<p>"5. I am a ninth grader in public schools; should I transfer to a private school to improve my chances of admissions?</p>
<p>In general, no. The applications for early decision are due by November 1 of the senior year, and by January 1 for regular admissions, so the most crucial years for an applicant are 11th grade and 10th grade, in that order. It is of utmost importance that the applicant be in the top 10% of her high school senior class. It is an arbitrary cut-off point, but college rankings are based on it.</p>
<p>Because of the generally superior academic level at private schools as opposed to public schools, it will take time for you to catch up and adjust after you transfer to a private school. If you want to go to a private school, your should transfer earlier, say, 7th grade. Otherwise, you will work your tail off trying to catch up, and still end up in the middle of the class in your senior year.</p>
<p>On the other hand, private schools tend to have much better guidance departments. They can probably guarantee that, by hook or crook, they will get you into at least a decent college, just below the very top tier. That is sort of the implicit bargain that you (and your parents) strike with the private school, and what they are paying the tuition for. And, of course, you are likely to get a much better academic education at a private school (public schools are good for other reasons), but we are talking about chances for college admissions here."</p>
<p>why don't you use your superior intellect, which allowed you to discern this obvious fact, and use it to become apart of this "aristocracy"... then you won't have to complain about it anymore</p>
<p>I am interested in breaking the aristocracy down, not in becoming part of it. (I am actually quite pro-educational reform, FYI. Education shouldn't be such a private enterprise in a democracy). The US is worse in this respect than almost any other industrialized country. </p>
<p>It's sort of too late for me anyway, since I went from valedictorian of my jr high to middle of the class at a charter high school I transferred to in 10th grade, and now I couldn't get into the ivy league if my life depended on it.</p>
<p>There was probably a time when I would have said you're completely full of it.</p>
<p>But then I worked for a leading investment bank, and couldn't help but notice how many people there had attended elite private and boarding/prep schools. Never saw so many of these boarding people in my life, even at Cornell. Later I noticed it among a number of Presidential candidates too.</p>
<p>Then I sent my kids to various schools, public and private, and the quality level differentials were obvious. Painfully so, since we had to move from the privates to the publics at various times (including from now on).</p>
<p>There is still mobility. For each of your George Bushes somebody can give you a Bill Clinton.</p>
<p>But I have preceived that overt wealth does get you something in this country that you might not otherwise get.</p>
<p>It can be hard to excel when one is behind already and trying to catch up. I suspect that is what threw ecape.</p>
<p>My son who is 14 is in private school and has been since 7th grade. My daughter, however, went to public jr high and public high school. </p>
<p>The difference is incredible; my son is getting a MUCH better education. (1) better facilities, (2) small classes, (3) tons of support from home for all kids rather than a huge number of neglected kids, (4) much better electives, (5) more advanced work, (6) higher "bar" in general/no grade inflation. My son is getting B's for work that is beyond my daughter's "A" work. The only big plusses of the public HS are (1) Free (2) better level of athletic competition for star athletes (3) you may "stand out" more at a public HS with a different demographic & less academic competition.</p>
<p>I had too much trust in public HS, because I had attended a very good public HS myself and was extremely well prepared for my Ivy education. OTOH, this was 30 years ago and California schools have really plummeted since then in terms of quality.</p>
<p>My daughter is at a top academic LAC and has so far found it HARD. I did not find my Ivy appreciably harder than my HS AP classes, except for the greater volume of reading required.</p>
<p>Aristocracy is exactly what I mean. Children of the rich are much more likely to become rich themselves and hold powerful positions in society, due to much better access to education which leads to a better job. You get the picture. Even for children of the rich who are not sent to private schools, they are more likely to live in a wealthy suburbia that will have a solid educational system. Of course there are more cinderella stories in our society than there were 200 years ago, but there are far more "stay at roughly the level your parents were" stories.</p>
<p>If we are such an egalitarian society, someone please explain to me why the vast majority of our government representatives are rich, white men?</p>
<p>Somewhere someone mentioned that high SATs are correlated strongly with family income. This may be true, but I don't think that means SATs are worthless for predicting success in college. I would hazard a guess that strong performance at elite colleges is also correlated strongly with family income, due to better preparation beforehand.</p>
<p>have you questioned yourself "why there should be equality and fairness"?</p>
<p>just a random thought.</p>
<p>on the other hand, the rich is gonna complain "it';s not fair! i poured so much more money into my child than the others, why should we be on the same starting point?!"</p>
<p>No... aristocracy means a government supported class system. Nobility. </p>
<p>You're definitely talking about oligarchy... power is kept between some families, but there is a measure of meritocracy because, in rare cases, outsiders can join the group. Nobility is more stable, though not totally stable either. And, it deals with inherited titles, which means a lot more than money.</p>
<p>Why should there be equality and fairness? Because our constitution says "equal rights." B/c when you have people who are not as much self-starters get into powerful positions b/c of family advantages, things (orgs, technology, govt, etc.) are not run as well. Look at the Bush admin.</p>
<p>You have equal rights. Why should they have to surrender THEIR right to happiness for you?</p>
<p>You have the right to attend those schools, if you can afford to and are admitted. Just like them. The difference is not a question of rights, it's a question of assets and it is precisely because of our constitution that it happens.</p>
<p>They have a right to their privilege, and so would you and your progeny after earning it. The system is not crooked.</p>
<p>If someone works harder than you to get where they are and build wealth for their family, how can you ask them to sacrifice what they have earned so that you can have an equal chance? How is that fair? You have just as much of a chance. You could study non stop and earn your trip to these upper echelon schools instead of whining to get it for nothing.</p>
<p>I love your argument ecape: "public schools suck, private schools are awesome, so let's make everyone worse off by sending them to public schools, to be fair." Why not instead conclude that schooling is just best left to the private sector? I love how many protest against vouchers or tax credits but send their kids to private schools.</p>
<p>Ashernm: My argument is actually mostly for equal distribution of wealth among public schools. If our government put the same amount of money into every public school child's education, that would help a lot with socioeconomic inequalities, without even having to mess with the private sector.</p>
<p>Gospy: Many students who do not have rich parents, would not even know what it takes to succeed until it's too late. No one in my hometown spends multiple-years planning where to go to college. Nobody knows colleges outside HYPS and MIT exist. And finally, my home high school only offers about 2 AP courses. As to it not being fair for rich parents not being able to give their descendents extra educational benefits? Well, most other industrialized countries do operate in a more egalitarian way. In Nigeria for example, the public schools are better than their private schools, and better than public schools in the US. Why is it fair to let rich people pass down all that wealth through generations so that it may continue accumulating? It's OLIGARCHIC, not democratic, and the US claims to be a democracy.</p>
<p>Funding all schools equally would not change your second point... This "insider knowledge" is every bit as important as the $ spent, if not more so. And hearing the king's english every dinnertime does as much for SATs as any english class could hope to do.</p>
<p>You have identified a problem but there is no clear solution to it.</p>
<p>I beg to differ. I think equal educational funding would do a great deal. Even though the home environment would not change instantaneously, having smaller class sizes and teachers dedicated to pushing students to do their best through APs, etc. (not to mention teachers who used "king's english") would be a great improvement over the current state of affairs.</p>
<p>"I think equal educational funding would do a great deal."
THE MAN THINKS IT - IT MUST BE SO.</p>
<p>Here's a nice link: <a href="http://mwhodges.home.att.net/education.htm%5B/url%5D">http://mwhodges.home.att.net/education.htm</a> See the chart there. A huge drop in spending productivity - the bang per buck. Why? Because of unnecessary (or less likely, misguided) increased spending. A lack of money is not the problem. If the private sector (or home-schooling) can so easily succeed (often with much less funding), then why not pursue that avenue, instead of trying to resuscitating the flagging elephant that is public schooling. Support for vouchers is actually higher among inner city minorities than white suburbanites. It seems like common sense to me: If you want to provide goods for people, do you want to subsidize the producer of the goods for said people, or the people themselves? Subsidizing the producers seems to me inherently anti-market and mainly a political move.</p>