<p>jenny -- just wanted to chime in and let you know that I appreciate the sharing of info. I am in total agreement with you regarding school fit -- and the ivies are not for every child, whether they get in or not! A lot changes in a student between 13 and 18, so things may change -- but I can't see my younger son happy at an Ivy. He is competitive and likes to be in the top -- top 10% is fine -- but he also doesn't want to work hours and hours to get there and sacrifice other things. I can see him standing out at a smaller school with nuturing teachers and not so many high stat students. My older son, on the other hand, does have ivies on his list -- and I can see the fit. He couldn't care less about his rank but is looking for the peer group and resources. Interesting how two boys can be so different.</p>
<p>Whoo boy, isn't that the truth! I find myself in a state of constant amazement that two such different people could have sprung from the same gene pool as the 2 Smile Pups...they look related (and have a deep and abiding brotherly affection for each other), but that's about it.</p>
<p>Hey steph, haven't you been on CC long enough to spot the fake, I just signed on to post on this one thread guys? But welcome Jenny, this board is so dead unless you want to know the hottest in girl names that I think any post at all is most welcome! Welcome!! Posts can be awfully amusing and to imagine the deep insecurity within some is really always a moment the psych major in me ponders. </p>
<p>Oh Jenny, you and Valerie and Kirstie all look great by the way, but you said majority, not some.</p>
<p>Someone pass the pasta!</p>
<p>collegekid -- yes, I have seen plenty of trolls on CC. However, everyone starts at post #1 and plenty of people lurk before they see a thread that makes them want to respond, particularly adults.</p>
<p>I don't see anything that jenny has posted that makes me think she is a troll. In fact, she isn't the only one that shares her viewpoint on ivy league schools and she is correct about concentrating on what you have instead of what you don't.</p>
<p>collegekid--I had to ask one of my kids what a "troll" was--I guess it shows my age, I was thinking of the fairy tales from my childhood. </p>
<p>If you read my post I said "I think for the first 2 years of my siblings college years, the majority of their classes were taught by teacher assistants and the classes were quite large. Plus, they were so stressed out by the "competition", I am not sure that they really enjoyed college." I grouped all of my siblings together--please forgive me for not stating "oh, but my sister only had 4 classes w/ TA's, instead of 10 (or whatever the number was), like the rest of our brothers!"</p>
<p>It is ironic you are fixating on my choice of the word "majority" when you make sweeping ignorant statements such as "Schools like NMH are full of kids coming out of therapeutic schools and who have had trouble at local schools." and when pushed for an explanation, can only come up with a feeble "I kid I know who is bright but a total mess spent a term there after therapeutic school in the past few years. Then he went back to therapy school which he still needed." Considering that the school has 631 students, one student that is "a mess" does not equate to "NMH is *full*of kids the top schools won't touch."</p>
<p>Whereas it is a well-known fact that a lot of the Ivy schools use TA's for their undergrad classes. For some, this might not be a problem. For my father, who was paying the tuition for his 5 kids--he thought it was terrible. </p>
<p>Regarding your comment about me being a troll---I have read a lot of these posts and have never felt the need to comment before. However, because hsmomstef is looking at schools that are not the AECDH (or whatever the acronymn is) and needs financial aid, I felt that I could help her--as I went through the same process earlier in the year. </p>
<p>I did go back and read all of your posts--and am quite positive that if the chip on your shoulder was present when you were interviewing for schools (and applying for financial aid), I am not surprised that you didn't receive much. You state that the schools lied to you--that no one gets large financial aid unless they are an athlete or some super scholar-even though several people posted that they did receive generous packages. You say that your parents were "sucked into borrowing too much." Perhaps these schools just didn't want to have a kid like you at their school.</p>
<p>After watching this thread for a while, I thought I might want to add my $.02.</p>
<p>About "Rich kids and Jocks"... As anyone here can tell my D falls into the latter of the 2. Yes, some kids get into schools (top rate or "theraputic" based upon money). Yes, some kids get into schools because of a "non-academic" skill (we can also include artists in this debate too). And these kids are in these schools for a reason. Schools need many things to accomplish their mission. Money and a diversity of talents are two very necessary things to most schools. And if allocating a small percentage of total slots to "Rich kids and Jocks" allows the school to fund and offer more academic and athletic programs without destroying the integrity of the institution, they are better off for having these kids. Nobody wants to go to a school where everyone is the same. </p>
<p>About TA's and Ivy League Schools... Yup, they are to found there. Probably not as much as at top public institutions (I went to one of the top one of those - and didn't see a professor in a classroom with less than 100 students until I was a Junior taking upper division coursework). Now before I go slamming TA's, I will let you know that some of my most interesting instruction came from TA's. However, some of the worst instruction I had came from TA's as well. I remember quite well the first hour of (non-professor lecture) section for my first upper division financial accounting class. We (the students) spent the first 1/2 hour trying to figure out this one word from our heavily-accented TA. It sounded like "feeelm". Finally, one student had the guts to raise his hand and ask the TA to write "feeelm" on the chalkboard (now I'm dating myself). The actual word was "firm". He was actually a pretty good TA once you got beyond the language barrier.</p>
<p>Suggestion for Steph and others who value professor time more than others - look at small LACs or mini-Ivies whose mission is teaching - not research. As an employee (staff) of a research university, my faculty friends admit spending more of their energy on research and of course writing grants. They'd rather spend more time with students, but this is a business and research drives the university and that is what they are hired and rated on. </p>
<p>On different schools for different kids... Couldn't agree more. Goaliedaughter is definitely better off at a boarding school for personal growth. Non-goalieson is a complete opposite.</p>
<p>On "Second-Tier theraputic" schools... Ouch! Goaliedaughter goes to one of those "Second-Tier theraputic" schools (as might be implied by collegekid) and is not considered a "theraputic" kid. In fact, she has her head screwed on better than most. She was also one of the top academic students in her class at this "Second-Tier theraputic" school last year. Could she go to an AESDCH school? Considering that I received a personal email from the hockey head coach, complimenting her on her character and play against the coach's team, I think she could easily apply and be accepted as a recruited athlete. She would probably do Ok academically, but I don't think she would be as happy. Those places tend to be pressure cookers with more cutthroat competition academically. For goaliedaughter, I think it would make class and learning more stressful and less enjoyable. </p>
<p>On trolls... No, Jenny is not a troll. She has a strong opinion and presents her (and family) experiences. A troll makes a controversial or argumentitive post and walks away without substantiating their point. And does this repeatedly.</p>
<p>Getting back to the original topic - evaluating schools for Ivy potential (in case son decides to go Ivy)... Even my D's "Second-Tier theraputic" (how I gag over that term) school sends a couple kids to Ivy's every year (and they are not the athletes). </p>
<p>The AESDCH type schools do place a high percentage of kids in Ivies, but they also start with a population that is driven in that direction (both self and parental) and have the luxury of picking this type of student to attend their school. </p>
<p>Once you drop out of that level of school (where Ivy admits are on reputation of the school), if you can find schools that regularly place kids in Ivies, they must be providing an environment where it is possible for a motivated kid to get that admit. If your younger son doesn't fit in with the "highly-competitive" Ivy-bound kids now for boarding school (read that AESDCH et al) but may have the ability and later the desire to go Ivy, he should be able to make a good run at it from a number of schools. Yes, you may want to rate lower schools that don't regularly place kids at Ivies, but those are actually a relatively small percentage of schools.</p>
<p>thanks goaliedad -- good info and advice. I feel more confident about our choices now. We will focus on a school that is a good fit where he can flourish and reach his goals, whatever those may be. </p>
<p>And a good explanation on the importance of money and sports (and art) as a contributor to the school community overall -- very true, whether you are talking high school or college. I don't have an issue with it at all -- I just hope that if a school uses ALL of its FA to recuit that it will drop a hint or two so we don't waste the application fee. if not -- $50 isn't going to kill me.</p>
<p>And I am definitely not going to mention the "second tier theraputic" title to my son or he will think it is just like his current school. I don't have an issue with giving kids a second or third chance to learn how to behave -- as long as my son isn't physically harmed in the process. his current school is full of kids who probably wouldn't even qualify for a theraputic school and he manages. Next year they are dropping in another 100 kids from a school that was forced to close down (failing school two years in a row) and that will be interesting. They were already overcrowded, so I have no idea where they are going to put another 100 kids. rumor has it that the gangs are well established with the new group of kids so they are beefing up security -- more armed guards patrolling the hallways and cameras in every room. None of the new kids will be in IB, but still... I told my son that if things get to the point where he feels like he in truly in danger, we will pull him out and homeschool him again. I am hoping it doesn't come to that!!!</p>
<p>Not a troll Golaiedad, just a regular poster who signed up for a new account just to post on this subject would be my best guess. Didn't mean any offense, some kids need therapy, I just ended up at a school with a lot of second chance kids and I think people should be aware that their kid, like me, could end up with a roomate who still really needed the wilderness program. The second tier schools are just such different animals and are populated by a different population, kids who are not necessarily there because it's the finest education. This is not to say any school but AESD isn't good, it's to say that you need to look really hard when the school is lesser known and needs to work hard to stay full and attract full paying students.</p>
<p>stef - I'm not sure if there is a sure-fire way of determining if a particular school spends its "big scholarship" offers only on athletes and URMs. While I would guess that the majority of those "big scholarship" offers go to certain priorities, athletics and ethnic diversity are not the only drivers of these awards. I know at my D's school, they have a handful of internationals from third world countries on scholarship (I know at least one couldn't go home summers and stayed with a faculty family). I think if you have an interesting situation (and from what I've read of yours, it may well qualify), some school will take a financial flyer on a kid like him. I think the more they understand about your family situation, the better off you are.</p>
<p>I can understand why you want to get your son out of his current situation. I had the experience of going to a gang-infested inner city school where my personal safety was at stake on a daily basis. Unfortunately, I didn't have the benefit of an in-house IB program, but that is water over the dam. I think having that experience has made me more attuned to what is needed for a child to develop. You can have a lot of dysfunctional people around you and become stronger because of it as long as the institutions around you can keep you focused on developing you.</p>
<p>collegekid - </p>
<p>Yes, many kids need therapy both in "theraputic" schools and even in the AESDCH level of schools (see current thread on eating disorders). Perhaps the difference between the top schools and the next tier of schools is that the top schools have such a large pool of qualified candidates to select from that they can exclude those who have "acted out" on their need for therapy. Unfortunately, the interview room is not a star chamber and no admissions officer will be able to ferret out all of the "kids with issues". </p>
<p>Schools that do accept "kids with issues" do so with eyes wide open and a plan and resources to manage those situations. While many parents (and their kids too) may not want their kids rubbing shoulders with "kids with issues", I think they often fool themselves by thinking that the top tier schools are full of "beautiful children". </p>
<p>The world has many people of all income levels who have issues. I have always told my daughter that the difference between rich people and poor people is that rich people can afford more exotic problems. She knows that she will run into these people no matter where she goes and that she needs to be smart enough to not let their problems affect her.</p>
<p>Yeah, you are unlikely to get a roommate at AESDCH who needs a "wilderness program", but it hardly means that everyone at these schools has it all together. And strangely enough, you can even learn something from living with the "wilderness program" population. You may not want to live with it, but life is full of interesting challenges to overcome. And as long as there is proper support in place, having a variety of kids around you can be beneficial to all.</p>
<p>Steph - </p>
<p>Goaliedad is on the money. It is very diff to find out how many finaid recipients receive the average award, much less determine the standard deviation from the average or whether larger awards are targeted at athletes and URMs (probably).</p>
<p>Also, I'm still not certain your orig premise is correct. I am certainly a proponent of smaller schools (D's days school was 600 girls, k-12 and her board sch was only 470 students), but I don't think that your reliance on a couple of Ivy matrics as evidence of anything is misplaced. </p>
<p>As I stated in my earlier post, even the worst of our inner-city schs manages to get a student or two in to an Ivy or LAC every couple of years. And, since the lesser day and board schs don't have a signif number of grads enrolling at Ivy-level colleges or unis, they work hard to mask that fact - - most often by reporting a selected, partial, but never annotated, list of colleges to which students were "admitted." Thus, one strong student who is in no way representative of the student body can account for ALL of the Ivy-level schs on the list (ie: one student admitted to Amherst, Wesleyan, Dartnouth, Brown, Williams and Columbia).</p>
<p>We've been doing a lot of thinking about matriculation data as well. Our current school (a jr. prep with lots of expereince in secondary school placement) says it doesn't really matter if a school has ever sent a student to X-college. We have gone over and over if we buy into that or not. I think some of the schools we are looking at simply don't attract the kids that might want to attend an Ivy. Doesn't mean that they wouldn't be ABLE to get in. And/or they don't encourage the kids to apply to 15 colleges simply to get their acceptance data to look good. </p>
<p>In any case, what I think is probably a more telling statistic and I have seen it on some schools sites - is how many students got accepted by their FIRST choice college.</p>
<p>yikes -- more to think about! </p>
<p>As far as schools where more kids get into their first choice schools -- I know that some college counselors give kids very strongly worded advice on where they should apply. What if a school has a college counselor that is conservative and advises kids not to shot for the reaches? or pushes them hard for ranked 25-50 tier LACs? I know a school where three kids were told by the CC not to waste their time with applications to ivies, they had no chance. One currently attends Princeton, one at Harvard and one at Yale. This from a school that regularly places kids into ivies, so it isn't like the CC didn't know what kids were accepted.</p>
<p>I do think that it is harder to get into an Ivy from an unknown school -- public, private or BS. What I think might be even harder is getting into an Ivy or top school from a school that is known for not preparing their students well for the high levels in college. What are the odds that top kids don't apply to at least one ivy from some of the boarding schools that show no matriculation to ivies? They never have a legacy or athletic recruit? My guess is that top schools know that students from those schools, even top students, are most likely not ready to do well at their school. I am guessing -- but it seems to make sense to me.</p>
<p>It seems to be the general consensus that schools that do well placing students at ivies and top schools publish that data freely. Schools that don't do as well, but do send a few kids, will skew the presentation of the data so it seems better than it was and that schools that never send kids to ivies will tell you that it isn't important and that if a kid wanted to go, they could.</p>
<p>I am still in a quandry as to how to judge -- but I think that as long as the school falls in the second category (sends a few to ivy and some to top schools) that will work. What it boils down to is that I want my son to be able to have a chance at getting into any school he wants if he is in the top 10%-15% of his class (and has the requisite stats and ECs). And I don't mean that 15% go to HYPS -- just that kids in the top 15% would have a chance at top 25 schools.</p>
<p>I was one of the kids that was told not to apply to a college because I didn't have a chance of getting in. I applied and got in. Couldn't go - the college got my financial aid application seperated from my admission application (typo upon entering my SS# on financial aid, so it looked like I hadn't applied and they gave out all their money). Anyway...</p>
<p>I also know that some of the top schools do indeed encourage kids to apply to 15-20 colleges - ALL the Ivy's, etc. and I'm sure it it to make *their *numbers look good. </p>
<p>I guess the problem I have with saying at least 5% or 8% should attend a "top" college each year is that many of the schools we are looking at are small - under 300 total. That's 75 in the graduating class - meaning 4-6 in a given year. That might be too many for a really small school.</p>
<p>that makes sense regarding small schools -- one of the schools on my son's list (Midland) only has 80 students, so the graduating class is only 18 kids -- but of those 18, one is going to Stanford, one to Princeton, one to UCLA -- so that is 17% of the kids going to top schools and that sounds perfectly satisfactory to me. I would be concerned if only one kid out of a class of 75 got into a top school -- thinking it was a legacy, athlete or just an aberration. Plus -- I would be worried that the top kids didn't have a comparable peer group at the top. Maybe I am off base -- but I am hoping he can find a school where there is a core group of kids really interested in doing the best they can -- doesn't have to be all the kids (actually, he doesn't want it to be all the kids) but at least a group of kids where he feels like he fits in. Am I making sense?</p>
<p>It does make sense. We had had the conversation about Proctor. On both our son's list at one point. I like so much about it. But it does not have an Ivy on it's 5 year Matriculation list. It does have some good schools, that are not "safety schools" for the average kid, but it clearly doesn't have any powerhouses on it. Is that enough to take it off the list? I know you have to make some more difficult decisions on the list due to distance. For us, we are close enough to visit and we can see how it "feels."</p>
<p>Interesting, on Kimball-Union's site, they have acceptances listed and matriculation in bold. That way you get both stats.</p>
<p>i would support the conjecture that tabor is not great w/ financial aid. at all. actually, i think that's the worse thing about the school. if you have money, it's great, but i think that because there is a lot of money there, and a seemingly low number of less-wealthy kids, that it would not be the best place if you were seeking FA.</p>
<p>note: tabor is 8% students of color (including asian). that's a fifth less than andover.</p>
<p>but your son sounds like a really hooked candidate, and i bet that if they were going to give someone a scholarhsip, it would be to someone like him.</p>
<p>is your son applying to exeter? he seems like an exeter kind of kid. intellectual w/ somewhat peculiar interests (eg the arabic language, as opposed to french or something)... also, 45% of exeter's recently accepted students received financial aid. (the overall school's total was like 35% or 40%? last year). and it seems less based on color than on personal and economic diversity. 10% of the school is on a full-ride. also, no loans or anything.. it's all grants. (tom, a poster, got a laptop from them! and i heard in a boston globe article that they take some of the scholarship students shopping for dorm ware, etc., so that they feel comfortable and fit in... and i think they pay for some kids' travel expenses).. and they have arabic, although he may be too advanced for the class, he could do independent/field study w. the instructor.. not many schools have arabic.. i think they may be expanding that department as well, but idk.</p>
<p>That applying to 15-20 colleges reminded me of a memory. When I was at Milton for revisits, I was talking to some kids, and they were talking about their applications. One Russian boy (therefor an international applicant) said that he had applied to 20 schools, and had gotten rejected by all of them except one--Yale. He was dead serious.</p>
<p>I don't think that schools encourage students to apply to 15-20 schools. Here in NYC, the average is about 12 among the aggressive. And, D's day school limits studetns to 8 apps, excluding the SUNY system (financial safety).</p>
<p>Steph-
I think your 15% at top 25 schools is probably a good barometer. But remember, at a small school, where 2-3 students will signif shift the %, it's best to look at placement over a 4-5 year period, rather than year to year (though year to year may show upward or downward tick).</p>
<p>Good luck.</p>