Honestly, I am as perplexed as can be at the idea of “fit”. Every school has a website full of smiling lacrosse players; plucky young mathematicians up at smart boards being plucky; laughing bff’s in an endless-sleepover pose on pragmatic institutional furniture munching on dorm-head made cookies in fabulous common rooms; campuses that make those of us coming from local LPS’s drool with a dumbfounded stare at the incomprehensible grandeur, beauty and (seemingly) limitless resources.
Is “an example of fit” town versus rural? Well, it seems the day is so packed that the setting won’t make all that much of a difference-- except at the margin for a small percentage of kids who have a visceral reaction to the idea of a Starbucks being too {close | far}. What about other markers of “fit”? Is it the size of a school? If so, why are kids having a tough choice between (this is just an example) Middlesex or Andover? Exeter or Deerfield? Certainly, size can impact a decision-- I’m not arguing it is immaterial. My point is simply that “fit” isn’t likely to really be about size, or we’d find some large subset of kids (with “fit” directed parents) applying only to {big schools | small schools}.
My child is telling me quite clearly that “fit” is a feeling-- a"vibe" you get on the campus. But (and maybe I am too Spock-like here) this seems utterly capricious. If the pool of tour guides is n large, and the pool of AO’s that are interviewing at any given time is q large. Then any kid showing up on any day could have (q*n) combinations of experiences. Some of these will be good (great tour guide >> for that prospective kid + great interviewer >> for that prospective kid) and some will be bad. Does this mean that the elusive “fit” is really just a randomized outcome? We tour on a Wednesday with Sam and Mr. Jones: THIS IS THE BEST SCHOOL EVER! But if we had scheduled on Friday and ended up with Tad and Ms. Harper: “This school is OFF the list! OFF! OFF! OFF!” As far as our experience has been so far, my assessment (not my child’s) the entire sense of “fit” comes from the conjunction of three factors: tour guide/interviewer/facilities. And 2 out of 3 of those are pretty random.
Now it’s true, some schools can absolutely be eliminated as not being a good “fit”. We’ve eliminated many this way. And my inner-Spock has been quite satisfied with the eliminations. Some schools aren’t a good “fit” because they don’t have the sport or EC that matters (for a particular kid). Some aren’t a good fit because of a particular curriculum issue. (i.e. the school that lacks Japanese for a kid who wants to learn it; a kid who doesn’t want Harkness because of self-perceptions of introversion, etc.). Some aren’t a good fit because of access to airports, etc. etc.
But after these “not good fit” schools are eliminated, there is still an exceedingly long list of schools that-- while not being in any sense “interchangeable” (some big/some small/small rural/some urban-ish/some preppy/some sporty/some hippie/some nature-y)-- are all sort of uniquely-same-ish. Here (via a story) is what I mean by that gibberish mix of words that might seem nonsensical: two college mates got into a disagreement about the veracity of the horoscope as a tool for self-knowledge. One was a tried-and-true believer, the other a steadfast empiricist. The empiricist cut all the horoscopes out of some source that the believer vouched for, and then cut off all the names, leaving just 12 descriptions. The empiricist asked the believer to choose which one was his. This task proved nearly impossible, much to the delight of the empiricist and dismay of the believer. The point of this digression is to ask: if we cut up all the school look books, all the catalogs, all the great writing on all of the great websites, and mixed them all up (randomizing school colors with the help of some digital artistry), would the “fit” believers be able to untangle the school’s marketing materials? Or at the end of the day, are all the plucky mathematicians just as plucky? Does “fit” exist only in the same way that a horoscope “truly describes” the believer? ie. requiring the believer to come to the narrative with a self-fulfilling faith in it’s accuracy? Or is “fit” something real? And if so, what is it? What is it composed of? What is this luminiferous aether?