<p>I don’t include parochial schools when I say private schools, colleges put them in a separate category. </p>
<p>35% are from independent private schools, more at many good LACs. </p>
<p>There are many elite private high schools in the country along with those you name. At least 35 in the greater NYC area. Probably close to as many in Greater Boston, The SF Bay Area has a dozen or more as does LA, DC, Chicago…and we haven’t even touched elite publics. This is a lot of schools, and while “random” schools are becoming better represented, the public and private elites still account for most kids at elite colleges.</p>
<p>Certainly some headmasters personally take some kids to visit colleges and meet with admissions, professors, etc. And of course gc’s are talking to admissions officers (they had better be!). But of course the competition to get from these kinds of school is harder too. Kid x would have often have had better chance as a shoo-in as a val from an inner city or rural school, but is competing with dozens super-credentialed kids at the elite school for a few slots…</p>
<p>And lol Pizzamom, friend following this thread points out that a saint-St. Paul’s- often tops the list of ivy feeder schools.</p>
<p>Aniger, you’re correct. This thread is about legacies, and the key reason that what you say is true is that legacies take many of the spots colleges are willing to give kids from these schools. So knowing where the legacies want to go becomes critical to all.</p>
<p>So if legacies are so important, and if they tell you they love you and you admit them they will come (and often not require financial aid at that), why did so many elite schools drop ED? Was that just posturing? Because why wouldn’t an elite school want to lock in as many full-paying legacies as possible?</p>
<p>Doing away with ED does not hurt legacy interest. It’s a pain, but that’s about it.</p>
<p>The decision to do away with ED came from the top, not from admissions. Leaders like Larry Summers wanted all the diversity possible, in reality and in the eyes of the world. Since ED favored the wealthy, doing away with it was on the agenda.</p>
<p>So these schools drop ED because they want to make a big show about not favoring the wealthy and including more diversity. Diversity = good. Already privileged = bad.</p>
<p>Meanwhile they give brownie points to their own legacy kids who are presumably more on the wealthier side. Diversity = not important. Already privileged = good.</p>
<p>But at the same time they don’t give brownie points to presumably equally wealthy kids whose “sin” was that their parents happened to have gone to their rival school. Who needs their money anyway??</p>
<p>Got it. People need to make up their minds!</p>
</p>