<p>The “pride”, Converge, was not in the cleverness of the picking, for everything here is all hindsight. Son applied to three within geographical limits, got into two, and was waitlisted at the only acronym in the area. That was fine, fully understanding that the acronyms have more qualified students than they have spaces for. That’s precisely why we applied to the other two excellent (and “second tier”) schools. Got into both, visited yet again (altogether several times for games, events), and made a decision that certainly was about how the child felt one school was speaking to him in appealing ways that the other wasn’t. A year and a half later, we realize that we have great pride in what he has accomplished at his so-called second-tier hidden gem, and that this has happened because it was in fact the best fit of all three schools. I feel comfortable saying that because, even though we cannot know what would have happened at #2, or #3 acronym (if admitted), the current school’s differences are what we find ourselves valuing. A smaller size, most importantly, has meant the most, including the opportunities for experiences that would have been unavailable at the larger schools. For some kids, fit really will be more critical than for others, who might flourish anywhere, acronym or not, large or small. </p>
<p>Let’s agree to be grateful that this country has a myriad of boarding options to suit so many different needs of so many individuals. Loads of acronym-able kids either can’t be admitted to those ten schools, for space, or choose not to go for a variety of considerations. That’s an inconvenient truth, in my book, especially the legions of FA applicants who are fully qualified for the top ten but essentially get shut out because these schools still need to meet budget with 50+% FP. (Secondarily, I consider that geographical diversity at the top schools is also a factor which applicant families should be very cognizant of, e.g., how many boarders does Deerfield want to accept from metro Boston.)</p>