<p>kli - the point that Mainer95 was making, which is spot on, is that decisions don’t turn on one applicant being better than another as much as they do on one applicant being a better match than another. This is a small, but critical distinction. </p>
<p>Let’s say, for instance, that two great applicants with nearly identical grades, recs and scores are under consideration. One of them is an outstanding hockey goalie and the other is a world class cellist. Since the School doesn’t need another goalie, but is desperate for another cellist for the orchestra, the cellist gets the nod. That applicant is not “better,” just a better match for the school’s requirements that particular year.</p>
<p>The point that I was making, which in my opinion is likewise spot on, is that the admission process is not “random” and that there is a very good reason why one child is admitted over another. </p>
<p>I never said that this made one child intrinsically superior to another, only that in the eyes of the school the “better” applicant was admitted. </p>
<p>In other words, there is no distinction between being a “better” applicant and a better match. The two are the same; a child who is a better match for the school is the better applicant.</p>
<p>We get the picture. However, one may be selected over the other for things like race and ethnicity, not talent at all. Not sure in this example it constitutes a better match. Sure, they want diversity…it’s a stretch to say it’s a better match. We’re letting our D know that there are lots of factors that go into the decision-making, many of which she has no control over. She already has optimized her chances on the things she does.</p>
<p>scholwannabe: Race/ethnicity and talent are not mutually exclusive. </p>
<p>AOs admit talented students of all races and ethnicities, and AOs deny unqualified students of all races and ethnicities (yes, even under-represented minorities) all the time.</p>
<p>GemmaV, I don’t think anyone was implying that race/ethnicity and talent were mutually exclusive. As a matter of fact, I think that was his point. Race, ethnicity, geography, religion are things that an applicant has no control over whatsoever, have nothing to do with talent. I’m not saying that such diversity should not be considered and is not valued. It certainly is for our family. Those things just don’t make one applicant “better” than the other.</p>
<p>@kli - While I cannot dispute the logic of what you are saying, I certainly would not take that line of thought with a rejected child. Actually, it sounds very much like something my son would say.</p>
<p>How many schools will you be hearing from on 3/10? It seems that some kids on CC apply to only one or two schools while I sense that a majority apply to four or more. In NYC, many kids apply to 6-8 day schools and sometimes even more. For those in that camp, a good bit of thought may still lie ahead to sort through positive responses.</p>
<p>Thank you for the advice. But I am 15, and do not have children. (:</p>
<p>@Parlabane.
You are correct, being a better match does not connote intrinsic superiority; however, neither does being a better applicant.
I have never even suggested that anything in the admissions process can be used as a benchmark to claim one child is superior to another. You misunderstand me. Timmy may be a better applicant than Tommy, but by no means is Timmy an inherently better person. A child is a multi-faceted, wondrous thing, and should not and cannot be compared with something as arbitrary as Boarding School Admissions. </p>
<p>Now if we were to view this from an admissions perspective, all would be different. If Timmy played piano, and Tommy played the Bassoon, and the school was desperate for a Bassoon player, then Tommy is a better match for the school and also a better applicant. From an admission perspective, both connote intrinsic superiority.</p>
<p>She has earned the right to open her letters, preferrably in private. We let my dd do this and decided to follow her lead about the news. Thus, we were both angry together at the two schools that waitlisted my dd, and happy with the two that accepted her. Basically, your role at this time is to be your child’s cheerleader. The other stuff can wait.</p>
<p>You could explain to your child that applicants are selected not rejected. There are many boarding schools and day schools that have far more qualified applicants than they have places for them. It becomes a process of selecting a class from among a large pool of qualified applicants.</p>
<p>It would be good to explain this concept before March 10.</p>
<p>Good luck to all of you!</p>
<p>PS. I think the applicant should open the letters and read the emails.</p>
<p>If your kid is anywhere close to being involved in the process as the CC kids as we see here, I don’t think there will be an immediately effective way to comfort him/her for the rejection and wl decisions received on March 10. Hopefully there will be one positive decision from a school he/she loves, and that’s all it takes to cheer every family member up!</p>
<p>I think who opens the letter depends on to whom it is addressed. Some schools address the letter to “Parents of [applicant],” and other address them to the applicant. When my son applied to prep schools for entry in seventh grade, the letters were all addressed to his parents, as he was only twelve years old at the time and presumably too young to have applied on his own (as indeed he had not).</p>
<p>My mother says she would like me to open any big envelopes with the family, but smaller ones I am free to open any way I please, in private, just with her, etc.</p>
<p>GemmaV, are applications up for both FA and non-FA applications? I read an article on Bloomberg that NYC independent school applications were down 4% this year. Apart from international students, I just can’t see how non-FA applications could avoid declining in this economic environment.</p>
<p>Ask your son or daughter if he or she wants you to check during the school day. Our child wanted to know about any news that arrived while s/he was at school and asked that we open any emails or letters. When a couple of big, fat envelopes arrived, along with a wait-list email, I called the school guidance counselor, who happily passed along the news, good and bad. Reportedly, the smile on child’s face was huge, and s/he shared the news with the teachers who’d contributed so much. Don’t know what would’ve happened if there had been no good news – but that’s what child wanted to do.</p>
<p>Periwinkle, I noticed that too. Personally, I think the last paragraph conflates a long term value proposition with near term economic conditions, but clearly the value proposition is much more visible at the high school level than it is at Kindergarten. Given that the endowments at the day schools are much smaller on average than the B/S, the mix of FA and non-FA is much more critical to annual budgeting at these schools I would think. Total applications may not really reflect the economy, while non-FA application totals should be much more correlated with the economy. Seems logical, but I really am wondering if it’s true. Hoping someone with some real admissions data can enlighten me. :-)</p>
<p>Up all around for FA candidates and full pay, but yes–only for upper school admissions. My colleagues who work in independent K-8 or K-12 see declines in preK/K admissions.</p>