HYPMS Acceptances for one Bay Area HS

CrystalWolf
Sat, 07 May 2011 17:27:18 +0000

Hello. Long-time lurker, first-time poster here. (And by long-time lurker, I mean addicted to CC for about 2 years but never posted until now.)

I’m an alumna of Gunn and now a college freshman (so, of course, not a parent). The Palo Altans and Bay Area posters on this thread have pretty much said it all, but there are some things that could be cleared up.

Gunn is not unusual among Bay Area high schools. Yes, there are students who go to Stanford, and there are lots who go to Berkeley, UCLA, UCSD, USC, NYU, Pomona, and (insert name of any Ivy or Ivy-equivalent here). The roughly half who don’t go to lower-tier UCs, Cal States, and yes, community college. But Gunn is not even in the top 50 high schools nationally. Among Bay Area high schools, the stats posted by the OP are not unusual. Other Bay Area high schools such as Harker (an expensive prep school for which I have seen a few threads here on CC), Monta Vista, Paly, Mission San Jose, and Homestead fare just as well and sometimes better. The topic of this thread could be changed to Bay Area high schools or even simply good high schools in general, and it wouldn’t make a difference.

The stats are indeed mostly a consequence of its close proximity to Stanford. Many students apply because it’s nearby and they like the sunny California weather. There are also families who move to Palo Alto so that their kids can be in an excellent school district, and maybe, if they’re lucky, get admitted to that nice local university over there (and hey, it seems to be a good school!). Yes, the kids are very smart. But Gunn does not have a competitive environment, and it is not clique-y. In fact, when I first started as a freshman there, I was amazed at how supportive and friendly everyone was. People talk freely about their grades and test scores to each other. They collaborate on group projects and studying. They complain to each other about how many AP exams they have to study for and the intensity of badminton practice the other day or their swim/cross-country times. But, from what I’ve seen for the most part, there are no tiger parents in the picture. Most of the students come from privileged backgrounds, and, if anything, are sometimes just a little bit spoiled, though only from permissive parents, not wealth. Although some parents may be CEOs and such of Silicon Valley tech companies, most families have both parents working as doctors and engineers. Even then, such a salary is barely enough in Palo Alto to pay the mortgage (or rent) on the typical 1950’s Eichler-style houses (like ugly bungalows) that go for $1-2+ mill on the market. (I think of Palo Alto as your stereotypical yuppie town.) But my point is, there are often, but probably not always, no Stanford faculty involved.

Regarding the recent suicide cluster that was mentioned, I do not believe it was from family problems, as the OP stated. (I personally knew the first kid; it was awful.) Gunn has had its share of sad news coverage from the suicides, subsequent Westboro protest, and a few other unfortunate events. But the vast majority of students are not depressed, though I will admit they are often stressed out. The suicides all happened at the same location and in the same manner. So perhaps they really are lemmings…

I apologize for my long rant and my somewhat-biased talk about my own high school (other parents/students can talk forever about their high schools, too!). But I do have to wonder why one high school’s stats are mentioned; they are not unusual - not in the U.S., and certainly not in the Bay Area. What I’ve mentioned about the nature of the students at Gunn applies also to most Bay Area high schools.