<p>“A well motivated student can get the best education anywhere, including the jungles of Africa – but that is not most students.”</p>
<p>That might be true for the minute percentage of extraordinary kids that are virtually self-educating, but it’s not true for 99+% (the extreme limit of “most”). In fact, interpreted literally it puts all of the blame on the student if he/she fails to get “the best education anywhere.” I doubt anyone really believes that is correct.</p>
<p>Even a well-motivated student with normal to well above average skills can benefit from a stronger educational environment. The key as erlanger noted is to find one that matches up with the student’s needs (learning style, level, self-motivation vs. pushing the class along, etc.). That will never be the same place for every student and the marginal benefits of any school must be traded off against the cost.</p>
<p>Having said that and taking the discussion back to the original topic, I stand by my statement that for those kids that can benefit from an Andover (or Exeter, Milton, Groton, et al) education, it is a big mistake to turn down the opportunity because of the perception or reality that it will reduce their likelihood of getting into Harvard or Yale. Sure some cannot gain the extra benefits because they already attend one of the relatively small percentage of comparable schools (e.g. Thomas Jefferson and others such as Princess’Dad has described), others are not comfortable with BS or have incompatible learning styles, and still others just can’t afford it even with FA. But for the other high achievers with big dreams, they’ll come out ahead across their 8 year secondary/collegiate sequence - even if they have to “settle” for Princeton or Stanford.</p>