<p>Anyone else think the concept of "feeder schools" is unfair to the rest of America?</p>
<p>just wondering!</p>
<p>Any sort of income inequality is unfair, really. Because no newborn baby is any more deserving of a bigger house or a more padded lifestyle than another. </p>
<p>Different educational opportunities just follow naturally from being able to spend your income however you want, which is a reasonable right.</p>
<p>You have to bear in mind that natural aptitudes/intelligence/inclinations - if they exist - are distributed at random, and unequally.</p>
<p>Also, there are public feeder schools. Boston Latin school, Cambridge Rindge and Latin, etc… BLS is a testing school so there’s less diversity, but CRLS is the only public school in Cambridge, so they have the whole spectrum there. Last year CRLS sent 10 kids to harvard.</p>
<p>My school sends 20 people out of a year of 130 or so to Oxbridge. How does this compare to top American private schools, out of interest?</p>
<p>Do you feel Philips Exeter, Andover, Sidwell, Choate, etc. do not produce viable and eminently qualified applicants? Many whom also happen to be legacies?</p>
<p>And if you’re looking for “fair” then don’t apply to any private college.</p>
<p>No, I’m not necessarily saying they aren’t qualified… just that if they were in other schools, with the same grades and accomplishments, they have a much lower chance of getting in compared to if they were in those specific schools. I am almost implying that there may be more qualified candidates outside of those schools, who get rejected, over someone from Exeter who has less incredible ECs, just because of the name of the school and the so called “established relationship” between Harvard and such schools.</p>
<p>Well, as T26E4 said, many would be legacies (likely) and I wouldn’t be surprised if some students were developmental cases (high level of donations from the family). Combining those factors, you could probably see why they have higher numbers of ivy acceptances. But that doesn’t mean their school’s name doesn’t play a factor, that could very well be true, but not certain without knowing more stats.</p>
<p>This thread confuses me (especially its specific “Phillips Exeter” title) because there are too many underlying, outdated assumptions at play. But three points come to mind immediately: (1) With regard to ostensible “feeder” schools and academic merit, you can’t simply compare grades at, say, Exeter, which is on an 11-point scale with a different instruction model (Harkness) and, in many cases, a higher degree of rigor, with just any other school in the U.S. and assume all things equal to support the notion that kids from Exeter, et al are getting some kind of unwarranted advantage; (2) Don’t forget that, to some extent, kids at high schools like Exeter have already gone through a rigorous application and standardized testing process just to gain entry into those schools. That doesn’t entitle them to any particular path on the college front. But it does result in a highly talented pool of kids who will one day be very attractive to selective colleges, i.e., a very dense mix of exceptional students on one campus. I think adcoms love finding quality students wherever they happen to come from and, I believe, are trying harder these days to find those diamonds in less obvious or likely places - and thank goodness for that. Still, you can’t begrudge the fact that many high schools – both public and private – have historical track records of success and credibility with colleges because they’ve repeatedly sent high-performing, well-adjusted kids onward and don’t inflate grades, etc.; (3) Lastly, don’t forget that numbers-wise, actually, it can be even MORE difficult for students at these supposed feeder schools to gain entry into selective colleges. Why? Because the competition in their midst is fierce. Schools like Harvard really don’t take very many Exonians each year relative to the vast numbers of kids who apply. (Check the numbers and you will see.) Yet those kids are, unfortunately, “competing” with their own when it comes down to it, i.e., competing with that same highly talented peer pool, most of whom are applying to many of the same selective colleges and include large numbers of Siemens/Intel kids, TASP scholars, scores of National Merit Semi-Finalists, Cum Laude Society types, successful entrepeneurs (literally), dozens of 2300+ SAT scorers, elite, recruitable athletes and musicians, and, yes, perhaps a higher ratio of legacies. In other words, there is no free lunch or sure thing at all for even a stand-out Exeter or Andover kid. Thankfully, there are a whole lot of great schools out there.</p>
<p>@Foundered: The assumption about wealth is outdated. These days, especially, just because someone is at a highly selective boarding school doesn’t mean they come from vast wealth. Exeter, for example, has exceptionally generous financial aid. I think you would be very surprised and impressed by the cultural AND socioeconomic diversity on that campus, truly. It’s quite remarkable and inspiring.</p>
<p>Valdog, no one said that everyone at Exeter is fabulously wealthy. But some people at Exeter are. They are not the only ones who get admitted to Harvard from Exeter, but they may swell the ranks some.</p>
<p>OP: Do you also consider it “unfair to the rest of America” that certain colleges (and indeed certain high schools) produce considerably more well-paid professional football players than others? That there are high schools in Florida and California that have multiple kids drafted by major league baseball teams year after year? Or, for that matter, that certain colleges seem to provide a higher percentage of new hires at McKinsey or Bain or Goldman Sachs – or the Federal Reserve – than others? Multiple Rhodes Scholars?</p>
<p>That kind of “unfairness” is ubiquitous. It’s the result of some institutions doing a better job than others over time – both of producing results and of publicity – thereby both inspiring trust (in selection committees, among others) and attracting top-quality students in several dimensions (e.g., academics, arts, sports).</p>
<p>That said, there were about 100 students in my mid-70s Yale class from Andover and Exeter, more than 7% of the class. I would be surprised if any recent class has had 20 students from either.</p>
<p>As always, JHS, I appreciate your comments. Still, the very first line of the very first response to the OP’s question about fairness and feeder schools (with a specific Exeter title) in the Harvard forum is this: “Any sort of income inequality is unfair.” That’s a pretty wild, left-field assumption/linkage to offer up straight out of the gate, to my mind. The “wealth” linkage reared its head again further along in the thread. So while I agree that no one said that everyone at Exeter is “fabulously wealthy” (nor did I suggest that in my response), I do feel it’s valid and important to provide a reality check to a young poster and any adult respondent who still thinks there’s an automatic link between B school, wealth, and the purported pipeline to Harvard. As you also point out, times have changed but, as we can see, not everyone knows or appreciates that — the Fitzgerald stereotype is still alive and well. Anyhow, in a discussion of “fairness” in this context, I merely hoped to lend illumination on a matter about which I happen to have specific, contemporary knowledge. That is all. Best of luck, Harvard applicants.</p>
<p>Rather than look just at Philips Exeter, the OP – and Foundered, who made the income inequality statement – should take a look at public feeder schools such as Stuyvesant, where almost half the kids qualify for the “free lunch” program because their families make below the poverty level. Yet these kids had more intel semi-finalistists and National Merit Scholarships than any other high school in the country. The academic competition at public feeder schools is intense; kids take an exam to get in and only the top 3% qualify. Students take 10 to 20 AP classes during their 4 years and their GPA is measured in hundreds of a percent. Is it no wonder then that schools such as Stuyvesant send one-quarter of their graduating class to the Ivies, and another fifty-percent to tier-one schools. And Stuyvesant isn’t the only example: Look at Thomas Jefferson, Boston Latin and about 100 more – if you do a little research, you will find more public feeder schools than private ones.</p>