<p>Oh, trust me-- I get all of that, blossom. I really do. And I certainly understand the differences between a GC at a top private in Manhattan and a GC, even an excellent one, at a public school/magnet. However, I will say it just one more time-- to pretend that the top private school GC’s in Manhattan do not have connections at those highly selective schools to which their kids apply is disingenuous, at best. As stated in an earlier post, there’s no way you’d <em>ever</em> see 7 “average” students from an excellent public school (complete with top students and excellent faculty) get into Harvard (7 for 7), like you would from a top private school in Manhattan. It simply wouldn’t happen. (See earlier post.) To" . . . seriously doubt that the connections of the GC’s move the needle" is, I think, naive.</p>
<p>Scipio: Thanks. Yes, I understand that about the NM designations, but --as on this thread–I see people use it in ways that suggest that having a lot of NMF or semi-finalists at a high school, where students are supposedly “legit stars,” actually means something-- as though the NMF designation gives proof to their “legit star” status. I’m always surprised by that, because–as I stated before–it just doesn’t take that much to make that cut-off. In fact, any “above average” student should have no problem doing so.</p>
<p>^^In that case you must have a pretty strict definition of what constitutes an “above average” student. Because each year there are about 16,000 NMSFs in the US, and at the same time there are close to 30,000 high schools. In other words, in your estimation, US high schools average fewer than one “above average” student per school.</p>
<p>Too true but it isn’t only the GC working the show. The game is on from the moment the top flight recruits walk into the private elite school. The top set is given the killer maths curriculum–and sometimes one or two deliberate ‘weeder’ teachers. Teachers whose standard is next to impossible. Parents wonder why schools keep such sadistic teachers. Well, they keep them because those teacher provide a system for discreet weeding of like-minded talent.</p>
<p>Bingo. A slightly lower GPA for 75% of the group.</p>
<p>Also, you’d be surprised how many clever, wealthy parents do not hear the GC say ‘super reach–aint’ gonna happen’. You’d be surprised how many don’t read scattergrams correctly but take the one-off the charts as a sure sign their Billy Jo should visit–instead of what the one-off really is: an athlete, URM, legacy or major donor. You’d be astounded at how many visit HYP anyway.</p>
<p>I agree with Jack on NMSF. It takes 222 in MA to get this status (or it did 3 years ago)–the highest score. 222 out of 240 is definitely above average. But HYP material? Doubt it.
If, however, 40% of the graduating class in an MA school gets 222 or above, there is a good chance that a fair number of the students will get closer to 230+ Now you’re beginning to talk. I say begin to talk because chances are that those 230+ scorers are taking a slew of APs and scoring high, maybe college-level classes beyond AP, have achieved awards, etc…</p>
<p>In other words, very high achieving students are more likely than not to be NMSFs. But it does not follow that NMSFS students are all achieving at the HYP admissible level.</p>
<p>when we were considering NYC private schools for our kids I got the matriculation data for all the schools & analyzed it.
Had it on one of the early spreadsheets.</p>
<p>Data for this one prominent school was hard to get, but I had it anyway. Because I was an alum and saved it from the magazines. HA!</p>
<p>At that time -very early 90s- I recall Brearly had the snootiest matriculation list. The great ones were: Regis, Horace Mann, Collegiate, Brearly,Trinity, Fieldston, Spence and Dalton . Then Saint Ann’s maybe. And of course Stuyvesant and Hunter for “publics”.</p>
<p>Daughters attended one of these for a time, then we left town. Based on those who remained, I think it’s clear that they would have expected more from their college choices if they’d stayed.</p>
<p>A couple things to remember:
you need to get tested to get in; so the students are highly selected already.
They don’t generally kick kids out. So if you had a great ERB score when you were five, but over time became a dud, you will likely still graduate from there. that’s partly why they don’t do even better in admissions.
an abnormally huge proportion of the parent bodies are legacies of top schools themselves, development cases, famous,etc.</p>
<p>And yes a non-wired kid from the suburbs can get in to HYP. If they are val, Sal, or have something else very special about them. Like ethnicity or sports star, etc. Otherwise, not so much, from here in Westchester (not Scarsdale) anyway.</p>
<ul>
<li><p>You have to be tested for Stuy, Hunter, Bx Sci and most of the other “top” NYC publics. Also, the selective publics that don’t test, now require “portfolio” admission, including interview.</p>
<ul>
<li>The pvts don’t kick out a lot, but in D’s class, 3-4 girls (of 55 students) being counseled out b/w k and 8th grade.</li>
<li>Lots of legacies at Hunter, Stuy, etc. (even if no development admits) and a signif number of the kids at top publics attended pvt sch k-8.</li>
</ul></li>
</ul>
<p>Obviously there an advantage to attending pvt sch (as I stated in earlier post re: mediocre pvts), but a lot of the kids at the top publics are from solidly middle-class or afluent families and their schs are well-appointed, have very active/supportive alums and do great fundraising. Have you seen that “new” Stuy bldg - - my brother and all of my male NYC colleagues got the solicitation letter. Do you think all of that marble came from the Bd of Ed?</p>
<p>I remember the testing for Hunter–and the ‘rejects’ went to another top public for-- kindergarten.</p>
<p>Privates don’t ‘kick’ out per say, but 10% to 20% are counselled out in primary school. Another 10% drop out in high school because they cannot keep up with the demands of the curriculum.</p>
<p>Our suburban hs does send kids to HYPS but all of them had a hook, though in many cases a self-generated one, i.e. Val, sal, Intel semi-finalist or super star Juilliard musician. However, only a few kids focus on Harvard (or Y or P.) Many, not wanting to throw their hats into a super competitive arena, choose Brown, Dartmouth, Tufts, Amherst, Williams, Wesleyan, Barnard, etc. even without GC input.</p>
<p>D.'s boyfriend from Atlanta chose WashU. instead of applying to HYPS (for which he was qualified) because he was afraid of northeast. </p>
<p>There is a population for whom HYPS is the be all and end all, but many kids are moving away from this…</p>
<p>My very bright cousin from Spence was rejected at Yale and ended up at Williams ('92) as did her cousin, my son, from public suburban high school.</p>
<p>At my kids’ former private school, students have been “counseled out” as late as the end of 11th grade. (THAT was unforgivable, as far as I was concerned – a real blot on the school and its ethics, and not the usual case at all.)</p>
<p>By the way, cheers posted earlier about “weed out” courses and teachers at top private schools. That’s completely contrary to what I have seen, here or elsewhere. At the school with which I’m most familiar, they bend over backwards to avoid that, and in general try to make it hard to distinguish among their students. They clearly feel they maximize success by having as many kids as possible look like they might be #1, or close to it, and then having them all apply to different colleges.</p>
<p>Interesting. No, in my private school experience, the admin uses the top Maths class to establish visible rank. There is no hand-holding in one or two of those classes along with active discouragement.</p>
<p>Elite private schools do not want dozens applying to HYP. They ‘feed’ HYP the top candidates.</p>
<p>At least at the Pre-k/k entry level, as of the early 90s Hunter cared not about legacy. They cared about the aptitude test and then their in-house testing, period. (D1 -a legacy- came SO close… sigh). Hunter alumni functions and fundraising efforts are quite nominal. We get Hunter and a well-known private and believe me it is not even close. And yes, I would in fact assume that whatever Stuy is built with came from the board of ed. Unless you know something different.</p>
<p>Yes, some are counseled out. But in the private of which I am an alumnus, a disproportionate amount of the bottom of the class were “lifers” who wound up not living up to their initial promise.</p>
<p>JUst as the landscape has changed for college admissions, so too for pvt sch and counseling out. As JHS and cheers noted, some are pvts ruthless in establishing rank and counseling out - - but pretty much all are less warm and fuzzy than they were a generation or even 10 years ago. </p>
<p>FYI - - D3 was NOT admitted to D2’s top girls’ sch despite legacy status (I was disappointed, but it was certainly the right decision; D3 wasn’t and isn’t suited for such a rigorous setting). And if legacy wasn’t important at Hunter or Stuy, the sibling pref is alive and strong at every other high achiev public sch (from PS6 elem sch to El Ro. Beacon, Midwood and Murrow for h.s.)</p>
<p>As for Stuy - - my bro and every guy I know who attended the sch were hit up for contribs to the building fund (and they all gave generously).</p>
<p>Anti-semitic or not, my sense is that NYC truly has a “bagel,” i.e. a lot of competitive high schools in the suburbs from which it can be extra difficult to get into a top college.</p>
<p>Henry Rosovsky, after whom Rosovsky Hall is named and where the awkwardly named Riseman Center for Harvard Hillel is located, was a great proponent of diversity, which included geographic diversity.</p>
<p>That’s interesting, because the quote from him seems to link geographic diversity with antisemitism. At least the concept of raising admissions standards for students from schools in the NYC suburbs.</p>
<p>Yes. But it’s Rosovsky who greatly expanded diversity. I was a graduate student during his tenure. By the time I got my degree, things had changed pretty drastically. Rososvly, by the way, is devoutly Jewish, hence the location of Hillel.</p>
<p>That’s interesting, because the quote from him seems to link geographic diversity with antisemitism. At least the concept of raising admissions standards for students from schools in the NYC suburbs.</p>
<p>Anyway, it’s clear that “diversity” got its start at Harvard long before Rosovsky took office.</p>