<p>Things that can potentially be factored in a ranking system include size of endowment, endowment per student, number of advanced courses/extracurricular activities/sports, faculty with advanced degrees, student faculty ratio, class size, average ssat scores, selectivity, yield, attrition, sat, matriculation stats, reputation among peers/public (rating) etc. Things that can’t or are hard to be ranked are size, location, and the personal “fit”. To me, rankings have practical values but I agree they are often overly relied on.</p>
<p>parlabane…sorry, I did not answer your question. Yes, one could make a good choice in spite of not making a completely informed choice.</p>
<p>On the college front, some colleges have driven up the applicant pool through marketing. See: <a href=“Ursinus College Opts Out of Admissions Race - The New York Times”>Ursinus College Opts Out of Admissions Race - The New York Times;
<p>A long article on “application inflation:” [Application</a> Inflation - Admissions & Student Aid - The Chronicle of Higher Education](<a href=“http://chronicle.com/article/Application-Inflation/125277/]Application”>http://chronicle.com/article/Application-Inflation/125277/).</p>
<p>If a college doubles the number of applicants through “fast track” applications, has it become twice as good? In a year? (I don’t think so.) Colleges have increased the number of applicants, but the size of admissions offices haven’t kept pace. I think these practices render “selectivity” nearly useless as a gauge of a college’s essential qualities.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>“Hooks” also distort the process:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>On the boarding school front, how many spots are “in play on academic grounds?” It’s hard to judge selectivity and yield, without knowing the composition of the entering class.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Wow - just, I mean…wow. One wonders why minority, athlete, legacy and international is synonymous with being subpar academically. Surely the applicant pool is sufficiently large for Princeton to not have to go there - it certainly is at MIT. </p>
<p>Still - I think that while “stats” have a limited place, we’ve witnessed even here on the boards, parents who compare the “goal” with return on investment, judge schools based on reputation instead of fit/match to their own child, and don’t consider that the raw material they are launching into the world may not fit the profile of what those colleges will be looking for the year their senior year no matter how good their academic stats are. Too many students for too few slots.</p>
<p>I love the diet, fitness and financial product commercials that come with disclaimers: “Results may vary.” and “Current results do not guarantee future returns.”</p>
<p>Caveat emptor.</p>
<p>“One wonders why minority, athlete, legacy and international is synonymous with being subpar academically.”</p>
<p>ExieMITAlum, I didn’t read it that way. In the context of the article, I read it as an indication that up to 78% of the freshman class had hooks, thus only 22% of spots are to be filled by unhooked candidates. (Of course, a candidate could have several hooks. A polo player from Spain could be a legacy, an athlete, and an international candidate.) </p>
<p>If you’re an unhooked candidate, the number of spots which are truly available is a good thing to know. Some day schools, which do give preference to siblings and legacies, may only have a few spots open in an entering class. The overall rate of admission may overstate the (slim) chances of admission for the unhooked candidates. That happens in some NYC elite private kindergartens:
[Kindergarten</a> D-Day Arrives - WSJ.com](<a href=“http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703786804576138623534521408.html?mod=googlenews_wsj]Kindergarten”>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703786804576138623534521408.html?mod=googlenews_wsj)</p>
<p><<some parents…judge=“” schools=“” based=“” on=“” reputation=“” instead=“” of=“” fit=“” match=“” to=“” their=“” own=“” child,=“”>></some></p>
<p>Re the above, I think in part it’s because many kids at this formative stage in their development would do well at multiple schools. I mean, basically you have a fourteen year old who maybe thinks they like Math better than say the Arts, but anything can change and often does at this stage. And a lot of us want our kids to get a broad education, not settle too fast in any one academic path, take science for instance. And how many older college students acutally end of changing their major over the first three years of college?</p>
<p>It sort of reminds me of my daugther’s gymnastics coach who told her at the age of 10, because she was at a high level of proficiency in gymnastics, “gymnastics is all you can do.” It took some convincing on my part to really reassure my daughter that at 10, she wasn’t all washed up. That yes, she was a good gymnast and the sports program was a good fit, but the conditioning could help her in any sport she may try. And she should allow herself a chance on multiple sports. Maybe the two aren’t exactly comparable, still…</p>
<p>Although I am trying to become an increasing fan of the “fit” model when it comes to BS, I think my children could both benefit and contribute to many of the BSs. I didn’t see just one or two as being best fit for them. They are bright kids who like all their subjects, are passionate about a couple things about community service, play multiple sports and enjoy music. They would contribute to any school and likewise could benefit from the same. They don’t seem to have a feeling one way or another whether class size matters.</p>
<p>Although in one case DS felt he would be depressed in the rural area and because of that it wasn’t a good fit, and that was taken off his list immediately.</p>
<p>I agree. I think that fit is over emphasized for the reasons you stated above. My C liked all of the schools that we visited (GLADCHEMMS) and I am sure that if we visited others C probably would have liked them.</p>
<p>The sifting that I as a parent must do and C to some extent is academic rigor, does school have C’s sport–what level, coach o.k.?, distance from home.</p>
<p>I don’t follow at all the fit thing other than the above kinds of triage…YMMV</p>
<p>“fit” is mostly a marketing strategy, ginned up by school trade associations. by selling “fit” instead of results, schools can help parents rationalize spending for mediocre educations.</p>
<p>
LOL. Peer pressure much?</p>
<p>
37% minority? But that includes Asian doesn’t it? ORM as Asian is is not a hook. It’s an “anti-hook”.</p>
<p><<lol. peer=“” pressure=“” much?=“”>></lol.></p>
<p>@DAndrew LOL, mmm…hmmm
I don’t want any more darts thrown at me. However the “fit” argument does allow two things; 1) to look at playing to your child’s strengths and making sure a BS has what you want (We did take BBN off our list because they gave up their track program, my son’s #1 sport). and 2) lowers expectations…in the way of, it’s not about matriculation, but about finding which school your child will excel at, so s/he can get into the right college that is a good fit…so s/he can go into the right field that is a good fit…so ultimately the right fit job will… bring real happiness. I agree that the ivy dipoloma itself doesn’t guarantee happiness or however one defines “success in life.”</p>
<p>tetus, LOL!!</p>
<p>The best employers, the best schools, the best clubs etc. pay close attention to “fit” in determining whether to hire/admit. They usually use the term cultural fit. Unless you’re being hired for some esoteric research job where success is unrelated to human interaction, fit is a critical success factor. Will we get along with this applicant, will he or she get along with us, do we have a role that will be challenging, will he or she find our workplace exhilarating or stifling, does he or she need a structured environment or is a looser, less rules-based approach better. The list of “fit” issues is long, the impact of a bad fit is costly on many levels. I would argue that “fit” is absolutely a blackball issue. You can be the smartest guy or gal around, but if you’re a lousy fit for a company or school, you’ll get the axe. Just a matter of when.</p>
<p>With bright, adolescent children applying to boarding school, fit is even more critical. The personality and habits of your kid are being formed and influenced in greater measure than at any other time in their lives. Parents need to assess honestly the strengths, weaknesses etc of their child and try to identify the School that has the right academics, activities, teaching philosophy, size, community spirit etc that will produce the best results - FOR THEIR UNIQUE CHILD. It’s absolutely 100% about fit.</p>
<p>For some, maybe you, “fit” is a scary proposition to be avoided and discounted because it cannot be measured. As an overall proposition, that approach does not work well in the real work-a-day world, at least in the one I occupy.</p>
<p>^^Parlabane, what you said about “fit” makes sense, but to me the perfect fit is more of a fantasy than something I have a high degree of control over. Just like to find the best fit company, I can only look in a certain line of business, at a certain location, at a certain time when I need to find a job, among the well established and stable companies if possible that happen to have openings that need my expertise, and then I’ll have to choose among the ones that do make me an offer with competitve pay. How much room is left for my “fit” pick?</p>
<p>A little uneasy with “the best employers, the best schools, the best clubs, etc. pay close attention to “fit”…they usually use the term cultural fit”</p>
<p>This idea of fit sounds exclusionary to me. Oftentimes this has been the argument to keep women and minorities out of board rooms, country clubs, etc. It seems to me that this idea of “cultural fit” would have kept the boarding schools WASPY, exactly what they have been moving away from in the last 30 years.</p>
<p>^^Agree with DAndrew and flowers123 above.</p>
<p>But say, I do feel cultural fit is important and just as important to the schools as it is for the candidates, how then do you explain the choice of an athlete or a bassoon player because the school needs one? It seems the “fit” being described here isn’t as much cultural as the school needs a particular athlete or bassoon player. It seems the “fit” theory is often used to explain why one candidate was picked over another, but if this is the case, are we talking about only the few unhooked acceptances?</p>
<p>Flowers…no code or weighted language involved. Companies have distinct cultures, some will be a good fit and others not for any one applicant. While part of Walmart may be a better fit for men than women, I was thinking less of prejudicial matters than, say, a company’s willingness to permit flex time, or offer materninty/paternity leave, or require a constant presence in the office, or implicitly require a certain amount of socialization outside of work, or possess a merit-based culture vs. one based on seniority. The list, like I said earlier, is endless.</p>
<p>DAndrew, you may be a fit in a number of professions, or certain geographies, or at certain salary levels, or with certain special areas of topical expertise, or in certain kinds of roles. It is a squishy, individual case based process. I take the opposite view from fetus, I think that hanging your hat on statistical matching is actually the cop-out approach. In my view, SSAT, SAT and college matriculation stats are critical influencers, but not the most critical. I’d choose a less “stats-endowed” school if I believed it would be a better fit for my daughter, make her the best possible person she could be after four years. </p>
<p>There’s no way I’d choose an Exeter over a St. Andrews, for example, simply because it had better stats.</p>
<p>Parlabane, in reality many people at a certain stage of their life would stick with one profession, try to be in the geographic area where they had a home, their spouses work and their children go to school, and look for jobs that pay well and have potential for growth… in other words, they do have to make a cut based on some objective measures. If they can’t find what they need, they’d loosen up the criteria; or they may start with a wider net, and once get offers that fit their primary criteria they’d quickly refocus. </p>
<p>I do believe rankings are over-rated, but I think “fit” is too. As professionals, as well as teenagers who are ready for BS, we need to be (highly) adaptable so we can survive or even thrive in a variety of places. Is there a disaster inducing “non fit” situation out there? Sure there is and we should try to avoid it as much as we can. Can a group - sometimes a big group of schools/companies of varying sizes and styles - be our fit? Absolutely. Heck, dare I say even with marriage, the one who you tied the knots with may not be “the one and only”. Out of the people you know and don’t know in this world, you could live a happy life with at least a few them - none would be perfect and each may require a different kind of “work”. Isn’t that life?</p>
<p>While I disagree on some points in your first paragraph, I do agree that it’s possible to have several very good fits, maybe a couple of best fits where boarding school is concerned. </p>
<p>As to your cinematic blasphemy… I also agree that there is more than one soul mate per person. Even though I’ve been married to the same woman for 27 years (and a saintly creature she is to put up with me), I’m sure she could drum up another man to love. It used to be Liam Neeson and then Daniel Day-Lewis (The Last of the Mohicans). If only I could work up the nerve to jump off a waterfall…</p>
<p>parlabane…on the one hand you reject empirical bases of comparison and decision making. to your way thinking, “real world” decision making requires fuzzy logic and nuance. you cite institutional and cultural necessities for getting along and going along to arrive at societally optimal outcomes. Other than the military and utopian socialists, I know of no one who seriously agrees with you! Moreover, you then say that your objective is to “produce the best results - FOR THEIR UNIQUE CHILD.” By definition, your concept of “best result” require you to have a preference set, hierarchy, or heaven forbid “ranking” of outcomes. While a child may be unique, his educational needs and talents are most unlikely to be so. If they are, get him a library card and save the tuition expense.</p>
<p>A good way to determine fit is to look at it the way we look for employment/employers:</p>
<p>We are all capable of doing many things well if we put our minds to it - but that doesn’t mean we all “want” to do those things for extended periods of time.</p>
<p>If faced with multiple options - fit is a great way to winnow down to the best choice. If faced with only a single choice - then the choice becomes - adapt or opt out. In a job market, the latter may not be an option if you like having a roof over your head. Face with a lousy school environment at home, the same may hold true if you’re bright and need more challenge.</p>
<p>For me - fit is like choosing a spouse. I fit my HADES environment because it was all I knew at the time. So one could argue I adapted to the culture, brushed off what I considered some occasionally “retentiveness” and took advantage of the journey.</p>
<p>However - when it came time to looking at schools with my daughter, I realized that she would have done fine in any environment, but she would not have necessarily thrived in all of them. And in watching the situation at her current school and comparing it to experiences shared by other parents, realized that a majority of what she’s accomplished would not have happened at my own and she’s thriving in ways that I did not.</p>
<p>So I like the spouse analogy better - if you’re going to live with someone, better the one you chose to marry and like waking up to every morning - than the arranged marriage because someone decided that person was a good “catch” on paper. </p>
<p>Adapting is not always a good option, if thriving was the option left on the table.</p>
<p>Tetus…not sure what planet you live on, but if you think hiring today is done on a strictly empirical basis, you are woefully out of touch with reality. Ask any head hunter who searches for any senior executive and I can GUARANTEE you that he or she will, to paraphrase you, use fuzzy logic, nuance, institutional and cultural necessities for [estimating whether the applicant will] get along and go along to arrive at societally [or business based or school based] optimal outcomes. By your way of thinking, which is a nice characterization, schools wouldn’t need interviews. They’d admit on empirical evidence only. </p>
<p>Ask ANY AO at any decent boarding school and they will tell you they could fill their classes with the empirically and statistically well endowed, but don’t…because then the School would be a miserable place full misFITS.</p>