<p>Wouldn’t want to argue with you, twins, but just alluding to the fact that 25% is a different order than 10-15%, which is what a handful of “name” schools throw about for their admit rates. But 25 is low, no doubt about it. My comment was strictly in relative terms to the few schools in NE and CA with those ultra-low stats. </p>
<p>The rest of my post is not meant to refute, merely to give subjective and fallible opinion based on somewhat insider observations. Perhaps prospectives can get a fuller picture of the school from this. </p>
<p>Larger schools, I feel, are building a class moreso than SAS, and seek demonstrated performance in selected areas to a degree somewhat beyond what SAS is. With over a thousand applicants, that may well allow for more discriminating standards of performance. (ex. L’ville/Deerfield really wants that club/camp lacrosse player, but SAS wants that sibling who also plays lacrosse, and might not even have started or made varsity at those other schools.) OTOH, I’ve heard from credible source that SAS is doing more class-building than in the past. </p>
<p>As to SAS in particular, I have noticed, as standing out, the following:
– (very) wealthy families, esp. from Manhattan, Charlotte and central NJ/Somerset
– northern NJ/NYC minority families
– tidewater/“rural” MD/DE families, often from a few “sending schools”
– children of “public service” employees, like schoolteachers
– the normal % faculty children (almost all)
– siblings, legacies
– Bermuda! (outsized; S. Korea, China have higher % too)
– overlap in the above groups
– smallish numbers from the periphery states of the 26 sending students (and, no doubt, an interest in maintaining that number around 25-26)</p>
<p>At least some of these are undoubtedly “hooks”, so I should retract/revise the hooks statement above. </p>
<p>I have observed only a very few kids from these SAS groups that didn’t seem obviously talented or active in some way useful to the school. Most Saints, well over half, show proficiency or better in at least one activity, often a new one to them, but most of these did their middles school ECs, I’m guesstimating, average to well, not already amazing/prizeworthy in eighth grade. (Our state Gatorade cross-country star achieved that award in only her first year of competitive running; she’s so all-around athletic, but decided to join the orchestra her second year at school, which is the typical “branching out” at SAS.) </p>
<p>It’s interesting to speculate on how well schools “develop and grow” their freshmen talent over the years, versus taking in admits who are pretty much superstars from start to finish (though these obviously grow too). I like that some schools are really interested in how far classes come along, as opposed to being fixated on the achievements of the academic or sports stars. Coming along, at SAS, is thought of very holistically, though excellence in intellectual exploration is certainly encouraged, just not in the competitive, naming names way. (Outside end of year awards, the school never publishes honor roll lists, etc.) </p>
</p>