<p>Funny that all those top feeder schools are in the blue states. </p>
<p>There was a little brouhaha in our town when that AP-based list came out because we have two high schools, both made the list but one was much higher on the list than the other because of the greater number of APs taken. In fact, the scores and college placement of each of the two schools are remarkably similar, almost identical in fact.</p>
<p>I've never really understood what is so special about a school that takes wealthy kids from families which value education and have given their kid every advantage- and churns out kids with high scores and good college admissions. Is that really what defines a "top school"? Easy to pat yourself on the back when you get extraordinary funding and have terrific parental support!</p>
<p>Mini:</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>Just reflects money and connections. You could put them all together at Podunk Vocational in Arkansas and they'd do about as well. <<</p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>You missed the point completely. Public magnet high schools, such as Hunter College High School, Stuyvesant High School, Bronx HS of Science and the Thomas Jefferson HS for Technology and Science, where admissions is based on merit and an entrance exam, do better the the VAST MAJORITY of private preps, with the exception of the aforementioned highly ranked NYC day preps and the elite New England boarding preps, which are few in number in this survey. </p>
<p>Public magnet high schools, such as Hunter College HS, ranked #26, and Stuyvesant HS, ranked around #130, both in NYC serving NYC's lower middle class and the first generation to attend college, who are immigrants or children of immigrants, rank highly with their admissions based on merit. Admissions to these schools is unfettered and not tainted by racial quotas, lowering the standards for admissions. These schools are 40% to 51% Asian Americans, and these students would even do better at HYP, if it were not for the defacto quotas limiting Asian American numbers due the "racial diversity" discriminating agendas against Asian Americans, simply because they are classiffied as an OVERREPRESENTED MINORITY in this zero-sum game of admissions. Many of Stuyvesant's and Hunter College HS's students are from the lower and lower middle economic classes, whose commom thread is ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT AND ATTAINMENT. The largest racial group in these schools are Asian Americans, where they are as much as 51% of these schools for just 10% of the population in NYC.</p>
<p>Stuyvesant HS in NYC, the world renowned public magnet high school for its academic achievements of its graduates, including the winning of the Nobel Prizes, where admissions is based on merit, reccommendations, academic record and a passing test score on an admissions test, is one of the MOST DIVERSE high schools in America, with whites in the minority, and Asians in the majority at 51%, and blacks at 4% and latinos at 5%. It has a senior SAT I average score of 1400. Hunter College HS has a senior average SAT I score of almost 1450, with over 60% to 70% of its graduates as National Merit Sem-Finalists. No other schools could claim these marks of distinction, including the aforementioned private preps. Not at Podunk HS and not even at Andover.</p>
<p>Robyrm-</p>
<p>Idealistically, you're right. Realistically, your're right....and it doesn't matter. No matter how they do it...they do it and I don't think it's easy for them. The same can be said for HYPSM......after all, where are they getting a dreat deal of their kids? (same families).</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>I've never really understood what is so special about a school that takes wealthy kids from families which value education and have given their kid every advantage- and churns out kids with high scores and good college admissions. Is that really what defines a "top school"? Easy to pat yourself on the back when you get extraordinary funding and have terrific parental support! <<</p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>This is another BROAD generaliztion. They do NOT only take rich kids, but they take kids from EVERY economic class, including disadvantaged URMs, which Podunk HS is unable to do. Andover is NEED-BLIND and over 40% of its students are on financial aid. You totally misunderstand the mission of these schools today. They are quite different from that of the past and pre-WW II , when the elite N.E. preps catered to the "entitilement" class, the rich and famous VIP legacies, who were predominately White Anglo-Saxon Protestants (WASPs), mainly Episcopalians, who controlled the institutions of power in America. These prep schools, incestuous in nature with its admissions in the past, have changed tremendously in admitting a more diverse student body, much more diverse than the students at Podunk HS. USA. They had to do this in order to survive. Incestuous behavior generally breeds mediocrity and eventual demise in nature. Previously, there were no Jews, blacks, Catholics, latinos or Asians allowed in. Today, Andover is 18% Asian, 7% black, 5% latinos, with many Jews and Catholics. Exeter is 25% Asian in 2001 and 21% Asian today. Podunk HS or your average suburban high school cannot claim this diversity.</p>
<p>Please reread my previous posts, with special attention to:</p>
<p>[These top private smaller prep schools in the rankings are much more diverse in race and economic class than your average top ranked public suburban high schools, which don't even rank in the top 50. An example is Millburn High School, in NJ, ranked #90, Scarsdale HS in NY, ranked #80, or Bronxville HS, in Bronxville, NY, ranked #89. These 3 schools are in some of the most affluent suburbs in the nation, consisting of mainly upper middle class white students in these areas.. They are larger than most of the higher ranked private day preps or boarding preps, but their student bodies, which reflect their suburbs, are in no shape or form, as diverse as the top private preps, both day and boarding preps. These private day and boarding preps have a much broader cachment area for their students and because of their high endowments, also have a broader range in racial and economic diversity, by offerring aide to its stellar disadvantaged students. For example, Andover is need-blind today. 40% of its students are on financial aide. There are disadvantaged students at Andover who receive a full ride monetarily, plus travel expenses for the student and for family visits to campus. There are no public schools that can compete with these smaller private preps, except for the public magnet schools in NYC and in Fairfax County, Virginia. There is simply no competition from the public schools for "diversity" coupled with academic excellence. This is another reason many of these private preps are given the label as "feeder schools" into HYP, the Ivies, and the elite colleges of America. This is a fact of life. The extent to which these preps remain as feeders may have changed since WW II, when over 90% of their grads went to HYP alone, but these top feeders STILL REMAIN FEEDERS TODAY. Today, the top boarding preps may send only 30% of its grads to the Ivies, and the remainder to the highly selective colleges, but these percentages still remain the highest of all high schools in America. No public school in America can say that it sends 30% of its grads to the Ivies, regardless of its size. That was the main point in this study.]</p>
<p>ROByrm:</p>
<p>I do agree with you that prep school have kids who are wealthy. Howvere, not all kids in prep school are rich. They are kids who are on full financial aid. </p>
<p>Now you talk about money and its advantages. What is wrong in it? Is it kids or parent faults that they have money. How many of us will throw the money and resources and we will give it to poor. None whatsoever. I mean if you and I both have money or resources, we both will not hesitate in using it to get a leg up. We all want our kids life better than ourselves. That is the reason why we want the kids to go to HYPSM. And yes as momsdream says HYPSM asre better as they are doing cherry picking. </p>
<p>BUt I would say the school is only a mean to achieve your dream. I would not rank high school based on some magic numbers. I would base it on the facialities avialaible for kids to grow and explore. One has to use all the resources avialable in the school. BUt then agaian majority of the parent will be delerious if their kid get a seat in HYPSM (if I am not wrong).</p>
<p>The 50 top public high schools in the US were determined by the number of placements at Top Tier colleges & universities a few years back. Don't know how to access the list, but the brunt of them were in CA and the Northeast. NYC area schools such as Styvesant and Bronx Science were among them as well as eight high schools in Westchester County.</p>
<p>since the brunt of the schools that are in the USNews designation of "top tier" schools are in either the northeast or Ca it makes sense that the high school students who choose to attend those schools are also from the Northeast or Ca</p>
<p>Here is a list I havent seen before on CC
All the schools that have Phi Beta Kappa chapters 255 in all.
<a href="http://wwwf.countryday.net/college/phibeta.htm%5B/url%5D">http://wwwf.countryday.net/college/phibeta.htm</a>
[quote]
Phi Beta Kappa colleges and universities are generally considered among the highest caliber and most selective in the United States and abroad. With over 3,200 two and four year colleges in the United States, only 255 have earned Phi Beta Kappa Chapter status. All students who are interested in the liberal arts and sciences as well as the pre-professional degree programs should research the list of Phi Beta Kappa colleges.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Indredible college placement. Many do not post their numbers, but 10 of those 20 have very clear statistics. In the last 4 years, roughly 4,150 students from those 10 high schools have gone to college. The following are the 35 most popular college destination. Not bad...not bad at all!!!.</p>
<p>Harvard University, 320 (8%)
Brown University, 265 (6%)
Yale University, 245 (6%)
Princeton University, 185 (5%)
University of Pennsylvania, 180 (5%)
Columbia University, 170 (5%)
Cornell University, 160 (4%)
Georgetown University, 160 (4%)
Dartmouth College, 145 (3%)
Duke University, 125 (3%)
Stanford University, 100 (2%)
Williams College, 100 (2%)
New York University, 90 (2%)
Northerstern University, 80 (2%)
Tufts University, 80 (2%)
University of Chicago, 80 (2%)
Amherst College, 75 (2%)
Middlebury College, 75 (2%)
Johns Hopkins University, 70 (2%)
Bowdoin College, 65 (2%)
University of Michigan-Ann Arbor, 65 (2%)
Vanderbilt University, 60 (1%)
University of Virginia, 50 (1%)
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 45 (1%)
Emory University, 40 (1%)
Washington University-St. Louis, 35 (1%)
Davidson College, 25 (1%)
Swarthmore College, 25 (1%)
Carleton College, 20 (1%)
University of California-Berkeley, 20 (1%)
Haverford College, 15 (1%)
Pomona College, 15 (1%)
Rice University, 15 (1%)
Deep Springs College, 5 (not really one of the 35 most popular colleges, but those who know DSC know the significance of this number!!!</p>
<p>That makes a grand total of 1670 (40%) out of 4,150 going to Ivy League schools and a total of 3,200 (80%) out of 4,150 going to those 35 amazing universities. That does not include other popular great colleges like Boston College, Wesleyan, Oberlin, Reed, Wisconsin-Madison, Texas-Austin, UCLA and several others. Wow!!!</p>
<p><a href="http://www.andover.edu/cco/matrics.htm%5B/url%5D">http://www.andover.edu/cco/matrics.htm</a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.chapin.edu/college/index.shtml%5B/url%5D">http://www.chapin.edu/college/index.shtml</a></p>
<p>I suppose the source of disagreement is over the definition of "good." According to one definition, a school is good if its students do well by external yardsticks such as standardized tests and college placement. By that yardstick, it does not matter that the school is well endowed, that the students come from affluent families and are rather homogeneous culturally and economically. What matters is that students get good scores on tests and are admitted into good colleges.</p>
<p>Another definition is what Mini has called "value-added." If two sets of students achieve similar scores on external yardsticks (standardized tests, college placement) but one set comes from affluent families and the other does not, then the school can claim credit for the achievement of the second set of students. And by that standard, the second school is a better school than the first one which takes in well-prepared students with access to good resources (including well-educated parents, whether or not they happen to be affluent). Indeed, it could be argued that an inner-city school that manages to educate its limited English, highly diverse, economically disadvantaged student population to the point that most students score at the national average is a far better school than a private academy where students are cherrypicked and usually score over 1300 on the SATs. Families, however, who focus on what is best for their individual children, may not care to enroll their child in that inner-city school, no matter how "good" it is, by the value-added yardstick. And they need not be defensive about their choice.</p>
<p>Marite, you make a good point that was also espoused by me awhile ago. If you have two children coming from two schools: public and private. Assuming equal SATS and grades, the private school kids will have an admission's advantage over the public school kid. Why? Schools believe that if the parents send their kids to an expensive private school, there is a lessoned likelihood of financial need. This is one big reason why good private schools are way overrepresented in HYP ( when compared to their relatively small population). </p>
<p>However, given that this is a fact, this doesn't not mean that the expensive private schools are necessarily better. They are just generally more successful in getting students into the tough private colleges. Thus, as you note, I guess we need to define what is a better school. </p>
<p>Personally, I don't think that most private schools provide a better education than that of a good public school. I'll use my daughter as an example. She attends a very good public school here in Maryland, Wootton High School. Wootton was ranking in the top 50 or so high school because of the enormous number of AP courses offered students. They also instituted an internal humanities magnet program, which my daughter is in. Most kids there take a lot of honors courses and even some college courses, which are given in conjuction with the local college, but are presented at our high school for credit. I can't imagine a better academic environment. However, this school consists of a lot of affluent parents. Perhaps that is the reason for its quality.</p>
<p>We formerlly lived in a school district known as the Seneca Valley Cluser. This consisted of parents who weren't as affluant. According, that high school didn't have the same SAT scores or number of AP courses that Wootten has. It's in the same county but both schools have differing opportunities. I certainly believe that most private schools would offer a better educational opportunity then the latter high school, Seneca Valley High School.</p>
<p>The newsweek ranking should be taken with a heap of salt.
Example Bellevue wa( a very affluent suburban school) which made the cover and is ranked 13th had 30.3% students taking AP exams and had 69% with a passing grade.
Compare that to Garfield ( innercity Seattle) ranked 189th that had 27.4% of students taking an exam and had 88% with passing grades.</p>
<p>Taxguy:</p>
<p>It is possible that when colleges consider whether a student has gone to a private school there is an assumption of lessened financial need. I would not know. What I do know is that many such schools have been considered feeder schools for colleges. Andover has a history of sending students to Harvard, and Exeter seems to send more to Yale, for example. We also know that private schools not only have GCs with smaller loads than public schools but also that they often know the admission committees of HYP and other elite schools and thus can personally advocate for their students. This is also true of some of the top public schools. This allows some of the top suburban schools in my area not to rank their students (I learned that bit from an adcom whose child attends one such suburban school). These suburbs are full of professionals, many of whom are faculty at local universities. In other words, in terms of demographics, they are not very different from private academies (except that families are able to save $30k per year on private tuition).</p>
<p>Taxguy: I'm nit quite sure I agree with you on the better likelihood of getting accepted to Harvard from a private school. I think Harvard now espouses that it will accept public school students more often than not and seems to tout it in its literature. They are looking for the "best and the brightest" and I am not quite sure tghey really care where they went to school. My S got accepted there early, they had no idea if we could pay for it or not, coming from a rinky-dink public high school with NO national recognition of any kind. I do believe it is the KID and what he can contribute to the college community. I do still cling to the hope that "PRIVATE" school admissions are based on that and not some hope for a large endowment from said parents. Please forgive me if I am naive. My S interacted with "privates" and "publics" and got along with them just fine. His best friend went to an extremely posh "private" school on LI, NEw YORK, and interestingly, while we have never MET this kids parents, nor have we EVER socialized., my S and he are the closest of friends. Native intelligence, interests and passions are the great equalizer! The playing field gets leveled at HARVARD. It doesn't really matter where you came from.....PRAISE THE LORD!</p>
<p>Actually, what I said about the heightened admissions chances of attending private schools is not based on some unfounded assumptions on my part. I met on the plane a person who is on the board of Trustees of Yale.She out-and-out told me that this is true for Yale and is, to the best of her knowledge, true at some other IVY schools ( although she didn't mention which other IVYs). </p>
<p>Also, check on the placement rates of students from top private schools into top LACs and HYPS, you will see that they have a much higher placement rate than that found at even top public schools and magnet schools. Private schools represent a small faction of the total high school population but are way overrepresented in top notch LACS and IVYs. It could be that they have been counseling and better contacts. However, I tend to think that what was said to me by the Yale trustee was accurate.</p>
<p>I think a lot of it simply depends as we may never agree on what constitutes a good high school. It seems that most people measure good schools strickly by the numbers (SAT scores, Ivy Admissions). We are constantly espousing how there are thousands of colleges where one can get a great education. Couldn't or shouldn't the same be said about H.S. </p>
<p>I agree with Taxguy that just because you go to an exclusive private school does not necessarily mean that you have gotten a better education than someone who has attended public shcools. Have you gotten smaller classes, a few extra resources, no doubt.</p>
<p>What I really think is sad is that our kids have to constantly be thinking about the next step. A few weeks ago the NYC specialized H.S test was given and it was crazy to read that 23,000 8th graders testing fro 3000 slots in the "Ivy League of NYC Public High School" all in hopes of getting one step closer to the HYPSM.</p>
<p>In that vein, I guess that my kid went to the LAC's of the NYC public school system. Smaller schools, not the national recognition of Stuy, and Bronx Science but still holds its own as far as sending kids to "good colleges"</p>
<p>Taxguy said,</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <blockquote> <p>However, given that this is a fact, this doesn't not mean that the expensive private schools are necessarily better. They are just generally more successful in getting students into the tough private colleges. Thus, as you note, I guess we need to define what is a better school......Personally, I don't think that most private schools provide a better education than that of a good public school. <<<</p> </blockquote> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>The name of the article is, "Getting Into the Ivy Gates"</p>
<p>Its stated purpose was as follows:</p>
<p>[For our study, we used as our sample four years of freshman classes at Harvard, Yale, and Princeton. They are three of the most selective Ivy League colleges. In fact, in the admissions world, the term HYP has come to signify the elite college standard. Chances are great that if a school can consistently place a large number of students into HYP, they can also consistently place students into any other college. </p>
<p>We found that of the approximately 31,700 high schools nationwide (21,000 public and 10,700 private), 930 had at least four students from their 1998-2001 graduating classes who matriculated at Harvard, Yale, or Princeton. We ranked these 930 schools by the percentage of their graduating classes that each sent to the three colleges during the four-year period. The top 100 are listed on these pages.]</p>
<p>This article in no way made a qualitative or a quantitative evaluation on which of the highly ranked high schools on its lists are "better", however you may define this word. It simply ranked the high schools according to the percentage of each high school's class matriculating at HYP. That's all this article did. It didn't state that one high school was "better than the other". Also, by inference, chances are if a high school can consistently place its graduates in high percentages into HYP over a 4 year period, it can also place its graduates into the rest of the Ivies and elite colleges at higher rates.</p>
<p>This doesn't mean that these high schools, the expensive private preps, are necessarily "better", or even that HYP, the Ivies or the elite colleges that their grads matriculate, at are "better". This depends on one's point of view.</p>
<p>But one thing is for sure, at least for the elite top 30 or so private preps, day or boarding, is that these schools have tremendous resources for the education of their students. These resources are not measured by the number of AP courses offerred, which is the indicator of least importance for a "better" education. </p>
<p>At the private preps, the courses offerred are at the collegiate level, but they are not labeled as AP and they are not geared towards the AP exams. These courses are taught by instructors who are college level qualified teachers, many with multiple degrees and PhDs in their field of instruction, from the Ivies and elite colleges, who could easily be on a tenured college or university faculty. Many have done extensive research and published. You don't find this in Podunk HS, USA or even the public magnet schools because of the lack of monetary resources. These courses are taught in small discussion groups of 12 to 15 students around an oval table alled the "Harkness Table", in schools such as Exeter, Lawrenceville and Hotchkiss, where every student is expected to participate in the Socratic method, and given feedback from his fellow students and his instructor. In fact, the AP courses of study have been given less importance in the overall education of the prep student in recent years. It is the manner or way in which the student is taught that is the most important, and how the student can independently and critically think, write and speak that is emphasized. This is done in small sized classes with highly competent instructors trained in their respective fields of study. In fact, this is what a college is supposed to do, but many colleges cannot do as well as these private preps in the teaching of its students.</p>
<p>The campuses of the boarding preps will blow away or simply put to shame many of the colleges in America. For instance, Andover has 500 acres of land with about 175 buildings, including a state of the art science building, music building, 1000 seat performance arts theater, 2000 seat Chapel, 2 ice hockey rinks, a football stadium, 2 arts museums and extensive collections of art and archeology, and a huge library befitting a small liberal arts college. Exeter, Andover's arch rival, has similar facilities. Both Andover and Exeter have over $500 million endowments for each of their respective 1000 students. This gives them one of the highest endowment dollars per student in all the preps and the vast majority of the colleges and universities in America. </p>
<p>The resources of these school give their students vast opportunities to pursue any passion or special talents that they may have in the arts, performing arts, literary arts, science, math, sports, community service and exchange programs overseas in studies with foreign schools. </p>
<p>The students at these schools are not all wealthy. In fact, Andover is need-blind and 40% of its students are on financial aid, some receiving a full ride with tuition, room and a board, as well as travel expenses to home.</p>
<p>These schools also have enormous college counseling resources and special relationships with the adcoms of the elite colleges which may give its grads an advantage in applying. These prep students also came into their schools with pre-existent hooks to the Ivies, such as the legacy, rich and famous VIP, athletic, URM, and even the geographic prferences given in admissions to HYP and the elites. Indeed, the profiles of many of these private preps relect the profiles of the Ivies in stats, and in diversity.</p>
<p>sybbie:</p>
<p>TJ, Stuy and hunter are phenomenol schools. I would rate them at par with Andover/Exeter in math and scince or maybe even better. However, lately EXter is attaracting high powered kids to go to its math program. THus Exter is a class apart in math. I would not be so sure for humanities. As Andover/Milton/Groton are attracting the kids who are nationally ranked in Humanities. These schools are offering funding with 100% fin aid and thus it is very attaractive for kids to leave some high powered public school to go to these schools. Howvere I must caution, numbers are small as these schools can not give money to all the kids. So they do cherry picking like elite colleges.</p>
<p>My daughter's next door neighbor is from Exter</p>
<p>"Another definition is what Mini has called "value-added." If two sets of students achieve similar scores on external yardsticks (standardized tests, college placement) but one set comes from affluent families and the other does not, then the school can claim credit for the achievement of the second set of students. And by that standard, the second school is a better school than the first one which takes in well-prepared students with access to good resources."</p>
<p>Actually, this is quantifiable, and the value-added equation has multiple layers. </p>
<p>First, there is the question of who applies. That is, just looking at things like class rank, will the students of the same rank from Podunk be as likely to apply to Harvard as those from Andover? Those ranking at the 20th percentile at Andover just might; those at the 20th percentile at Podunk in California can't get into UCSD (which uses the state top 4% of class/12% of the state requirement. Lots of folks get into HYP every year who couldn't meet the minimum qualifications at UCSD.) Add in guidance counselors, etc., most of the screening actually occurs pre-application. And it happens at the good schools, too - since for 20 years, not a single Stuyvesant student was admitted to Princeton (in years that 15-20 per year actually went to Harvard, and even more were accepted), GCs were hardly likely to recommend to students that they even apply. (My high school alma mater: I was strongly discouraged from applying to Williams, where I ended up going, as they hadn't accepted anyone from Stuy. in years - and out of 9 who applied that year, 6 ended up at Harvard, Yale, and Columbia, and I was the only one who got into Williams.)</p>
<p>Secondly, is the simple economic class screening that occurs regarding SATs. That there are scholarships students at Andover is beside the point. SATs are correlated with family income of ALL the students attending the school (or in the surrounding geographic area), not with individual family income. If the colleges are using SATIs heavily, that will take care of that.</p>
<p>Third has to do with parents/families themselves. Princeton discovered that even when they eliminated the loan portion of financial aid, it didn't significantly affect the percentage of low-income students who attend. It is often forgotten that low-income students may make significant income contributors to their families. The families simply can't afford to have them leave. The only study I have seen (and it was 10 years ago) found that yield rates for HYP among low-income students was much lower than for higher income ones.</p>
<p>Fourth, has to do with the education at the school itself. Colleges will claim that they evaluate students without regard to the school, but based on whether they took the most difficult courses available. I say "hogwash". In many L.A.-area schools, math doesn't go past Algebra I. Forget APs and IBs - there aren't any chemistry labs to speak. Try taking an SAT II under such conditions.</p>
<p>Fifth has to do with contacts between GCs and the college. I'm sure the Andover counselor gets to talk with the Princeton counselor a dozen times a year. Multiply that by the number of years in his career. The trust relationship is built over time. Compare with GC at Podunk, with an average school expectancy of, say, 3-4 years, and who may, if lucky, talk to some assistant to the assistant of an adcom once.</p>
<p>Sixth has to do with "special category admits" -- legacies, "developmental" admits, etc. Obviously, more from Andover. It affects URM admissions as well: Harvard reports that a majority of minority attendees are not on financial aid, and up to two-thirds of URM African-Americans are in fact Afro-Carribean, etc., a far higher proportion of whom will have attended Andovers or equivalents.</p>
<p>Seventh has to do with special category EC admits: Podunk U. has very few fencers or oboe players who are at a high enough level to make a difference.</p>
<p>Eighth has to do with ECs themselves: the Podunk U. student who works 50 hours a week after school to help support a family headed by a disabled mother is simply not going to have time for much else.</p>
<p>Ninth has to do with the impact of low-income on school performance - i.e. carrying a 4.0, regardless of the school if you are working 50 hours a week or, alternatively, are simply in an environment unconducive and unsupportive of education generally speaking.</p>
<p>Add 'em all together, and it isn't surprising that so many "need-blind" schools (don't exist) end up paying out so little in the way of "need". Doesn't make the Andovers of the world any better in the "value-added" equation.</p>