<p>milo has his head screwed on right</p>
<p>Fellow parents,</p>
<p>Please engage in a thought experiment with me. Lets accept the eminently sensible premise that your child should not attend a prep school unless he or she would thrive there. Lets assume that the most competitive prep school as well as two excellent, but less competitive ones, have accepted your child. And lets imagine that you and your child are at the accepted student program for the most competitive school, having already attended comparable programs at the two less competitive ones. </p>
<p>Having read this thread, you are wary about this most competitive prep school. You know that prep school is the right choice for your smart, sensible, and hard working child. But you have heard that this school is a pressure cooker. So, you fear your child will be a small fish in a big pond. However, the more you see this beautiful prep school, the more you like it. Its not large or impersonal. The facilities are world-class. The teachers are wonderful. And the students are happy, friendly, and intelligent.</p>
<p>After the program, your child greets you with a beaming smile and excitedly says, I know I will thrive here. This is the school I want to attend! Do you tell your child, No, Id rather you go to a less competitive school so you will have a better chance of getting into Harvard or, at least, Columbia? Or do you hug your child and say Thats wonderful, as you rush to the bookstore to buy the school sweatshirt your child proudly wants to wear on the flight home?</p>
<p>Reading this thread (and others) a newcomer might be led to believe that if you aren’t accepted to an acronym school you are doomed to a second-rate education with mediocre classes and classmates. But this has hardly been our experience. We were late admits to a non-acronym school for a host of reasons that had nothing to do with stats. Our child, in fact, has acronym level stats, but we were going to wait. Faced with the choice between getting caught up in local PS mediocrity and going to a non-acronym prep we chose the latter. It has been amazing. The quality of the teaching, the students and campus life is so far above anything we could have dreamed of. I would hate to think that if we had gotten swept up in the “HADES” seeking tendency in this forum we might’ve passed over what has turned out to be a Godsend. No doubt there is a range of quality in prep schools, but I suspect the bottom of the range of prep schools is the top of the range of public. Certainly there are urban and suburban public and private schools that are much better than the average nationwide, but sometimes I feel like many of the writers on this board have no clue what the rest of the country, or socioeconomic spectrum, is like. From a national perspective, the majority of prep schools offer so much more…</p>
<p>I feel there are multiple “themes” going on in this thread. People are asking and answering different questions all at once. It’s time to let the thread rest, or go back to OP’s question and his/her clarifications on what he/she is asking throughout the thread.</p>
<p>wcmon,</p>
<p>I agree that there is no one size fits all solution. Some children will thrive at the most competitive prep schools. Others will prosper at less competitive, but still outstanding, schools. </p>
<p>As a result, qualified students, at this point, should not dismiss the most competitive schools any more than they should fixate on them. Where appropriate and if possible, they should cast a broad net and hope for the best on March 10. </p>
<p>In the final analysis, only opportunity and fit will answer the question of whether a child is better off attending a less competitive school.</p>
<p>We are looking at BSs for DC #3 this year and I want to reinforce what another poster said about the one third rule. If you D/S has the academic ability to be in the top 1/3 (based on honest assessment of stats plus drive, grit, confidence, etc.), that’s a pretty good gauge of whether your kid can thrive at that BS. I have one DC who went HADES but has struggled throughout and I can assure you we wonder every day if we did her a disservice (to her confidence first, but to college prospect as well). Wising up, with #2 we went for a school where he can excel if he works hard, and we smile (and he smiles) about that choice every day so far. Bottom line for us is that “thriving” for a high schooler must be a combination of stretch/challenge and a reasonable likelihood of attaining some success or to standout; whereas, constant stretch for 4 years has been exhausting and debilitating.</p>
<p>^^You’ve really nailed the distinction on the head. This is very hard to gauge for each kid, even as intimate a role as parenting is, because they are developing SO much during the target range. Please update us on how the search and choice for #3 goes, and best of luck (you must be relieved to be approaching that deadline)!</p>
<p>@erlanger. Well said. I think you’ve done prospective parents a great service by posting those experiences. We came to the same conclusions and if I had to do it over, I’d have placed the oldest child in a different environment. She was a high testing kid but needed to be in a more nurturing, less pressure cooker, environment. In retrospect, the experience nearly broke her spirit. We learned the lesson and allowed that to inform the college choices. Many more smiles in the household now that she’s found her “tribe”. </p>
<p>That’s why I always tell parents bent on “acronyms” to look at fit instead. Healthy, happy and fulfilled is our mantra. D#2 followed a more informed path when looking at boarding schools and ended up at on a campus where she is challenged AND thriving.</p>
<p>Kudos to you!</p>
<p>Hush. let’s keep it a secrete, in case the HADES kids learned the trick and are swarming to the less competitive schools for a better experience. You know, even they are top 1/3 in their HADES, they could do better with more smiles in a less competitive school. In that case, the kids in the less competitive schools would need to move down again. ;)</p>
<p>To get back to the OP original musing - Its my belief that if your child is able to do the work of a top academic school, then that should be the environment for him. We are all aware that a brain needs to be constantly challenged to produce its best. Some kids cant handle the very strong academics, and thats not something to be ashamed of, so they should attend schools that fit their needs. A student that attended a less challenging school may sometimes be admitted to a more prestigious college than a student that attended a top academic pressure cooker. That happens but not as a rule. A few years ago I heard a lecture by Bruce Breimer, who was a legendary guidance counsellor at my sons school(unfortunately he had retired by the time we needed him). He kept emphasizing the point of “dont fall into the trap of sending your child to a less challenging environment in the hopes of their being a big fish in a small pond”. At that time I wondered why not, since the concept kind of makes sense. Unfortunately he didnt elaborate on why not. In time I have come to a realization that Mr. Breimer was absolutely correct in his statement – although true, many parents whose kids dont get into the brand colleges go through scenarios that DAndrew described a few pages back, ALL kids benefit from the reputation of the school, as well as very strong contacts the guidance counsellors have with colleges. No one can ever discount the pull of certain schools guidance counsellors. Also, colleges want to take kids from challenging schools. They know the rigor of the curriculum and the level of work these kids are capable of. They also know that the less rigorous schools produce kids that have been top in an environment that is less challenging, and make their decisions accordingly. Even the bottom quarter at the most challenging schools has a better acceptance rate than they would otherwise. I speak from experience - my oldest son struggled with the concept of “study hard” and had two c+ in junior year and one c+ in senior year. He wound up in a top 25LAC due to the well known reputation of his school and the fact that his classes were all challenging (all aps). Would not have happened in a school with a lesser reputation, or a competitive public.
Its true that colleges cant always take every single person that applied from the top schools, and there will be lots of disappointments, but at the end of the day every kid will be placed well. For instance in my daughters former school 15 students out of a class of 50 applied early to one HYP college. Obviously there was quite a bit of disappointment on Dec 15th. But these students will down the road get into other top choices.<br>
By the way, this does not apply when comparing run of the mill public schools and top BSs for the reason that for the past ten years or so colleges have made it a priority to accept kids who have had less opportunities than others. And I would also agree with a poster that said the top publics are bigger pressure cookers than top BSs - totally true - the challenge to be one of the top 5 students out of a few hundred must be monumental.</p>
<p>^^While there is much that is right about this, there are also some fundamental issues that are mistaken. The idea that at the college level there is a significant degree of “curricular challenge” difference among the top 150 colleges and unis is absurd. Why? Look at how many in the top 150 are doctoral research universities. What do you think happens to all of the Ph.Ds these schools are churning out year after year after year…? The are ending up at other top 150s. So yes, you can go to your state flagship and, if motivated, be trained by someone who was trained at HYPSM. Is that really so different from attending HYPSM yourself? No, it just requires a little discriminative insight. The problem with only looking at education as a series of statistical implications is that you completely ignore the biological fact that we are living organisms and not mere equations to be solved. There is no single rationale (or equation) that can correctly describe the trajectory of a human life before it unfolds. Stop trying to outsmart everybody and “wonder” a little! (P.S. AOs love it!)</p>
<p>If saying kudos to the idea that as a rule one should choose a school based on the prediction whether one can be among the top 1/3 of their class is not politically incorrect, I’d say while teaching and learning are the main purpose of attending a school/college, schools/colleges mean more than that. Why some schools/colleges can be more expensive and selective than others can’t just be explained away by the public collective disillusions/madness. Drawing conclusions based on personal experience can go only that far. I think we should all “wonder” more.</p>
<p>Some really good observations coming on this thread. I agree with the many posters who have said it boils down to the individual child and what is a fit for that child. I have had one kid at Andover, and my next, very different, child will likely NOT go there. The Andover kids have had siblings at other schools, such as Concord Academy, NMH, Brooks, and Dana Hall, and I have heard positives about all these places from their parents (I ask questions!). Some of these schools, and our public, will be on the next kid’s list. </p>
<p>Nonetheless, as some of the posters have pointed out, for the right kid, an education at Andover (or similar, though our family only has experience at A) is an amazing opportunity. </p>
<p>I have seen my Andover kid beaten down by the end of term as she has tried—and sometimes failed— to keep too many balls in the air. To me it’s too much for a high school student to go through. But this kid has learned to accept an imperfect outcome, and loves an environment where kids around her are as good or better students than she is. </p>
<p>She has gotten great counseling, adult involvement, concern—but also enough independence to overdo it. She wouldn’t have overextended at the less competitive but still wonderful school that she nearly attended. But she sees it as that she wouldn’t have had the same opportunities there or at our excellent public school. </p>
<p>This fall, she’s headed to her first choice college (thank you, Early Action) fabulously prepared, in love with learning, not afraid of any academic challenge, with great friends, and in the end (unlike the beginning) in love with her high school.</p>
<p>I want to second lemonade’s comments from the perspective of another acronym school. My Ds have both learned that it is OK not to be the smartest kid in the class, and the joy of having friends who are more talented or accomplished. They have learned to respect those friends, and learn from them rather than compete with them.</p>
<p>Both Ds have been overfaced at times, and have had to set priorities and not had the time to do the work to the level they would have liked. They struggled, they were stressed, sometimes they prevailed, and sometimes they did not. This is real life. There is rarely enough time to do everything as well as we would like.</p>
<p>My Ds have come to truly appreciate the superb education they recieved, and how prepared they are for whatever comes next. They have seen well-qualified friends get rejected from first choice highly selective schools, and see that they generally ended up happy anyway. As a result, they do not feel that college admissions is a measure of their own self-worth. They also have no illusions that they will be the smartest kid in their college classes, and they don’t feel they need to be.</p>
<p>Both my Ds had solid self-esteem going into their highly competitive school, and despite some dissapointments did well enough to feel that they had acquitted themselves academically. I do think kids who are sensitive and less secure can get totally overwhelmed by the competition at these schools, even if they do well. It is totally a matter of fit. Know your child, and make sure you choose a school that meets their needs, regardless of prestige or college matriculation list.</p>
<p>From the experiences of my children, I can say, without hesitation, that top prep schools and colleges can be, and typically are, excellent fits for the students who attend them. </p>
<p>Nevertheless, I cannot draw a hard and fast general rule from the particularities of my experiences any more than anyone else can create an over arching principle from the idiosyncrasies of their experiences. </p>
<p>Saying everything boils down to fit only raises the more important question of how we ought to determine fit when the future is cloudy and our knowledge is never as complete as we want it to be.</p>
<p>I don’t pretend to have a definitive answer to that question. When all is said and done, all we can really do is trust our judgment, have faith in our children, and hope for the best. </p>
<p>For what its worth, my view is that we should not deny our children the opportunity to succeed at the most competitive schools if they have the opportunity, the ability, and the desire to do so.</p>
<p>The interesting and perhaps unanswerable question here is what are the qualities that make a kid a good fit for a top school vs a slightly less competitive school. </p>
<p>Based on the posts above (and my observation of my own kid), I’d suggest, very tentatively, that the kid who thrives at a top tier school:</p>
<p>–enjoys being surrounded by students who are smarter than he or she is in some/many areas–the geniuses as my kid calls them.</p>
<p>–goes to the “geniuses” for help, rather than feeling intimidated and silenced by them</p>
<p>–excels in at least one academic area</p>
<p>–has leadership/varsity/star potential in at least one sport or branch of the arts or an e.c.</p>
<p>–is more mature and self-confident than the average kid in his/her grade</p>
<p>–accepts criticism/coaching well</p>
<p>–feels best about achievements that don’t come easily</p>
<p>–is self-motivated and self-directed</p>
<p>–rebounds well after a setback</p>
<p>–gets along well with adults and will actively seek their help when needed</p>
<p>–tends to react to stress by pushing harder rather freaking out (well maybe freaks out some…)</p>
<p>–can accept less than perfect outcomes</p>
<p>What do you think? And I’d love to see a list of qualities of kids who thrive in less competitive climates–wondering where kid #2 fits.</p>
<p>That’s a great list, classicalmama–thank you. 
When it comes to kids who thrive in somewhat less competitive climates, I think it’s a matter of degrees. Ultimately, when discussing any (prep) boarding school, the kiddo needs to be motivated and mature. DS1 was a strong student, independent in terms of getting work done and structuring time, but we knew he needed to be somewhere he could easily connect with teachers/staff, that’s just how he learned best. Still does, actually, and is now in a small LAC where he’s very happy.</p>
<p>Good list, Classicalmama! </p>
<p>You are right: maturity, self-esteem, and resiliency are vitally important. </p>
<p>Other elements that factor into the calculus are: love of learning, self-discipline, and desire to succeed.</p>
<p>Isn’t it rather silly to refer to them as “acronym” schools. We all know which schools that covers. How is that less “offensive” than saying GLADCHEMMS (which also includes schools not specifically found in the term’s lettering)? Besides, GLADCHEMMS just sounds nicer than “acronym”.</p>
<p>^leanid doesn’t get the joke, I guess.</p>