<p>jb1, you may be right, but he's giving people what they want.</p>
<p>JB1: Please reread my posts carefully and I think that you will find that you are misinterpreting them. Schools are a very sensitive subject. This is mostly because we all love our children so much that we only want the best for them, which is always better than we had. If it is of any comfort to the readers, my prep school finished dead last in the study, and ,if more schools had been included, it would have rightly finished even farther behind. Doesn't make it a bad school, just bad college counseling-- in fact, horrible college counseling.</p>
<p>Good luck with your op ed. I look forward to reading it. I confess that I have the old US News & World Report on boarding schools in my files.</p>
<p>If I ever post rankings again, I will leave a top ten spot open for each reader to insert his or her favorite school there. Then I'll probably receive universal accolades for truly giving the public what it wants-- a top ranking. Burb Parent: Many, many people buy, read and enjoy the National Enquirer as well. Unfortunately, I am a New York Times & Wall St. Journal kind of guy.</p>
<p>ICY,
I like your methodology and am curious to see the full results of the study. When will it appear in the WSJ? Also, did you include The Winsor School, an all girls day school in Boston? Locally, it ranks above Roxbury Latin in college placement, and it would be interesting to see where it places in a more national list of schools.</p>
<p>I've also looked at the matriculation results from different schools, and what I find is that the schools report their results in a way that is most flattering to them. That is, some schools tell you how many graduates are enrolled at Harvard (a lot), while other schools only report that they have graduates enrolled at Harvard (probably not very many). One has to look at not only what they tell you, but also what they don't tell you. All I can surmise from your experience with Taft is that they are representing themselves in a way that is most flattering to them.</p>
<p>I only used lists which included college matriculations for the entire graduating class or classes. It is up to the WSJ if and when they publish my op-ed. I'll probably submit an article within the next ten days. But getting something published, as you may know, is not easy for the WSJ. The New York Times didn't want it several months ago because it wasn't of an "egalitarian nature". Fortunately for me, the WSJ is of a different mind.</p>
<p>Nice hugs!</p>
<p>Icy -- Some years ago, Worth magazine published an article on which schools (public & private) got the most kids into HPY. Worth was sold to the Robb Report. If the WSJ doesn't bite, you might try the Robb Report. </p>
<p>Knowing what I know today, I don't follow rankings. However, when I was just getting up the learning curve, I read all the rankings I could find.</p>
<p>To return to the OP, I'd urge caution on placing too much weight on what the admissions reps told you. I think of Rachel Toor's famous statement on admissions at Duke, from <em>Admissions Confidential</em>, "I travel around the country whipping kids (and their parents) into a frenzy so that they will apply. I tell them how great a school Duke is academically and how much fun they will have socially. Then, come April, we reject most of them." </p>
<p>Many schools don't list the average, or median, SSAT of entering classes, or of the student body as a whole. They do, however, list their acceptance rate. I find it analogous to the US News effect on college admissions; this is at the very least an incentive to schools not to discourage anyone who wants to apply. </p>
<p>As to the relevance of SSAT scores, who knows? "Those aren't accurate" could cover differences from 1 point to 50. I suspect that it matters very much into which pool you fall. Athletes, and the children of the rich and powerful, probably have more leeway. The recommendation and grades from a respected feeder school are probably weighted more highly than the SSAT. Then again, if the reported SSAT averages/medians are even close to the actual figures, every kid with markedly low scores means that many other students presented very high scores. It doesn't mean that there are large numbers of really low scorers at schools with high averages.</p>
<p>thanks for the work icy, i believe more info is better and you are free to do with it what you will.</p>
<p>D'yer Maker: I apologize for my firm, responsive postings. You are a kind person. I do, however, think ratings and the subsequent rankings which inevitably follow are legitimate, reasonable and necessary. I suppose that we should just agree to disagree on those points. I responded in a strong manner because your dismissal of my work came across as trite and flippant. If you have legitimate reasons for disregarding and trashing my work, I will listen. The reality is that the elite boarding schools want to sell us their goods based on inadequate and insufficient brag sheet information. Once the boarding school industry opens the door of soliciting customers via elite college placement data, we, as consumers and potential consumers, deserve full disclosure, and not just the college placements of two or three percent of a graduating class. A sample as small as that is meaningless--especially because it could consist of only legacies, gifted athletes and the valedictorian. Almost everything we buy has a rating, if not a ranking also. Tires, houses, cars, refrigerators, tools, hospitals and lawyers/law firms (av ratings). Why? Not only because the public demands it, but for a myriad of other reasons including safety issues and purchasing decisions. Purchasing a private education is a major decision and expense for most families. Granted that there are many reasons behind the decision to buy or not to buy, but why not consider one factor--college placement-- that is measurable? No one is forcing the consumer to use the info., just as one can ignore Consumer's Reports re: appliance purchases. At least my study's results are comprised of fully and completely disclosed info. that is verifiable.</p>
<p>afan: Regarding stability of my rankings of college placement success for elite Northeastern US Boarding Schools. The rankings are based on the combination of several years of ratings. Schools such as St. Paul's School, Andover, Deerfield Academy, Hotchkiss & Groton were based on at least 5 consecutive years of college placement of each entire class; and ,at the most, were based on 6 consecutive years--but none before 2002 was used. Cate and St. Andrew's School, for example, were based on the most recent four consecutive years college placement. Exeter was based on three years--2004, 2005 & 2006--because that is all that was furnished to me .</p>
<p>The reason that I initially offered my study and its methodology to the New York Times was due to the fact that the NYT had done a series of articles on St. Paul's School concerning the former administration and St. Paul's School was the top rated and ranked school in this survey. I didn't know whether this newspaper had an axe to grind with SPS, or just a close relationship with SPS alumni who wanted a change in the administration. I thought that it was a good opportunity for the NYT to act in a fair and balanced manner. Lexima: I failed to address your question regarding LSE. The London School of Economics (LSE) only considers American schooled applicants after completion of at least one year of college. There may be exceptions, but I am not qualified or experienced enough to further respond. afan: I will post numerical ratings that determined the prep boarding school rankings later this evening if I have time.</p>
<p>I'm not looking for affirmation, I don't care whether you think I'm kind and I am more than happy to agree to disagree. </p>
<p>Do note, however, that I outlined PRECISELY what, in my estimation, is needed to come up with a meaningful ranking. </p>
<p>**Now, if I may return this back to the substance, *I do NOT object to *analysis, like you were providing here and the kind you share regularly. Frankly, I was building on the conversation. You better develop a thicker skin if you intend to put your research to national scrutiny and expect people to embrace it. I have issues with the methodology used to rank schools and I stated my position in terms that you could have debated. </p>
<p>In the end, when you explain, school-by-school, the plusses and minuses of their college placement results, I think it is an awesome and highly valuable contribution. I simply and succinctly object to the rankings...and the presumption that you can look at what Exeter is doing and rank it against what Taft is doing with very different populations...and repeat for numerous combinations of schools. If you're going to sum up all of your hard work and analysis into a number or ranking...don't berate others for not paying close enough attention to what you have to say:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Keep in mind that you're the one who is trying to express all of your hard work, nuanced information, complex admission dynamics and months of effort into a numeric value. Please, continue to lay all of your data and analysis on us. I think it's great...even when I disagree with the analysis or question the data...because we can all talk about it and talk about how important or unimportant we might weigh the information you deliver.</p>
<p>But once you declare that DEACH School is ranked #5 and ST. MAPLISLE School is ranked #8...be sure to remember who is playing the lead role in cheapening your efforts in a trite and dismissive way, before you flip out at others. I object only to the rankings and that final step where you create a quantifier for college matriculation. You and I and most everyone here knows that those rankings will be misused and misinterpreted...and, despite your "I'm a NYT/WSJ kind of guy" claim, the dirty little secret is that rankings play to the lazy thinkers (the kinds of people that get lured into the purchase by "National Enquirer" sensationalized headlines).</p>
<p>I haven't said analysis sucks. I said -- and am saying -- that rankings suck. I may disagree with your data sets or argue with your analysis...but by considering what you have to say. Rankings, on the other hand, cater to those who can't be bothered to actually consider a more complete analysis -- the very people who are the bane of your existence here. </p>
<p>By dismissing rankings, icy, I'm doing the exact opposite of "disregarding and trashing" your work. The rankings you assign do that without any help from me or anyone else.</p>
<p>Wow, it looks like a lot of editing took place.</p>
<p>icy9ff8, thanks for addressing the question about universities in Scotland v. those in England.</p>
<p>As a characterization of where the graduating students go to college, and hence implication about the type of students who enroll at the school, this is clearly useful. </p>
<p>It falls down of one tries to say that the #2 school is "better" than the #10 school. This requires assuming that
the entering classes are identical in ability
the student bodies are identical in goals
the student bodies share identical evaluations of desirability of the hundreds of colleges to which they apply
the students all apply to the same colleges in the same proportions
and therefore
the differences in matriculation reflect a superior effect of one school over another.</p>
<p>Since none of these conditions are likely to be true even between two schools, let alone across a large number, one cannot go from a list of prestige of colleges attended to a ranking of best boarding schools.</p>
<p>Some obvious examples: </p>
<p>A high school that emphasizes sports, and turns out lots of competitive college athletes will have a larger percentage of students attending highly selective colleges than will a place without this feature. </p>
<p>The college choices of students in the "gap" between wealthy enough to be indifferent to merit aid and low income enough to qualify for full need based aid are heavily influenced by merit aid, which most of the most prestigious colleges do not offer. A school that enrolls a low proportion of students in this gap will have few students attracted to the next lower tier by these financial considerations, and it will be higher in the ranking.</p>
<p>A place that emphasizes diversity, and enrolls a relatively high proportion of URM's, who benefit in college admissions from affirmative action, will end up higher in rank than a place that is more homogeneous.</p>
<p>None of these features mean that a particular school is any better than another for a given student. For an athlete, going to a place that is a pipeline to Ivy teams may make it a little easier to be noticed at recruiting time. For a non-athlete, it means nothing at all. Unless the student has some way of dramatically increasing (or decreasing) family income, the aid influence on college matriculation tells them nothing about where to go to high school. Presumably any student either is, or is not, a URM, and the practices of the school simply do not matter.</p>
<p>For an individual student deciding where to attend high school, this will be of some interest, but the dorms, campus environment, distance from home (some prefer long, some prefer short), academic approach, sports and extracurriculars... will matter much more.</p>
<p>I recently met with admissions directors at 4 prep schools. All 4 told me that the SSAT is the least important piece of the application process. The most important: Teacher Recommendations. This was repeated to me at all 4 interviews. One person went on to say, "if a student has a high GPA, 90% SSAT, but negative teacher recommendations, compared to a student with a high GPA, excellent teacher recommendations, but an average SSAT score, we would accept the kid with the excellent teacher recommendations. For us, the barometer is the recommendations. The teachers have insight into the student and they tell the truth--the teachers are usually brutally honest."</p>
<p>At the SPS reception in Korea,
someone asked about the average SSAT score, and they informed us that they do not have one, because someone can get a 40 percentile on their SSAT, but be exceptional in everything else.
I think the boardingschoolreview website said 81%
but unless you are in a varsity team for every single sport they offer and you take college courses for math, science, and history, i doubt that they will accept you with a score lower than a seventy...</p>
<p>Back to the topic of SSAT scores, I am going to disagree with the last two posters above, who say that the schools told them the scores aren't important. after working with boarding school admissions for almost 10 years, I would say they are THE MOST important piece of information.</p>
<p>That adm. officer is saying to the poster above, "we don't care about the SSAT score, whether it is a 80% or a 90% isn't important, it's the teacher recommendation." But if you read between the lines, he is basicly saying that as long as the SSAT score is exceptional, they don't care HOW exceptional it is. That is like Harvard saying, "We don't care about SAT score, whether you score a 1460 or a 1520 really isn't important..." But how will Harvard react to a student with a 1050 SAT, which is the national average and most commonly awarded SAT score? rejection. How will Andover or Peddie react to a 50% SSAT, which is also the most common score----rejection.</p>
<p>When I speak to adm officers about specific students, the SSAT score is the most often cited problem area. And when I meet with new families--I won't even recommend schools until I see some testing or an SSAT. I see straight A students with 15%, 50%, 70% and 90%. By looking at grades I have no idea what their ability level is. I had a student with A's and B's who had her applications returned and fee refunded from several mid tier schools after scoring a 10% SSAT. turned out there were learning disabilities that her public school hadn't found, but the low score on ssat indicated that. So anyway, in my experience, the SSAT is key. (not a 90th vs. 95th, but what range a student is scoring in)</p>
<p>In that particular example, the administrator said they would take a student with an average SSAT (I believe he said 60%) if the teacher recommendations were excellent, compared to the 90% SSAT student with negative teacher recommendations.</p>
<p>I don't think one needs to "read between the lines" or second-guess. I asked a direct question and received a direct answer. At every interview, I was told the SSAT was the least important piece of the application and that teacher recommendations were the most important.</p>
<p>I am not saying that the schools don't place any importance in the SSAT. Obviously, if a student has an extremely low SSAT score, it can indicate other problems. I'm sure the admissions department looks at the entire application and the SSAT is a piece of it. However, as I said, 4 schools told me, they weigh the teacher recommendations the highest.</p>
<p>These schools were not Harvard by the way. Comparing SSAT scores to SAT scores is comparing apples to oranges. </p>
<p>The schools my daughter interviewed with would probably be considered "2nd tier" boarding schools. Mentioned frequently on this board, but not one of the 10 schools. Perhaps at those schools, the SSAT is the most important piece of the application process, as you are asserting.</p>
<p>It's kind of interesting, I just did a quick search on your previous posts and you state:
[quote]
I've noticed and heard that anything under 50% is a cause for concern, but I do have a former student at Choate with a 38% who is doing really well. </p>
<p>There are a variety of hooks that you all know about or can imagine. What that I have noticed that you probably haven't thought of is what I call the "nice kid, nice parents" hook. If the parents and kid are both very socially comfortable, nice people who the admissions officers grow to like, I see them having an advantage and getting into top schools with a high 60's-80's SSAT.
[/quote]
Sounds as if you've changed your opinion since December.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, they would do that at some imaginary school that's not the one they work at where they don't have tons of candidates to choose from who have both high SSATs and great teacher recommendations.</p>
<p>The thing is, this is not a choice that anyone faces.</p>
<p>The admission process is not a playoff where two students are battling it out against each other and then, with one slot left to fill, the admission office has to make the choice that's proposed. It's a mildly interesting scenario, but it's pure make-believe, don't you think?</p>
<p>At the most competitive schools, they look at the SSATs as the first sieve and they will still have more than enough spectacular candidates to choose from if they are very picky about teacher recommendations and other subjective elements of the application. It would be stupid of them if they didn't look first at the SSAT scores.</p>