<p>Suppose your goal is to get to a Top 20 college.</p>
<p>Where do you stand a better chance of being admitted?</p>
<p>a) Graduating top of class of a top private school like Exeter or Andover
or
b) Graduating top of class of a top publish school like Oxford Academy or BASIS Charter?</p>
<p>What about if you were not top, but top 10%?</p>
<p>I would guess that the difference is insignificant for most admissions officers. But some might favor the private school student.</p>
<p>A top public should be fine.</p>
<p>A top public school has a broader range of students than a top private which requires testing for admission. All of these schools present issues that kids from typical schools don’t face as noted by Viola above–both are generally filled with kids from high achieving families which means lots of legacies, recruited athletes and the very connected-- which always skews college results. You just have to look at it school by school.</p>
<p>If you are a high caliber (top) student you will excell at either one so I don’t think it matters. Top 10%? I think the smaller school will have an edge (usually the private one). It seems to be harder to be 4th out of 40 than 40th out of 400.</p>
<p>I think it depends on the student and the resources available at each school that the student is likely to maximize.<br>
I’d look at the sport the student plays and the quality of coaching at each school.
I’d look at the student’s likely primary EC and compare the quality at each school.</p>
<p>If you attended a top boarding school like Andover or Exeter, or a top public school like Hunter College High School or Boston Latin, you would only need to be in the top half of your class to have a good chance at being admitted to a “Top 20” school.</p>
<p>There is no difference between the very best private schools and the very best public schools.</p>
<p>Could going to one of those schools hinder your chances?</p>
<p>The big difference between Andover and Hunter is that a huge number of Andover students are legacies at top 20 colleges which is not the case at Hunter. Andover also has many more recruited athletes than Hunter does so the admits at Hunter will tend to go to the top kids academically which is not what happens at Andover. Hunter may have more URMs which would skew admissions there. Though Andover has many qualified URMs which also impacts admissions outcomes.</p>
<p>Your first line of competition is your own classmates. Colleges will only take so many, even from top schools. So if Princeton will take 8 from a school and you have 4 qualified legacies and 3 athletes they want, your chances are slim even if you have considerably better stats. </p>
<p>Applying from highly competitive schools can make it harder to get into top colleges.</p>
<p>On the other hand, Hmom, even if the child in your example is not accepted at Princeton, he will be accepted at another excellent school, and be prepared for it. Acceptance is not the only goal, the other goals include being prepared and doing well at College.</p>
<p>I don’t think prep schools would provide necessarily better preparation for college.</p>
<p>I agree Kayf, the flip side is that at top private schools almost every kid ends up at a top 50 college. The issue is that most want to be at top 15 colleges and believe the prep school will get them there. That’s the myth I was addressing.</p>
<p>Only the very best. In our area (very, very large school district) maybe 4 or 5 (with tuition North of $20k) would be that good (out of at least 30). The top (15-20 out of 700-800 seniors) students from most public schools would be competitive for top 20 colleges. Agree with hmom5 previous post. Many private school parents believe in “top school acceptance by osmosis” and that just won’t happen. At one prestigious private in our area, I wouldn’t say students are discouraged, but at least they are not encouraged to apply to the State Flagship because, except for a handful in a class of 200, they are very likely not to be accepted and then it just doesn’t look good for the school or the student.</p>
<p>Your hypothetical doesn’t make sense.</p>
<p>The usual question is:</p>
<p>Top10% at Exeter vs. Valedictorian at a Top Public
Top 20% at Exeter vs. top 3% at at Top Public
Top 50% at Exeter vs. top 5% at a Top Public</p>
<p>Those represent equivalent accomplishments. I don’t think you have any idea how selective those privates are in their own admissions, and how difficult it is among that type of cohort to be in the top 10% or 20%.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You’re right, and I didn’t want to bring this up.</p>
<p>I’m making the claim that if one were a talented and hardworking “unhooked” student at either school, one would be exceeding well-prepared in both cases. </p>
<p>Hunter is, indeed, more socioeconomically and racially diverse, and most Andover students do enjoy the advantage of long legacies.</p>