Time and again on CC I see families that have both/all kids in the most difficult to get into colleges and universities.
I am just wondering if it is a function of HS? Or the parents have figured out the secret sauce? Keeping aside legacies…there has to be something these families have done that set not one but multiple children on the track to admission for these schools.
My schools search is done…I am just interested in puzzling this out!
“There has to be something these families have done”
Genetics (and assortative mating).
In our case, we pulled off a trick. My son applied to the University of Chicago when admission there was much less selective than it is now. To be honest, I think he would be admitted today (or should be), but the competition would be much greater. However, he would have respectable alternatives if UofC wouldn’t admit him today. We (and he) never fixated on getting into one particular college; it was the type of college environment he was looking for – “a college where it’s safe to be a thinker.”
Our daughter applied only to art schools. She was admitted to all the ones to which she sent a completed application and portfolio. She had the talent and made the case for why she wanted to make art. Totally different personality from our son. Very different interests and special talents. She attended RISD, and later earned an MS and MBA at the University of Michigan.
The kids have parents who between them have 5 college degrees, a variety of “certificates,” and are savvy about colleges. But we’re not artists. Our daughter did that on her own (though we did pay for her to attend summer art programs). Now, however, she’s more into environmental design than art. She lives in the same city as her brother.
@Twoin18 - if genetics and assortive mating had ANYTHING to do with getting into selective collegs…we would be seeing different results in many families!
We also have 5 degrees between the 2 parents…didn’t help a whit with the most selective applications!
Genetics and assortative mating DO impact the likelihood of getting accepted into selective colleges. Families with desirable genetics and the right assortative mating are usually socioeconomically better off - and socioeconomic status is one of the greatest factors which influence whether or not a child makes it to a selective college (they have admissions advantages due to legacy, being able to afford private SAT instruction, tutoring, better schools, etc.). People of high SES are HEAVILY overrepresented at every major selective college in the United States.
Prep school.
Genetics, assortative mating, fairly high socioeconomic status, and family attitudes that place a high value on education.
I have known many, many families like this (including my own), and these factors seem to be enough to get the kids into the flagship state university or a school more selective than that.
Yes to all of the above and many families that fit into this category also donate time and money to their schools. At some level, that does matter.
I think you are basing your assumption on a really small number of people, primarily senior posters here on CC who often seem to be alumni of top colleges, whose children then go to those schools, or others. Quite a few senior posters on CC are well educated themselves, so it isn’t that surprising.
I know a family in which one parent went to MIT and the other went to Cornell. Their eldest ended up at the state flagship, then transferred to a good but not top LAC. Middle child is at Cornell. Last child is in HS still, no idea where he will end up. But they aren’t on CC, so what does that say about your theory? 
I seem to run in a circle where this is really common.
Genetics, living where this is the norm, sending kids to strong high schools, being able to support interests, maybe some sibling rivalry tossed in, and in at least one case, far more involvement in and masterminding of their kids’ lives than would fly in our house.
A lot of these families have used the legacy (major donor) card for at least one kid, and for that one, they have been very strategic in making sure all the boxes could be checked by admissions.
Families that support their kids’ interests: in the cases I am familiar with this meant the arts. Contrary to what many think, academics doesn’t always play a major role, just gets a kid into the pool. Parents who know this and encourage other pursuits, may see their kids get into better schools. Of course athletics play a big role too.
Okay, I’ll bite. S16 attends UChicago and D18 is attending Harvard. They both went to large public high school. S is a legacy at UChicago and D is unhooked. I really don’t know what the secret sauce is. But what they both did well was that they had very cohesive narratives in their applications. Their ECs, awards, essays, and even the one LOC that I read all worked together to paint a very cohesive picture. I think this made a huge difference in their applications.
I suspect that there are quite a few households where information that might potentially be useful is obscured by the fact that they have a single child, who went to a “top” college. We are in that group. So if there had been siblings, who knows about the outcome?
Assortative mating–probably, to some extent. Pizzagirl used to say that people did not pick their mates by SAT scores. I used to joke back that my spouse and I were essentially a perfect match if you added SAT + GRE scores.
Legacy–zilch.
Parents’ level of education–Dual Ph.D. household
Prep school–Ha, ha . . . no.
No legacy, but parents are alumni of top colleges–only for grad school
Supporting kid’s interests–Yes, self-sacrificially in terms of driving to an EC, and acquisition of items needed for the pursuit (just what everyone with a kid in a particular program has to buy). In one year, I had the equivalent of a half-time job, just chauffeuring.
Tutors–not needed, though if something had not been explained fully in class, we were there to fall back on, with explanations
Private SAT instruction–not needed. We bought a book with 10 Real SATs. My daughter did a few of the math sub-sections in the car, on the way to her EC, but most of the book is blank. This is only partly to brag. A gigantic fraction of the students who get in to the top colleges do not need any SAT prep, even if their parents were frightened/guilted into arranging it.
Better schools–one of the better ones in the area, but it was not Harker. Not Harker for sure. (with a nod to Wislawa Szymborska)
Katwittens is my personal heroine. She moved her large family to N Caro. So they would have a good state U to attend. Her children got into top,schools, including medical schools.
I never heard the term “assortative mating” before, but it is an interesting concept. My husband and I met on a dating site that limited participation to graduates of a handful of top colleges.
Families in which both parents are highly educated most likely will read aloud to their child starting at birth, the child will participate in intellectual conversations and pursuits, and the parents will value education and be knowledgeable about the college admissions process.
Some of these children may be interested in other things, and some will have learning disabilities or other challenges, but many will aspire to go to a top college themselves.
Not to take away from the achievements of these progeny, for which they themselves are still responsible…
but it is even more impressive when students with fewer or none of these advantages perform well enough to get into top colleges. The high test scores, GPA’s, and other accomplishments of lower income students posted on this site by students accepted to all-expenses-paid fly-in programs at the top colleges are mind-blowing; they are so impressive!
Ok, I will give our story. Four kids, four ivies or top ten, including HYP and same for grad school. I get asked all the time, what did you do. So, here is what I say.
Number one, after seventh grade, never assisted or reviewed kids homework with minor exceptions such as once in a while helping drill with flash cards. We are in very good public high school district and we said, talk to your teacher. A lot of tears in ninth grade, but they worked it out and after that managed own time and met with teachers in morning or afternoon on a regular basis. Teachers were amazing at helping and also making sure grades were good. If you listen to the teacher carefully, you can do very well in classes. Also, teachers knew our kids and gave great recs. Can’t say it enough, teachers are awesome.
Number two, took the hardest classes they could all the time. If in an area outside of comfort zone, hardest class did not mean the hardest class, it meant the hardest class they could take without feeling lost. And, again, I will say it, if you meet with the teacher, you will do well.
Number three, despite not looking at homework, did take an active interest in classes and discuss them at dinner etc. It was important to us that they learn and we made that clear. We never punished for grades and never gave rewards for good grades.
Number four, for EC’s, we did let them find their own way and then, honestly supported them like crazy, with driving, money for supplements (special trips with team), attending all events. We valued kids enjoying EC’s over building resume. We are more fortunate than other families as we had the flexibility and to some extent the money to let them develop interests. But nothing crazy. Not polo or mountain climbing. Regular high school type of stuff. When they wanted to they entered competitions, but never won one, although they did well. They all liked their high school stuff, and it was all different.
Number five, jobs. All our kids had to have some type of job when they got older, even it it was just tutoring.
Number six, summer activities. No fancy paid summer activities, volunteer stuff or what I call low cost selective test. We realized early on that our area has a lot of modestly selective free or low cost academic type stuff. Modestly selective in that reasonably good grades will likely get you in. Stem activities or art related and the like. Except, we did do sports camps but not with an eye to college, just for fun. I don’t think going to sports camps helps at all.
But despite seeming to let the kids find their way, we did control the college process. But our initial goal was not top ten but “Top Seventy” or so. The kids were good students and I wanted all four to go to a major college or LAC, which I thought was doable. I could look at Naviance and see what test scores were needed for certain schools. We arranged for regular prep classes, nothing special, but did crack down and push them to study, under the theory that like it or not test scores matter and having worked so hard in high school they should get appropriate test scores. We also had them retake as needed, yes, strategic, but it matters and others are doing it. And then, when the process started we did a couple of things. We focused heavily on safeties but most importantly safeties that we could apply for in the fall, either our own state schools, other state schools, or private universities with rolling. The only thing we insisted on was that they pick a safety that they could apply for in the fall. And all four did and all four were accepted. And, at that point, with the grades, and test scores and EC’s, we applied for a lot of stretch schools. We did not write their applications at all, but we did read and comment extensively and proofed them carefully and made sure they were done long before the deadline. And they all got into one reach school, while also being rejected by others.
Some other observations. Despite my “advice” above, I still think it is the luck of the draw. All four may have ended up at the safeties, or three or two. And I woudl have been fine with it. After all, that was the original goal, to attend a university that challenged and excited them. What helped the most I think was trusting the teachers, supporting the kids choice of EC’s, and making them have jobs. And also being lucky with kids who are pretty motivated happy people.
I know several families like this in our town. I would say a combination of talented kids, parents who expect and support high achievement AND an ability to pay full tuition and very strategic use of ED.
Absolutely agree with post #12 above. A cohesive application which tells a student’s story and gives a clear picture of who that kid is… that’s really important.
@QuantMech Your comment is a very good summary that would fit the cases of our kids. (I wrote earlier in this thread.) My kids were actually “anti-Ivy” b/c they didn’t want to appear to be competing with their cousins (Princeton, Brown, Stanford)! So we went for fit – and the best non-Ivy colleges in which they might be interested, with a focus on the academic climate and location. No legacy element.
As for assortative mating, hmmm. My wife and I met in grad school at a great public university: University of Wisconsin. There was a “legacy” involving Wisconsin on my wife’s side. Parents, grandparents attended UW. I chose it for the graduate program, and turned down Princeton (in my academic field) and Stanford (law). We aren’t and weren’t Ivy driven, no matter that they are terrific colleges.
In my opinion, three main factors:
Genetics
Well educated parents that value education, have high expectations, talk and pay attention to their kids, and support their interests over their own.
A great school with great teachers.