<p>just look at the school API. Our school API is 900, and our district has the 2nd highest API in california.</p>
<p>first off, it seems any time someone on this board makes an observation or judgment that isn't cookie cutter nice, the person is bitter. I am not bitter. I applied to 8 schools from high school, I got into all 8, and I'm at my first choice. I'm annoyed because I read these "chances threads" over and over with people stating "well my hs is ranked this" or "my high school is really competitive," hoping that it will make up for their "non stellar" short comings in the GPA department. The fact is - 99% of the time its not.</p>
<p>Also, I don't know what rigorous curriculum in hs you're talking about with a "competitive student body." Do you even know what that means? The things you learn in high school ARN'T hard. Infact, I bet money that if you find high school particularly demanding, its because your teachers havn't found the best way to teach a subject. The hardest classes in HS are the equivalent of intro college classes - and intro college classes are pretty easy.</p>
<p>This is what everyone who disagrees with me believes. Tell me if I have this wrong. </p>
<p>"I go to such and such a school, and the top 25% of the class goes to Ivy league schools. No other school does this. Mine gives me an edge over public schools because the person who is only in the 3rd decile at a public school could never get into the places where our 3rd decile got into." </p>
<p>the logic is this - if your school is so hard and demanding, then the person who is only in the top 25% there would probably be in the top 1 or 2% at the regular ol' run of the mill school in his townl. And - maybe I'm COMPLETELY WRONG about this...but I think someone who is ranked 1 or 2/400 at JFK or Martin Luther King or Springfield or whatever high school, has roughly the same chance of getting into the schools as the person ranked 50 or 55/200 at a "preparing me for the rigours of the world" high school.</p>
<p>jags, the common logic that you claim to be wrong is not wrong at all. lawrenceville doesn't rank, but the simple fact i've observed is that complete slackers, average students, and decent athletes can get into the absolute best schools in the country.... and you better believe it's because a 3.4 at a nationally known school is better than a 3.8 at the local nameless public. colleges know how much work goes into maintaining above average grades at demanding schools. </p>
<p>the other thing is, the difficulty of a school is not just measured by how many APs are offered. you have to consider whether it's harder to get an A in AP Euro at ****ing Andover or at MLK High. Which do you think looks better? </p>
<p>and nobody disputes that intro college courses are generally easy for COLLEGE students, but a high school junior taking the same courses should be allowed to say that he's taking hard classes.</p>
<p>Competitive schools tend not to rank, jags.</p>
<p>What "competitive student body?" That would be when a sophomore takes Calc BC and Art History at the same time and is considered to be normal. That's when a student considers NYU to be a safety. That's when a student e-mails a teacher to find out about why they got a 97% on an essay. Things like these tend to affect the mindset of every student in such a school, whether they think they are "keeping it all in perspective" or not.</p>
<p>in that sense i guess jags is right
my school does not rank and there is a limit to applying to 4 colleges.</p>
<p>Yeah, everyone from CC says they're at a competitive hs. And with the stats I see on here, it at least sounds like everyone is.
As much as I'd hate to say it, competitiveness REALLY does matter. No one from my school gets into ivy leagues or near-ivy leagues even though many well-ranked kids apply (like me). 48% go onto 4 year colleges. Our average SAT is about 1010 (old). It ****es me off to no end, to know that my application to penn will probably just be thrown out once they see I went to this crappy public school. (We're not even from a slummy area....we have rich kids moving in all the time.) I mean, the top 10 are super cut-throat and all have gpa's above 100, but there's a little drop down after that and then the remaining 200-300 are super-slackers. It's the same with all of the schools around my area. I know the #2-ranked clarinet player in the nation who was #1 and had >1400 SATs and all that jazz, and was downright rejected from penn, where I am also applying with similar stats (save for the national ranking). They told him it was because of his school. And that was all. </p>
<p>However, our choir is the best choir on the east coast so BLAH to all ya'll.
Nevermind, I'm not even in it.</p>
<p>What if your school is the best in your city (San Antonio)? Overall, would that mean it is really competitive, or not?</p>
<p>Ah so in an effort to prove me wrong, and pump up his self image, irap has proved me right. As long as you take the most competitive courses in your high school and do well with them, and as long as you do well in your setting (by taking whats offered), you are just as competitive as anyone else. Looks like I'm right you non believers. </p>
<p>I think, sometimes, standing out in a high school that is not particulary well known or well rated is a plus. The Ivys don't want a bunch of rich preppies from the east coast, maybe that could work against you. Do your best where you are, it's all you can do anyway-- chill out. If you don't get into where you want, you wouldn't have like it anyway.</p>
<p>
<p>Also, I don't know what rigorous curriculum in hs you're talking about with a "competitive student body." Do you even know what that means? The things you learn in high school ARN'T hard. Infact, I bet money that if you find high school particularly demanding, its because your teachers havn't found the best way to teach a subject. The hardest classes in HS are the equivalent of intro college classes - and intro college classes are pretty easy.</p>
<p>This is what everyone who disagrees with me believes. Tell me if I have this wrong.</p>
<p>"I go to such and such a school, and the top 25% of the class goes to Ivy league schools. No other school does this. Mine gives me an edge over public schools because the person who is only in the 3rd decile at a public school could never get into the places where our 3rd decile got into."</p>
<p>the logic is this - if your school is so hard and demanding, then the person who is only in the top 25% there would probably be in the top 1 or 2% at the regular ol' run of the mill school in his townl. And - maybe I'm COMPLETELY WRONG about this...but I think someone who is ranked 1 or 2/400 at JFK or Martin Luther King or Springfield or whatever high school, has roughly the same chance of getting into the schools as the person ranked 50 or 55/200 at a "preparing me for the rigours of the world" high school.
</p>
<p>Quite frankly your argument is rediculus. I can tell you that all college classes are not automatically as hard as high school classes. There are many community colleges and some liberal arts colleges that are not necessarily harder then some of the most competitive private schools. The fact IS that lower/higher GPA's at highly competitive high schools can make a difference - and it is a lot more then one percent of the time. You seem bitter in the way you present your argument. Now I don't go to a super elite school, but I don't pretend that there is no advantage to getting a 4.0 at Exeter vs. a 4.0 here at my less pristigious parochial school. Or even a 3.6 at exeter then a 3.9 here. There is an advantage that cannot be ignored. Many 3.8's and above have a decent shot of admissions anywhere. Get a 3.8 at a top school....that decent shot turns into a 99.999% likely admit. This is not med school admissions where they just ignore the school name and play a GPA/Test Scores/EC's game - you seem to be either gravely misinformed or confused. Do you honestly think someone made up the term "feeder school" just to pass time?</p>
<p>"feeder schools" arise out of laziness on the college's part. Most ppl here on CC probably could have gone to Exeter and gotten 3.8s, 3.9s, or 4.0s. Instead they just have 4.0s at their own schools.</p>
<p>First off, the admissions process at Exeter is ridiculous. You're supposed to have a resume at age 14? Pah-lease. Even if you do have some sort of "resume" to get into a school like Exeter, it is most likely reflective of your overbearing parents' choke hold on your life rather than your own ambitions. Thusly, the mere admissions to a school such as Exeter reflects neither intelligence, drive, creativity, or rather anything about the candidate.</p>
<p>Next, there is not an equal shot for students of equal ability to go to Exeter. Most ppl are not going to up and move with their families to go to a school in New England (or wherever the hell it is). The people that do go to Exeter probably come from wealthy families (disgusting how most of these feeder school students are rich, clearly money has nothing to do with intelligence or merits, yet these "whipped" students are still getting into better schools) and probably have very, very obsessive and overbearing parents who treat their kids like a toy poodle and see getting into an Ivy like winning the dog show.</p>
<p>Grades have little to do with intelligence at all. Amongst the best and brightest, where every high school subject is quite 'learnable,' grades are simply a function of hours spent studying. In many cases, good grades can simply come from a good memory. I'm sure most ppl here at CC could get 3.8+ g.p.as at Exeter. Now of course, Exeter could have more difficult classes (which I frankly don't see how they could-- calculus is calculus everywhere-- if anything, it would be easier because of qualified teachers rather than idiots who get pregnant and make you learn it on your own), but in the case of greater difficulty one simply has to put in more hours of studying.</p>
<p>Now of course you can say a greater studier may have a greater 'drive' or 'ambition.' Let's face it-- many ppl find certain subjects extremely BORING or may value more important things, such as family, real interests, or a social life. It has nothing to do with a person's drive to accomplish their goals nor a person's intelligence.</p>
<p>Btw-- the fact that Exeter has higher average SATs or watever ridiculously absurd measurement for a school's prestige, let me tell you this: the SAT is a product of studying and memorization. No less. I mean, the test has vocabulary for christ's sake! Note: this is coming from a person (yes, me) who got a 2400. That's right. Not a single godamn question wrong! yet I believe the test is useless!! So obviously, at a whipping boy school like Exeter tests will be higher. You can throw a 1.0 moronic chimpanzee-boy in Exeter and his scores will come out high. </p>
<p>Frankly, these arrogant prep schools like Exeter disgust me. But I guess if you want to keep the privledged wealthy elite more wealthy, more powerful, and even more undeserving of the educational institutions they get into, by all means support the schools. By I guess if IQ-of-10 morons like George Bush can become President and screw the poor, I guess its not a real big issue in this country.</p>
<p>
[quote]
"feeder schools" arise out of laziness on the college's part. Most ppl here on CC probably could have gone to Exeter and gotten 3.8s, 3.9s, or 4.0s. Instead they just have 4.0s at their own schools.</p>
<p>First off, the admissions process at Exeter is ridiculous. You're supposed to have a resume at age 14? Pah-lease. Even if you do have some sort of "resume" to get into a school like Exeter, it is most likely reflective of your overbearing parents' choke hold on your life rather than your own ambitions. Thusly, the mere admissions to a school such as Exeter reflects neither intelligence, drive, creativity, or rather anything about the candidate.</p>
<p>Next, there is not an equal shot for students of equal ability to go to Exeter. Most ppl are not going to up and move with their families to go to a school in New England (or wherever the hell it is). The people that do go to Exeter probably come from wealthy families (disgusting how most of these feeder school students are rich, clearly money has nothing to do with intelligence or merits, yet these "whipped" students are still getting into better schools) and probably have very, very obsessive and overbearing parents who treat their kids like a toy poodle and see getting into an Ivy like winning the dog show.</p>
<p>Grades have little to do with intelligence at all. Amongst the best and brightest, where every high school subject is quite 'learnable,' grades are simply a function of hours spent studying. In many cases, good grades can simply come from a good memory. I'm sure most ppl here at CC could get 3.8+ g.p.as at Exeter. Now of course, Exeter could have more difficult classes (which I frankly don't see how they could-- calculus is calculus everywhere-- if anything, it would be easier because of qualified teachers rather than idiots who get pregnant and make you learn it on your own), but in the case of greater difficulty one simply has to put in more hours of studying.</p>
<p>Now of course you can say a greater studier may have a greater 'drive' or 'ambition.' Let's face it-- many ppl find certain subjects extremely BORING or may value more important things, such as family, real interests, or a social life. It has nothing to do with a person's drive to accomplish their goals nor a person's intelligence.</p>
<p>Btw-- the fact that Exeter has higher average SATs or watever ridiculously absurd measurement for a school's prestige, let me tell you this: the SAT is a product of studying and memorization. No less. I mean, the test has vocabulary for christ's sake! Note: this is coming from a person (yes, me) who got a 2400. That's right. Not a single godamn question wrong! yet I believe the test is useless!! So obviously, at a whipping boy school like Exeter tests will be higher. You can throw a 1.0 moronic chimpanzee-boy in Exeter and his scores will come out high.</p>
<p>Frankly, these arrogant prep schools like Exeter disgust me. But I guess if you want to keep the privledged wealthy elite more wealthy, more powerful, and even more undeserving of the educational institutions they get into, by all means support the schools. By I guess if IQ-of-10 morons like George Bush can become President and screw the poor, I guess its not a real big issue in this country.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Hey, I never said that I liked or disliked this process (and I won't in this post). Just saying that there is an advantage and many feeder schools do exist.</p>
<p>Schools like Andover/Exeter give a smart kid the opportunity to just focus on schoolwork - good grades = HYP. They don't have to worry if they have enough awards or ECs, because if you are in the top decile you can go wherever you want. There's a list of feeder schools somewhere that stated that over 20% from Andover/Exeter go to HYP; the figure for all of the Ivies must be astronomical. I think the real (as opposed to nominal) advantage is somewhat mitigated by the fact that there are smart kids at top schools, but at the same time, there is a gap that can't be explained by a strong SAT average.</p>
<p>Spetsnaz Op, you are COMPLETELY misunderstanding jags' posts. I suggest you read them all again. He is not coming even close to saying that a 4.0 at Exeter is given no extra merit over a 4.0 at a weaker, urban city. He is saying, that the people who get the 3.6-3.7 are Exeter are already driven enough to get the 3.9+ at the public school, giving them the top 5% at the weaker school, as opposed to the top 25% at the stronger school. Likewise, he is saying that someone with a 4.0 with almost no opportunities will get a 3.7 or so at a great school like Exeter, so that they are similar. He is pointing out the fallacies, however, in how people think that they get into schools just because they go to a good school, rather than that they have a good work ethic or good test scores, etc.</p>
<p>This is similar to something that frustrates me about people who list their grades.
"A - Chemistry (OMG i should have totally gotten an A+ but the teacher hated me)
B+ - History (but it doesnt count because its honors, so i guess its just as good as A+ lolz)
B - Calculus (but there was dis hotz girl next to me so i guess i oculdnt do well, right?)
overall GPA - 3.8, but im smarter than like everyone above me so colelges realize this right?"</p>
<p>Actually, colleges evaluate a student based on the opportunities they're presented with. I am a white male in an affluent school district. I certainly have more opportunities than a student in an inner city school. They are not going to look at me and say, "Wow, that kid took 14 APs, he certainly is better than the kid who took none." You are kidding yourself if you believe this, and it certainly should not be this way. </p>
<p>The only occassion where I can think a school matters is feeder programs and Prep schools, a whole different story that is already being discussed here.</p>
<p>I kind of agree with the OP. Someone here mentioned that their school averages 1400 SATs. I'm assuming they meant Stuyvesant. Well, to my way of thinking, a kid who goes to Stuy, with all its phenomenal advantages, who gets a 1400, is not as impressive as a kid from Podunk HS, average SAT maybe 900, who gets a 1400 SAT. I bet colleges notice that, too.</p>
<p>Man, what a funny ****ing contest. Like in college, the point of high school is to learn and make good use of that education. You have to rely on your own achievements, not those of your peers/neighbors/previous generations.</p>
<p>no competetive high schools totally matter. if you go to a really good school, it's likely that about 40 kids could be #1 at some bad, random high shool. #20 at a school that gets like 30 25 into ivies each year means a lot more than #1 at some school that barely gets any in. It's easy to get a 4.0 at a school that barely has any honors classes, let a lone AP. It's also easy to be ranked #1 at a school that is not competetive</p>
<p>
[quote]
I kind of agree with the OP. Someone here mentioned that their school averages 1400 SATs. I'm assuming they meant Stuyvesant. Well, to my way of thinking, a kid who goes to Stuy, with all its phenomenal advantages, who gets a 1400, is not as impressive as a kid from Podunk HS, average SAT maybe 900, who gets a 1400 SAT. I bet colleges notice that, too.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>"phenomenal advantages"?</p>
<p>Wow, I didn't even know this was such a big deal. My HS's average SAT is ~900. Hey, I had a good time though.</p>