Do private schools have it easier than normal publics?

<p>

</p>

<p>1) Valedictorians aren’t exactly a dime a dozen, but they’re nonetheless fairly common. There are roughly 30,000 high schools in the U.S. That means roughly 30,000 valedictorians. True, some schools don’t name valedictorians, but others name multiple valedictorians, so 30,000 is a good ballpark estimate. That’s a large number.</p>

<p>2) The 30,000 valedictorians aren’t necessarily the 30,000 most academically qualified candidates, considering GPA, test scores, the school’s academic profile, and the individual student’s curricular rigor. Some schools are more rigorous than others. Some schools have more “top” students even in a smaller class, so the competition for valedictorian may be tougher; and many top schools no longer rank. Sometimes the salutatorian, or #3, #7 or whatever in the class got edged out for val because they took a more demanding course load and came in with a slightly lower GPA.</p>

<p>3) At many (most?) high schools, the valedictorian isn’t known until senior year grades are in. This makes it pretty much impossible for colleges to use valedictorian as an admissions criterion even if they wanted to do so.</p>

<p>4) Highly selective colleges usually care about more than GPA and class rank, which is what valedictorian reflects, and they care about more than those things plus test scores and academic rigor, i.e., purely “academic” predictors of college success. They like essays that indicate the ability to write well, to tell a compelling story, to convey an interesting thought that reveals something interesting about the writer. They like strong extracurriculars, special talents, and non-academic achievements. They want a diverse and “interesting” student body. Most of them give a boost to legacies because multi-generation old school ties are important to their sense of identity and continuity. Many now give a boost to first-gens or economically disadvantaged students. I’ve heard more than one admissions officer at a highly selective college boast, “We could fill our entire entering class with class presidents if we wanted to, but then we’d have an entire entering class of class presidents, and who wants that?” I imagine they might feel the same way about valedictorians. Nothing wrong with valedictorians–like class president, it’s an admirable accomplishment, but the elite colleges don’t want cookie-cutter anything. </p>

<p>5) All that said, I do think the bias in elite college recruitment of students is clearly toward the strongest private high schools, and secondarily toward the strongest public high schools which tend to be in the most affluent suburban districts. Every year, admissions reps from all the Ivies hold information sessions at all the top private high schools in our area, and they visit 3 or 4 of the top suburban public high schools as well. You can’t exactly blame them; they have limited time, and those schools represent their most fertile recruiting ground. But in the process they make no effort whatsoever to connect with the top students (future valedictorians or otherwise) at the many other urban and suburban public high schools across the metropolitan region. And as a consequence, they pass over many diamonds in the rough–or just outright diamonds, because some of the most accomplished kids in these overlooked schools are just as accomplished as the kids to whom the college recruiters are making their pitch in the top private and affluent public schools. </p>

<p>It makes sense to me that students from elite private schools would get into elite colleges, not because they graduated from a top high school but because they got into that high school in the first place. These are often very bright students who would be attractive to the Ivies even if they happened to go to a public high school. I think in particular of schools like Roxbury Latin, which sends numerous boys to Harvard every year. But getting into Roxbury Latin is so difficult that those who make it are certainly the type of students Harvard would be interested in.</p>

<p>By contrast, there are many private schools that don’t necessarily help kids get into top schools. People choose them because they are better than their local public schools or because they offer something not offered in some public schools (small classes, religious instruction, flexible scheduling, etc.). My kids left a very good public school to attend a lesser known and less rigorous private school because it suited their needs better. We knew it was a trade-off but it was one we were happy to make.</p>

<p>@JHS: 1100 SAT would actually be well below the median of decent middle-class suburban public HS’s in this Midwestern metro where I’m at . . .</p>

<p>@JHS, thanks for that summary.</p>

<p>I don’t even know where to start with this thread, but I do have a question that keeps coming up as I read similar threads. First, I think the comments up thread toward Miami where rude, and I am only using her post as context, not to be further inflammatory.</p>

<p>There is a lot of contradiction here. For instance @MiamiDAP reports her D was getting 100 plus on all of her Chemistry exams, and kids were lined up for assistance since she went to a such a great hs. What does that really say? Does that speak to her high school, or just indicate that she didn’t chose a very rigorous and competitive college? Do you believe that she would be getting 100s(where top exam grades are often in the 50-60 range) in Chem at JHU or CMU, and that kids would be lining up for help? Miami and her D have reasons for picking the school, and good for them. Since she is at a less competitive college, are her grades, intelligence, and achievements negated? Of course not! So why the constant bashing of Vals and top students at “less than” high schools? They can’t possibly be worthy of a top college admission if there aren’t 50 kids around them just as bright? Why is it okay to be a 4.0 student at a middling college and be worthy of MEDICAL SCHOOL, but a 4.0 student at an average hs belongs at the state directional? I feel that since the students at the middling college CHOOSE to go to less competitive schools in order to obtain the 4.0,(since "UG “doesn’t matter”) they should be judged more harshly than a high school student that has no choice over where they attend school. “UG doesn’t matter” but if you don’t attend the “right” hs you are doomed? Seriously?</p>

<p>I don’t think you’re “doomed” if you don’t attend the right high school. Unfortunately however not all high schools are created equal. Not every private HS is great (here in the South many privates are more concerned with indoctrinating religious beliefs than with education). Not every public high school is horrible - many provide excellent educations and great opportunities. Unfortunately, as you said, most kids don’t have a choice with what high school they attend. </p>

<p>D would have (most likely) been in the top 3, if not val, if she attended our local public high school. The school has a 67% graduation rate, and only 30% of those who graduate go on to college, most to community college and many never complete any level of degree. They offer very few honors classes and only a couple of AP classes. Their rate for passing AP exams is very low, even though only a percentage of students (I assume the stronger ones) take the exam. Are there some kids who go there who are high achievers? I’m sure there are, but sadly the school offers very little to challenge them and help them grow academically. They’re forced to fend for themselves in many ways.</p>

<p>Had we moved one county (and several socio-economic levels) away, she could have attended a top-ranked public high school with wildly different resources. We chose to stay put and place her in a college prep Catholic school, where she had lots of opportunities to take honors and AP classes, and where the AP passing rate is 87% (all AP students are required to take the exam). She had many opportunities for academic ECs she wouldn’t have had at her zoned school. She had a peer group that placed friendly competition on standardized test scores that I believe pushed her to achieve more than she would have on her own, which put her in better position for merit scholarships.</p>

<p>Is she any more or less intelligent because of a the high school she attended? No. But I firmly believe she received much better preparation to succeed in college, and having a large peer group of equally talented students was definitely a factor. I’m far happier with her being #10 from her school than I would have been seeing her be #1 at the local school.</p>

<p>I wish every kid could have the same opportunities.</p>

<p>@planner03: While all vals are not “created equal”, all vals should be able to attend a fine college if they choose to. They may not all end up in elite colleges or very selective ones but they are far from being doomed to fail either. The talk of graduate school (medical school in particular) prospect has a different set of assumptions, which is a) an A student from any college will be admitted to at least one medical school (or at least college name has no impact), and b) all medical schools are created equal (in other words, one’s career as a doctor is NOT affected by what medical school they graduate from). I don’t know if these assumptions are accurate but if using similar assumptions to UG, you could say that Val from any high school will be able to attend at least a decent college and their future will not be affected by which of these fine colleges they attend. Then obviously they are not doomed.</p>

<p>@planner03‌, I don’t see anyone saying what you said. The unfortunate reality is that the quality of education across HS’s in this country is really variable. However, many colleges realize that. That’s why most/all state flagships (and many privates) put a heavy emphasis on GPA and class rank. They feel that they have a mission to serve all segments of their population. So I don’t know of any state where any valedictorian is doomed to a directional (though in some states where the flagships provide meager fin aid, that does happen). Plus, there is a study out there which states that a directional may actually be <em>better</em> for a high-achieving poor working-class kid than a public flagship (due in large part to many public flagships being flooded with upper-middle-class students now who bring their mores, which may be exclusionary, with them).</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>The above look like the private school has students who are advantaged in the first place (high SES and legacy status do not depend on the student’s achievement or the effects of the school), so they would not necessarily be advantages that the school gives to its students. (Unless you are suggesting that the PE / sports program at the private school provides superior coaching that can help a good athlete become a recruitable athlete.)</p>

<p>In contrast, the following:</p>

<p>

</li>
</ol>

<p>appear to be advantages that the school gives to its students, so that an equivalent student in academics, extracurriculars, SES, legacy status, etc. could end up with a better college admission result.</p>

<p>Did the schools differ in the quality of the actual courses offered, at least for the top quarter students of the public school that you suggest are roughly similar to the private school students in academic ability?</p>

<p>Of course, a disadvantage of such a private school is that the student stays in a high SES high academic achievement bubble during high school, then likely goes to a high SES high academic achievement bubble in college (only a few of the highly selective universities and especially LACs have a lot of SES diversity, and they all, by definition, are populated by high academic achievers), so s/he may end up like William Deresiewicz, being unable to talk to a plumber or other typical person.</p>

<p>

Curious to know… If you are a parent who is/was in the position of making a choice between a public school and a private school (which means both are financially and logistically otherwise readily available to you) and this is/was a genuine concern to you, please click on “like”. </p>

<p>Benley, this didn’t affect college choice so much as high school choice for me. I have very bright kids, but one of them is socially awkward. One of my goals for him was to make him more comfortable in his skin and to give him the opportunity to learn how to get along with different kinds of people. We can easily afford the expensive privates in our area and he would have been accepted, but he went public in large part to learn how to get along with people who weren’t like him. At the privates, he would been very comfortable, but everyone would have been like him: smart, affluent, white, etc.</p>

<p>FWIW I see this with some families who have kids with LDs or who are on the spectrum as well. Our community has a strong private that specializes in kids with LDs and kinds of autism. Some families send their kids there, but then switch to the public later in high school because they worry the private is too much of a bubble. They want their kids to learn how to get along in a more real world setting before they graduate. </p>

<p>Our local public is pretty good but not great. Lots of APs and ECs. If it had been mediocre, our choice may well have been different. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>It doesn’t always work like that. We live in an affluent suburb of NYC. There is very little housing in our town that can be afforded by lower SES families, and the public HS is high-achieving and increasingly militant about enforcing residency requirements. The expensive nearby private has a good endowment, gets substantial donations every year, and is committed to the benefits of diversity, so a substantial number of the students get help in paying the $35k/year tuition; many are full ride. We chose the private, in part, for the diversity (although it also has other positives for our kids).</p>

<p>As for talking to the plumber, that’s a parent’s job to teach their kids. My kids make fun of what they call my tail-wagging and say that it should be possible to get a tank of gas without making a new friend at the gas station, but I’ve observed that even the kid attending the school Deresiewicz criticizes finds it easy to talk to the plumber :slight_smile: </p>

<p>I am asking the question partly because I used to (and I still do to a lesser degree) think that most of the small, local private schools with little diversity are “too nurturing” and sheltering their 50-student-per-class students in a bubble that is too far apart from the world in which they will be working and living after graduation. Obviously, as a point made repeated on this forum and illustrated by @lynayBob, all private schools are not the same just as all public schools are not. Some private schools actually provide a more diversified and more competitive environment than some public schools.</p>

<p>That said, I have never met anyone who graduated from private school the “small local” ones included who have trouble connecting with people from different background than theirs. Most of the private school graduates I know happen to be well adjusted and well spoken individuals. And there are people who are socially awkward and have difficulty communicating with others but at least some of them have never had one day in a private school/college. As for talking to plumbers, what’s wrong with plumbers? Most, if not all of them speak perfect English and are easy going individuals. I find it much easier to communicate with them than - say some supposedly highly intelligent lPhD candidates!</p>

<p>I enjoyed reading planner03’s post and the follow-up response from Bentley and PurpleTitan above.</p>

<p>Academic excellency is hard to be compared if the environments are different. The ones who are not in the “fit” environment may amplify their weakness to the admission officers and the system may then “punish” them sometimes overly severely. As such, people may try to game the system by choosing a college or high school that is not the most competitive - in a society where the academic merit is not everything. This is not the case in many other parts of the world where the perceived fairness of the admission policy and the caliber of the schools may be a greater concern to their population at large. (I do not claim their admission system us definitely better here.)</p>

<p>Also, there is one big difference between college and high school: the caliber of students on the different track (which may lead to a “desirable” next stage of the life) may be more different at the college level than at the high school level. As such, students attending a not-so-elite high schools are “punished” by the system more severely than the students attending a not-so-elite college. So it seems many CCers are obsessed with the topic of how to game the system to their advantage year after after - even though there is some truth that it is the students themselves, not the school, that make it or break it.</p>

<p>Re: the admission to a med school.
Assuming that the total number of students who are admitted to, say, most ivies and a few others top colleges (including LACs) are about the same as that of students who are admitted to a US med school anywhere, do you think their qualifications (including both academic merit and ECs) are similar among their age group? I do not know the answer. One aspect is different: the admission to a (public) med school shows a huge preference to the students of the families who pay into the system (taxes), but the elite colleges do not. In addition, “Globalization” is almost never a factor at the medical school level (they do not want to take international students by and large - it is not PC and to their advantage to do so), but it could be some factor to consider at the college level. Elite colleges are more into recruiting the “next big fish” even without concerning their countries of origin, let alone “states” of origin. This is definitely not the case for medical school admission. After all, med schools , most of them being public, just want to recruit those who are willing (and capable) to work (somewhat intelligently) very long hours both in the training phase and after the completion of their training, but the elite colleges have more motivations in recruiting those few who may shake and change the world in the future - and potentially give back to the schools. (this often means that their parents/grandparents are already in the class of “winners” in the society - just look at, say, most of the national politicians, or even Bill Gates.)</p>

<p>Re: “many public flagships being flooded with upper-middle-class students now who bring their mores, which may be exclusionary, with them)”</p>

<p>Is it more likely so at the elite private colleges if they do not intentionally try hard to prevent this from happening? This is why many elite private colleges keep trying to diversify the composition of their incoming class as this is not a good situation to be in.</p>

<p>When the rich has everything very easily, the next thing they could value and try to get hold of may be the brand of the college (or secondary/primary school) that they can not buy as easily. They may be dedicated their resources so that their offsprings may have a better shot at getting into these elite colleges.</p>

<p>If your SES is on the low side and your child happens to be at one of these elite ones, the families of your child’s peer students may not come from the same SES class than yours. I think this the “mores” that were referred to in the post here.</p>

<p>@JHS,
Love your post. In particular, your vantage point of having kids go thru both sides gives you the most credibility.</p>

<p>Here is my anecdote, but I don’t have the vantage point of being a parent of all of the kids.
4 kids, one of them my D, graduate from great private middle school as the top 4 kids in a class of 20 (my D was rank 3). 2 go to the good, but not great, public school with IB program. 2 (including my D) go to the elite private HS. The 2 kids that went to the good public HS get ranked in the top 1% in class of 500. The 2 kids that went to elite private get ranked in top 25% in class of 90. My D, ranked in the top 25%, was accepted to Yale. 2nd private HS kid was accepted to USC (So Cal). The 2 public HS kids were accepted to Harvard, and Yale and Princeton.</p>

<p>The take away messages are that:

  1. Colleges are able to flesh out that a kid from a particular public HS is similar to a kid at a particular private HS, although their ranks are 1% and 25%
  2. Motivated, smart kids can be equally successful in different environments
  3. There does have to be some unusual “spark” in your application which helps for acceptance. I know what the spark was for 3 of the kids, but did not know what the spark was for the USC kid. I presume the non-identification of spark was what ultimately made her not come off the Columbia waitlist.
  4. The public HS kids were accepted to elite colleges without having to pay HS tuition of $35K per year </p>

<p>^ Interesting post.</p>

<p>My kid went to a relatively good, but not extremely good, public high school. When he applied SCEA, he ranked the first among his class of about 600 students. The top 3 students and another rank-18 student got into one of HYPSM (none got into more than one of them.) All 3 students had near perfect standardized test scores, and 10-12 APs with all 5s on them, and won some state-level competitions in their ECs.</p>

<p>It is doable to go from a non-elite high school to an elite college. But the “lower” your high school is, the harder to make this “jump”. Basically, the low caliber of your high school could pull you down quite significantly. It is a huge disadvantage to go to a very uncompetitive high school if your goal is to get into an elite college.</p>

<p>It appears that in other years, a slightly more (but not many more, say 6 or 7) students from DS’s public high school got into similar colleges. So, in the eyes of these colleges, this public high school is, well, relatively good (good enough for each elite college to take one or at most two of them per 600-students class but definitely no more than 2) but not extremely good.</p>

<p>My point is that it is extremely unlikely that the perception about your high school from the POV of the admission office at elite colleges will change much. Also, some elite college (for DS’s high school, it is P) has a consistent unfavorable view toward your high school year after year.</p>

<p>I am aware that some “high calibered” private high school (not in my city) sends much more students to elite colleges. I can only speculate that the concentration of competitive students there is likely higher.</p>

<p>@mcat2,
Yes, would agree.
I add that at D’s elite private HS, 13% of her senior class got accepted to either Harvard or Stanford whereas at the good public HS in my anecdote I would imagine the number was less than 1% got accepted to either H or S.</p>

<pre><code>

</p>

<p>@Benley, you can get a hearty, very delicious, very enjoyable lunch in places without white tablecloths and sommeliers.</p>

<p>Edited to change: 13% of her senior class attend either Harvard or Stanford.</p>