<p>Science indeed :)</p>
<p>The OPs point is that anybody who succeeds in a "competitive" school could do just as well in an "average" school - there isn't any difference between being the top 30% at an elite private and being 1-5/400 at a big, normal public. Of course someone at, say, Andover might have more oppurtunities as far as ECs go readily available, but on the other hand chances are his family is already the type that knows about college admissions and he would have faired just as well at a public HS. If you want to go to a competitive HS for the environment, that's all well and good, but going because it will give you a leg up on college admissions is dumb and simply incorrect.</p>
<p>exactly ohnoes. If you're smart enough to be in the top 30% at a really hard school (hard and competitive being 2 different things) then you're smart enough to do exceedingly well at an easy school. </p>
<p>besides, just because you are on CC doesn't mean you went to a "competitive" high school. according to a lot of posters here, I went to a "competitive" school, but I didn't think my high school was competitive or hard - and neither did many of the other kids. In a class of 160 we had about 10 or 15 national merit scholars, and like 99% (1 kid in my class went straight to the army) go to 4 year colleges - and I would venture to say that the majority of them are "top 50" universities or liberal art schools (with about 40 a year going to rutgers, i live in new jersey). I went to a catholic school, and we are big feeders into schools like BC. Last year, I believe 18/18 got into BC (a school very hard to get into) - and trust me - it wasnt the 18 most stellar students. I don't know anything about silly HS rankings, but I'm sure mine isn't even in the top 200. I guess my high school wasn't competitive...because you knew the worst you could do was rutgers...and its just outside of being a tier 1 school.</p>
<p>I guess my point is this - unless you go to a school that is known for sending students to the particular college you want to go to, (like andover for harvard/yale or TJ for UVA) - the "competitiveness" of your high school isn't going to factor much into the admissions process.</p>
<p>i beg to differ
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter_College_High_School%5B/url%5D">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter_College_High_School</a>
that is my school and
Admission is granted at the seventh grade level only. Each year, approximately 2,500 sixth grade students from the five boroughs of New York City who meet Hunter's standards in reading and mathematics on fifth grade standardized exams (typically minimum scores being 90-95 percentile on both tests) are eligible to take the Hunter College High School Entrance Exam</p>
<p>The Wall Street Journal recently identified Hunter College High School as the top public school feeder to leading colleges</p>
<p>Today (classes of 2002 through 2005), nearly 99% of Hunter's students go on to college, and 25% accept admission to an Ivy League school </p>
<p>AKA MY SCHOOL IS THE TOP 200 KIDS IN NY</p>
<p>irap, congratulations that your high school is a feeder into great colleges. I'm sure the success you have in life will be soley based on the fact that you went to that high school (or maybe that you're really smart and able to get into it...). But please get off your high horse. You're high school is the definition of "uncompetitive." (and may be the most uncompetitive school shown on this board) Yes its extremely hard to get into. But once your in...you're ticket is paid for. You can be dead last in your class and you'd still go somewhere decent.</p>
<p>I believe I said in my original post, that there are a handful of high schools that will get almost everyone into anywhere you want to go. Yours is obviously one of them. I'm still not wrong about my reasoning.</p>
<p>it depends what the person means by "competitive." if they mean a decently funded suburban public school, that means nothing. if they mean private high schools that have lower acceptance rates than many colleges (Andover, Exeter, I personally go to Lawrenceville), then competitiveness absolutely makes a difference.</p>
<p>case in point: senior friends of mine with 3.4 and 3.5 gpa's, not much in the way of EC's or hooks, and decent scores are getting into Hopkins, Chicago, Georgetown type places. and if your gpa is 3.8 or 3.9, fuggedabout "reach schools," you're nearly guaranteed an ivy admit.</p>
<p>case in point: senior friends of mine with 3.4 and 3.5 gpa's, not much in the way of EC's or hooks, and decent scores are getting into Hopkins, Chicago, Georgetown type places. and if your gpa is 3.8 or 3.9, fuggedabout "reach schools," you're nearly guaranteed an ivy admit.</p>
<p>SCREW YOU MAN. JHU is above and beyond the ivyleagues</p>
<p>I don't think it is fair to call a school competitive or non-competitive; you can make your schooling as competitive as you want. I go to a public school, that is by no means on any top 200 lists, but two people in my class are going to georgetown, one to Upenn, one to brown, and I'm going to Vanderbilt.
My point is, any non-competitive school could be competitive depending on how you choose your classes and spend your time.</p>
<p>i think competitiveness does matter. in my school you can only pick 1 ap in junior year, 0 in sophomore year, and up to 5 in senior year.
yet we send nearly 15 kids to harvard, and at least 10 to the other ivies (excluding princeton, yale). and were not even talking about places like MIT, JHU, Stanford.
and it is a class of 180..</p>
<p>Are you illiterate? He's not saying that competitiveness of the school isn't considered in admissions, but rather that those who attend competitive schools over noncompetitive schools don't really get a leg up on admissions because chances are the person in the top 20% at a competitive school could be val or sal at a regular school, so attending a competitive school is overrated.</p>
<p>I do think kids at some noncompetitive schools are kind of at a disadvantage. I think we all agree that in order to get into a top school, one usually needs some kind of hook, no matter what your SATs or GPA. So if you're from a small rural school (I'm using this as an example because that's what I'm familiar with), excellent students really have to go out of their way to look good. If you're ranked 1/20, that's not as impressive as 1/200, is it? For kids in cities or suburbs, finding a violin teacher might be easy. For us, it's a major investment of time, with a lot of parents having to drive over an hour each way. Getting recruited for sports is harder too, because no coaches go to see the really small schools play unless it's the tail end of the playoffs, so students have to find club teams (which again, are a lot of travel time) or go to prep school for a PG year. This has a lot to do with the area you're from instead of the competitiveness of the school, but often, the two go hand in hand.</p>
<p>I go to a pretty well known public high school (not a magnet school though). My public high school has a graduating class of almost 400, and 100% go off to 4 year colleges. Our mean SAT last year was a 1302 (out of 1600). So I would think that my school is competitive.</p>
<p>As much as I disagree with the philosophy, I believe that most of the elite colleges do (unfairly) rank public high schools. For example, I attend an average public high school in a rich suburban town. I'm calling it average although I have nothing to compare it to in order to call it average, but through my experiences it is neither an elite boarding school nor an inner city dump. </p>
<p>Basically, everyone in this fairly large town all go to this school, because there are no other schools (better or worse) around to go to. There are no private schools within the area, and one cannot attend other public schools because one is required to go to the public high school depending on what side of which street one lives on (It's a tax issue). Basically, unless one's family is ready to up and move so that you can go to a different a hs to go to a bttr college (very unlikely), no matter if you're mentally retarded or Stephen Hawking you are going to this high school.</p>
<p>Now there are approximately 700 kids in each graduating class (If that somehow makes it more competitive, idk). Yet in the past 3 or so years that are school has actually kept track of admissions and such, only one kid has gotten into Harvard (a football GOD who won IL state football championship as RB/ WR/ offense and defense man in the largest possible division, 8A, and was MVP and had bout 3.5 gpa). Besides that, in past 3 years we've had 1 to Yale, 2 Dartmouth, 1 Duke, 3 Cornell, and 0 elsewhere (rest of Ivies, Stanford, MIT). The point is, our valedictorian last year got into Dartmouth and that was considered a big accomplishment for our school. (he played varsity soccer though, so that may have helped). Note also that I'm sure our school has terrible av. SAT (there are a lot of dumb ppl here), these kids at the top of the class our getting 1500s+, 1550s+, and even a couple perfect 1600 scores. Note again that av. APs taken are terrible (again, like society, there are lots of dumb ppl here), and thus US News and Report or watever calls this school a $hithole. Yet the top of the class takes 7-12 ap classes generally.</p>
<p>Now, this year, I am 1/700 at our school and have the feeling I'm going to be screwed when it comes to admissions. Who is to say I could not be #1 at such schools you boast of like Exeter? Unlikely, yes, but possible. Consider this: take the valedictorian at Exeter, and stick him at my school. He'd still be #1, but looked down upon by colleges, because of the school he went to. Most of us here don't have a reasonable alternative to what school to go to.</p>
<p>Anyway, that's my two cents on how colleges DO give preference to certain schools, yet the practice is absurdly unfair.</p>
<p>most of you are now posting seriously individual cases that don't generalize the mass. If you could be no. 1 at exeter, or most any school for that matter, you're probably really smart and driven. Really smart/driven people are successful regardless of where they go to college. EVERY college has a success story of so joe blow becoming a multi millionaire - but not every college has kids from the so called "uber elite competitive high schools." </p>
<p>another poster mentioned going to a rural school. going to a rural school in backwaters wherever is an advantage most of the time...as you bring diversity to a campus. Theres an article about UVA admissions where they admitted a girl with a decent GPA and mediocre SATS simply because she was from a small town where most kids didn't apply to the school/didn't go to college.</p>
<p>Also, my original point is, maybe i didn't make this clear, (although some people got it...) its not about where you go to high school. Its about how well you do in high school - which can basicly be translated into how smart you are and how driven you are. If you are super driven and make it into the top 4 or 5 students in your public school, you're going to be competitive at the "top" colleges. If you go to a school where EVERYONE is super driven, as in an east coast boarding schools or super publics in nyc, you can not be in the top 4 students but still be very smart and driven and be in the top 20% or 30% or whatever - colleges understand that some high schools have more "talent" than others, and you're still qualified.</p>
<p>All together, as long as you SUCCEED where ever you go to high school, by taking the most rigorous courses offered AND getting A's in them, you will be competitive in college admissions.</p>
<p>But what some of you don't seem to get is the fact that a smart student going to a crappy high school will not take away from it as much as he/she would from a school that has a rigorous curriculum and a competitive student body. The student will not work as hard to achieve their grades, and will not learn as much as they had potential to learn in the process. The school I go to pushes me beyond my limits and also helps in ways that go beyond an admission committee liking the name of my high school. As far as getting into college goes, it is not only the fact that we are looked at favorably by presitigous colleges and universities, but also a lot of other things. Had my chemistry teacher not been so intense in my regular (LIKE, OMG) chemistry class, I would not have gotten the score I did on the SAT II. In my zone school (complete piece of ..), no one took the SAT IIs. We have college mentors in our school - people who work with us to help us select a college. How do we know about all these different summer programs available to us? Many people from our school go to these programs and information is made available to us. </p>
<p>Yes, I know, a student from a regular high school who is oh-so-eager to reach for his/her dreams will find all these opportunities on his/her own, and teach her/himself chemistry at home, and... I get it. </p>
<p>The fact that we have an edge, though, is quite clear.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It sounds to me that you are bitter. Why I have no idea but you need to calm down. Some schools are better then others and that is that....it might not result in an edge in college admissions BUT some people want to learn for reasons other then where they will go to college. Understand that? (BTW there still is an edge in many cases - especially if you transfer to a lesser school for no reason and in other less drastic cases)</p>
<p>No, not bitter at all. :)</p>
<p>
[quote]
No, not bitter at all.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I should have made it clear that I was referring to OP's post. Sorry mate.</p>
<p>Oh, I see. Sorry.</p>
<p>No, it was my fault. It's certainly clear now :D</p>