Would High Schools rank/reputation put you at a disadvantage?

<p>Hello,</p>

<p>I was wondering if when applying to Princeton your High School reputation or prestige comes into play in a significant manner? This is because my school basically never sends grads to top schools (1 student to Cornell last year, 1 to Stanford this year and he was double-legacy), WA State not the greatest in education, and in general the school isn't very good as far as being recognized for academics. ...Basically every person who graduates ends up going to an in state school, or BYU (even though we have a handful of outstanding students in each class as far as volunteers, SATs, and classes go but thats compared to the rest of the class..)</p>

<p>So basically, I was wondering if the High School's "credentials" so to speak would have a large impact (or any at all) on a prospective students application?</p>

<p>Thank you very much,
Mishaal</p>

<p>It can have a strong impact. One of the people who reads your application is the regional counselor who is expected to be familiar with your school and the environment. The adcoms know the general possibilities available at your school and will adjust your achievements appropriately. If your school offers more extracurriculars and AP courses, you're expected to take advantage of those; conversely, if your school offers very few extracurriculars and APs, your application will be judged according to that. The aim of the application is to see how well you have done given the opportunities available to you and how far beyond the standard you have reached toward your academic and extracurricular goals. This levels the playing field so students at relatively lesser achieving schools (like you and I attend(ed)) do not have to be judged according to factors out of their control: they are simply expected to give it their all, just like students from stronger schools. It wouldn't be fair, after all, to say that the student who took all four of his schools AP tests and one or two additional ones on his own performed less than the student who took eight of his school's 17 AP tests: Princeton realizes this, so luckily you won't have to worry about that.</p>

<p>Hope this helps!</p>

<p>I actually somewhat disagree with you JoeTrumpet. I understand what you're saying about taking advantage of opportunities and not penalizing those with less of them. But why didn't that prospective applicant from a given area go out of their way to attend a better school slightly farther from their house? Why did they accept their fate, per se. It's also slightly unfair that a student who goes to a good school has to exhaust himself taking 10 of 17 AP's and the other student takes 3 of 3 and is looked at equally. Maybe I'm biased though considering I went to a school ranked in the top 40 nationally (bragging!). </p>

<p>More importantly, Princeton not only has a duty to accept what they deem the best students (academic, test scores, EC's, personality, etc...), but they must take into account how well the student is prepared. A Princeton education is an arduous undertaking that should only be attempted by the best of the best. The problem with affirmative action (and the situation you describe most likely applies to rural or lower class kids and thus becomes an affirmative action issue) is that there are many students at places like Princeton who have no business being at a place like Princeton. The high school record isn't merely used to fill out an application. Rather, the high school record is a means by which to sufficiently prepare a student for advanced (and very difficult) college work. Kids from disadvantaged backgrounds may be forgiven for their less rigorous coursework by the admissions committee, but surely not by any professors handing out grades.</p>

<p>
[quote]
But why didn't that prospective applicant from a given area go out of their way to attend a better school slightly farther from their house? Why did they accept their fate, per se.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Perhaps they couldn't afford it. If you attend a school other than the one you're zoned for, you generally have to pay to go there.</p>

<p>
[quote]
More importantly, Princeton not only has a duty to accept what they deem the best students (academic, test scores, EC's, personality, etc...), but they must take into account how well the student is prepared. A Princeton education is an arduous undertaking that should only be attempted by the best of the best. The problem with affirmative action (and the situation you describe most likely applies to rural or lower class kids and thus becomes an affirmative action issue) is that there are many students at places like Princeton who have no business being at a place like Princeton.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Princeton doesn't have a duty to do anything. There's no God given mandate which requires the University to operate in a certain way. It's a private institution and it can do what it wants. If it decides to recruit a greater proportion of low income students even if some of these students won't perform as well, then that's its prerogative. That being said, the low performance issue you raised is a problem, and it's not entirely clear what to do about it. Currently Princeton has what is called the Freshman Scholars Institute. It allows students whose high schools might not have adequately prepared them to take two classes at Princeton the summer before their freshman year. It does a good job of preparing these students for Princeton classes, but it has the unwanted consequence of making them feel setting these students apart before the rest of the class even arrives. It's not really a touchy feel issue of self-esteem; if these students are separated and marked as different from the beginning, the probability of them fully integrating with the general student body (one of the University's goals) decreases. It's a tough situation, and I understand dontno's concerns, but I don't think the answer is necessarily to just scrap low income recruiting entirely.</p>

<p>I'd like to second the thing about the difficulties of changing schools. Districts are a cesspool of beaurocratic and political messes, making it really difficult and near impossible to switch schools sometimes. So if you're stuck your stuck. Also, even if you do get in to a different school, and even if you don't have to pay extra $ for it, if its too far away and you have no means of transportation to get there (parents can't drive, no public transport, no school bus, no car), then it's still near impossible to switch.</p>

<p>Wow! All of these responses have been very helpful. </p>

<p>I see what each side of the "argument" is saying, and I understand where each of you are coming from.</p>

<p>Anyways, thank you very much for the time and thoughtful replies. I great appreciate it :)</p>