<p>
[quote]
independent schools only account for 2% of the students and yet those students make up 25 - 33% of the kids at top schools. You don't see the correlation?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>If you took statistics, you would know that just because two things happen at the same time doesn't mean one cause the other. Chances are, the students that go to private schools are stronger to begin with and more wealthy, both strong indicators of admissions to top schools.</p>
<p>Anecdotal evidence hardly accounts for anything, and I doubt any college would publish evidence that they favor public or independent schools.</p>
<p>If framing whether the secondary school name helps, we should first answer the question: Should top colleges admit students from most prestigious secondary schools over nonprestigious ones. We have to assume colleges are rational beings trying to admit the best student class and would thus follow the most rational course of action. I think colleges should not give advantageous to students from "prestigious" secondary schools. With the exception of my counterargument, the arguments with private schools also apply to elite public schools.</p>
<p>Ignoring the ad hominem attacks and the use of argument unsupported by logic or statistics, like "you are dreaming if you think this," there are several arguments for the prestige of schools, which I will address.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>More prestigious schools offer a tougher curriculum, making them more qualified for college. There are so many qualified students from both public and private schools. Harvard claims 75% of its applicants are academically qualified. Colleges know if students are academically qualified without having to look at their schools. A public school student might have taken AP Calculus AB, the highest available, and a private school student might take Linear Algebra or Vector Calculus. It's not as though the former is not qualified for college. All colleges and universities claim they just want students to take the most rigorous coursework available to them. This is logical because colleges they shouldn't punish students who do not have the money or the opportunity to attend an independent school or move to a better public school. If a public schools offers 5 APs and the student took all of them, this looks better than a private school offers 15 AP and the student only took 5.</p></li>
<li><p>Higher acceptance rates to top schools from private school graduates. Look at my argument at the top of the post. Correlation does not equal causation.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>My arguments for the name doesn't help are</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Socioeconomic diversity. Most schools claim they are trying to achieve this. Given that only half the students at top universities receive financial aid, this means the other half are in the top 5% of people in this country with respect to family income. Since students that go to private and even elite public institutions are generally more wealthy, colleges and universities don't need more people from the top of American society.</p></li>
<li><p>Excelling in a poor school shows great merit. If a student went to a really poor and underachieving school, where ~60% of students drop out, the ability to overcome this negative school culture is sufficient proof of a student's motivation for learning if he or she achieved a high class rank. If nothing else, these stories make great photo ops and thus the receiving of more praise and donations for the college.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>A counterargument I could think of is that highly selective colleges and universities could give advantages to private school students as a way of getting around need-blind admissions. Since parents of independent school students are generally wealthier, colleges could be better assured those students will pay in full. This won't matter much for Harvard, Yale, or Princeton because they have so much money, but for schools with lower endowments but still practice need-blind admissions like UPenn, UChicago, and Columbia, going to a private school could help in this respect.</p>