patrick.net

SFace says

and as PKennedy correctly stated, the value of a good school district is the association (or snoberry if you will) At kids soccer practice, the coach is a an executive at Apple, a partner from PwC or a engineer at Cisco. They are the ones that would put your kids in their companies internship to get them fast-tracked that is otherwise not available. And of course, you will recipricate and put their kids in your companies internship.

If your goal is to use casual contacts to get your kid an internship why not move to the fortress when your eldest is in high school at the earliest? Better yet just move to east Palo Alto or La Honda and have your kid join the fortress sports clubs.

(Just don't share your true address)

One thing I'd love to see is some clear, unbiased stats on the career paths of these kids vs. their schools API scores.

Goran_K says

raindoctor says

So, just going to Cupertino does not help your kid much.

Yup.

When I was at Wharton, it's not like every other person I met was from Bay Area fortress cities, in fact I can only remember one guy who was from the Bay Area (San Francisco). Some of the people I met went to fairly unrecognizable 4 year schools as well.

Why did you chose to go to Wharton when you could have saved some money and gone to ASU or UCLA?

I assume it's similar to why parents choose to send their kids to a top school district.

It's better to be the top of your class from Carey or Anderson than middle-of-the-road at Wharton, but many people prefer Harvard, Kellogg, or Wharton despite the astronomical costs.

I think people under appreciate what fast tracking their kids actually does.

I see lots of people working after they get out of school, or during school trying to get some job experience, not necessarily relevant experience either. After a few years, they score a job in their profession, and start working from the bottom up. It might take 2 years before you make a move up, and another 2 years before you make another move. Not because you're not good, because there are just limited spots available.

Meanwhile, fast tracked kid gets an internship at a less than bottom level and when he leaves, he's probably going to start 2 steps up at least, if not jumping directly into a mini manager roll.

Fast tracked kid could be 4-8 years ahead of the other guys. When our careers are roughly 25-30 years long, that 4-8 years could be up to 25%+ head start, plus they have lots of connections which will accelerate them through life as well. And when they finish? They're at the top, while the counterparts are probably 10+ years behind them, assuming they could make the much harder jumps up the corporate ladder later in life.

Goran_K says

I have SFace on ignore

Why did you do that? I find his posts to be among the most intelligent/informative ones around these parts. Is it a personal thing? Disagree politically?

pkennedy says

Kids personalities are defined by those they hang around with. Put your kid into a crappy school, there is a very good chance he'll start aligning life goals along with his peers. Put him in a rich school, and he'll start aligning his expectations with those kids. Every step up helps.

Goran_K says

Also if people actually understood how top schools pick incoming freshman, then they would know that some of the top universities try to pick from the Top 5-10% of the class. So going to a hyper-competitive school can actually hurt an applicants case because it's so much harder to bubble to the top, where if they had gone to a slightly less competitive school, they would have been in the Top 5%. Some parents tried to make a huge issue about it a few years ago because people thought the UC system was unfair, but the system still stands today.

No one cares if you're a 50th percentile kid from Top High School USA with an API score of 990.

Both these statements are true, however, from my experience (two kids, one went to school with API 949, another is still in HS with API 893), I see a huge difference in attitude and level of intelligence of kids that are going to these schools. True, it is almost imposible to be top 10% in school with 930+ with almost perfect GPA and all 5s in AP classes and compete with kids who are top 10% in other schools. However, majority of these kids are still ahead of other kids even if they don't get in to the Harvard, Stanford... Our child wasn't fortunate to get in to the top 20%, among top schools she was accepted were NYU, Carnegie Mellon, never get off of waiting list from Chicago and UC San Diego, and declined from UCLA and UCB. She choose to go to UCSB, she is a honor student, top 1% in her class, and its her 2nd year in school, but she already has a Junior standing. If everything goes well, she will get her bachelor degree in 3 years (not 4), big saving and this time around will most likely have a better chance to get in to the top 10% schools. She is majoring in bio-chemistry by the way, not English….

I don't see my other one is motivated as the first one and only explanation I see is the school. She says not only teachers, but also kids are different in her school from those she used to go with before.

For those of you who has kids who know what they want and how to get it, it doesn't matter what school they are going, but for all other it does make a difference.

zesta says

I assume it's similar to why parents choose to send their kids to a top school district.

Except that's not how top universities pick students for admission. So your parallel doesn't work.

Schools don't look up "API scores", they care about your GPA, your class rank, and your collection of courses. All the top schools do is get you better prepared for high pressure, test oriented environments, but the API score by itself doesn't do much to send kids to good universities.

You could be #245 out of 800 in the 2012 class of Top High School USA, admissions officers don't care. If you're #5 out of #1500 at Over Crowded Hood High School, then they do care.

zhanka says

However, majority of these kids are still ahead of other kids even if they don't get in to the Harvard, Stanford

That's your personal opinion, and I respect that, but it's highly arguable that a kid who went to so-so high school, and got into Harvard is not ahead of a kid that went to top high school, and only got into UCSB. Harvard's alum and business network alone would guarantee that the kid who went to so-so high school would have more opportunities presented to them over UCSB kid.

I find in general people have this misconception that the smartest get the best opportunities, while it doesn't hurt, it's certainly not always true. Who you know, and who you can get introduced to, is sometimes far more important. Guess what? Harvard will open more doors than UCSB, that's simply how it is.

swebb says

Why did you do that?

I got a trolling vibe from him, and lots of negativity overall. Decided it wasn't worth the effort. Anyway, it's not worth my time to discuss to be honest. If you like his content, you can continue reading his post. I've made the personal decision to do otherwise.

Goran_K says

Except that's not how top universities pick students for admission. So your parallel doesn't work.

I assumed part of the reason you chose to attend Wharton was because of the reputation of its faculty and students. Learning from the top-tier teachers and being surrounded by students that have the same passion would help you be more prepared and push you to accomplish things that you would have otherwise not done had you just skated by at a lesser school.

Goran_K says

You could be #245 out of 800 in the 2012 class of Top High School USA, admissions officers don't care. If you're #5 out of #1500 at Over Crowded Hood High School, then they do care

This of course is speculative, but I'd submit that 50% "slacker" at Gunn HS in PA has a pretty good chance at getting into a good UC. An exceptionally bright student that would have gotten into an Ivy League at a top-tier high school may be "held back" when attending "Over Crowded Hood High School" and not reach their full potential due to the distractions and lack of commitment from the lower-tier high school.

Of course this isn't to say that it's not possible, but there's a reason people are more amazed at over-achieving people that have had to overcome hardship.

zesta says

I assumed part of the reason you chose to attend Wharton was because of the reputation of its faculty and students. Learning from the top-tier teachers and being surrounded by students that have the same passion would help you be more prepared and push you to accomplish things that you would have otherwise not done had you just skated by at a lesser school.

You're parallel still doesn't work. High API schools are focused on performing well on CST and CAHSEE standards (in California). The faculty and its reputation matter very little as long as students are able to produce scores. CST and CAHSEE standards are constantly under scrutiny on whether they produce a good student, or a good "test taker". I didn't choose to go to Wharton to be a good test taker.

Wharton faculty are renowned for their performance in the real world, the private sector, and their research. Their reputation is based upon their economic and research success in the real world, not a standardized exit exam.

This of course is speculative, but I'd submit that 50% "slacker" at Gunn HS in PA has a pretty good chance at getting into a good UC.

Yup, it's speculative and wrong. The standards for UC acceptance are well known, and someone in the 50th percentile of their graduating class has a very, very low chance of getting into a good UC even if their school has a 950+ API.

zesta says

An exceptionally bright student that would have gotten into an Ivy League at a top-tier high school may be "held back" when attending "Over Crowded Hood High School" and not reach their full potential due to the distractions and lack of commitment from the lower-tier high school.

Sure, someone who goes to Hood High, where gun fire is going off everyday, is probably not going to do as well as they could at Top High USA where they get a free Macbook Pro just for being a student. But discussing extremes is not really the point here.

The question we're really considering here is if a student who goes to 830 API Benicia High School, where homes are selling for $130-$160 a sqft, is really worse off than another student who went to 893 API Cupertino High where homes are selling $600 - $700 a sqft?

Seriously, think about that one for a minute.

Zesta,

I know of many Engineer/Engineering mangers around. I also know how they think about education of their kids. In a way, you are right: every parent wants to send his kids to the best school out there. 99 percent of these parents don't know how the top schools play the admission game.

1. If one is chinese/indian, Cupertino school helps him to survive the peer pressure, and perform well in the tests. But this does not translate into an automatic HYP admit. These parents kind of know that; that's why they have started out 'well-rounded' games: piano lessons; sports; volunteering; etc. In this sense, most of Cupertino kids are well-rounded--adcoms at HYP know this well-rounded business. So, if the sole purpose is to get into top schools, it is a lost cause.

2. Why people want to go to best schools? Sure, in their admission essays, they say that they want to help/better the world, what not. The actual reason for the majority of kids is to get a great job that gives them pleasure/respect from friends, relatives, neighbors, etc. This one is a game pyramind: there are not that many great jobs out there, for all graduates from top schools.

3. What is the real problem, then? It is not so much about education, nor is it about learning. It is the LACK of jobs that help one raise family, etc. We all have become perma-temps. So, the engineer parents know this. So, they are forcing their kids to get into yale, then to harvard business school, then become a managing director at Bain consulting, etc!! Such thinking is rampant in fortress neighborhoods.

4. How to fix this mess? Of course, create employment for all kinds of people with whatever abilities they have. If someone is an artist, provide him a job; etc. The current economic thinking shared by both democrats and republicans does not help achieve this. If you follow modern monetary theory, and how fiat money regimes work, it is possible to create full employment with price stability.

As an aside, I read bmwman's story of Cupertino type student. Harker school; then UCB; then worked for dropbox, then laid off. Many Cupertino types will end up in such kind of mess, which many of parents are not aware of.

raindoctor gets it.

Goran_K says

You're parallel still doesn't work. High API schools are focused on performing well on CST and CAHSEE standards (in California). The faculty and its reputation matter very little as long as students are able to produce scores. CST and CAHSEE standards are constantly under scrutiny on whether they produce a good student, or a good "test taker". I didn't choose to go to Wharton to be a good test taker.

I think this is where you're underestimating top-tier schools. In these schools the students are already taking AP classes and preparing for college-level AP tests. If the teachers are "teaching to the test" they're teaching for the AP tests, not the CST/STAR tests. The AP test are already a magnitude more difficult than the CST tests. Teaching to the CST will probably be more prevalent in lower tier schools where students are struggling to meet CA minimum standards.

A top-tier school may offer extra-curricular activities such as robotics, music, logic, multiple foreign languages, debate etc. A lower tier school may not. It's not necessarily about students distracted by gunfire, it's a lack of resources and teaching down to the lowest common denominator. The brightest students may not be challenged or pushed to succeed. That's the reality of overcrowded schools, not a extremity.

It's anecdotal, but I know of a recent Gunn grad that was at 50% and was accepted to UCSD. When you have a high school that sends 10% of it's grads to Stanford alone and over 20% to top private schools, that says something about the distribution.

If you're looking at it from purely a monetary standpoint, I agree, it can be hard to justify. Is the best of anything really worth the money? Is a Porsche 911 worth 5x a Camry? Is Wharton worth 5x Carey? At the very least, the premium of a RE in a good school district is close to a pass-through cost. I don't think you can say the same of many other premium products.

Zesta,

If one wants to get into UCSD/UCB, yes, Cupertino/Gunn is good:) That's not how people look at it, esp those who know the game of top schools. Even school rankings are useless, as well. For instance, people know tier-1 ivys (HYP) and tier-2 ivys (UPenn, Columbia, etc). People also know that Princeton is better than MIT for someone who wants to get into a best medical school, etc. (Sure, you can bring in some counter example of some kid preferring MIT to princeton. I am talking about trends, not exceptions).

When someone is talking about top schools, they mean HYP, MIT, S. This typical someone is not one who is so much into learning and wants to get a Ph.D. This 'someone' is a typical Cupertino kid, who wants to make at least $1M a year.

If it is about learning, schools, brands, etc do not play much of a role. One can learn more by not going through the drama of curves, grades, and all other crap.

raindoctor says

The actual reason for the majority of kids is to get a great job that gives them pleasure/respect from friends, relatives, neighbors, etc. This one is a game pyramind: there are not that many great jobs out there, for all graduates from top schools

I'm starting to repeat myself, but from my perspective my primary goal in sending a child to a competitive school is to prepare them for life. You're right, there aren't enough "good jobs" for everybody. There never have been and I don't believe there every will be.

Should they follow the "track" and get accepted to HYP, so be it.

If are able to parlay their social relationship with success-minded peers into something else, that's great too.

If not college, I hope the pressure and resources to achieve intellectually and academically may prepare them for cut-throat "real world".

zesta says

There never have been and I don't believe there every will be.

career is a 20th century invention. If you go back to the history (like 100 yrs ago), kids continue to follow what their parents used to do: farming, blacksmith,ing share-cropping, herding, etc. We are past that. This transformation has brought many other problems: today parents can't guarantee careers of their kids, esp if the parents are like engineers/doctors.

If the parents are toiling miniumum wage jobs, yes, they can hope for a better future for thier kids: like becoming a driver for VTA, or conductor for BART, etc.

What I mean is this: if parents are already at a certian economic level, they want their kids to move up on that economic chain. This is not gonna work out for many silly con valley engineer/manager type parents.

zesta says

If you're a parent and your sole goal is to send you kid to HYP by any means necessary (transferring schools / sending your child to a less competitive school simply so they can "stand out") I truly believe you'll be shortchanging them in the long run.

Of course you could also be saving their sanity and possibly their life. As has been pointed out on this forum its the Gunn not the Gunderson HS kids throwing themselves in front of trains.

http://www.quora.com/How-many-Gunn-High-School-suicides-have-there-been-each-year

Goran_K says

some of the top universities try to pick from the Top 5-10% of the class. So going to a hyper-competitive school can actually hurt an applicants case because it's so much harder to bubble to the top, where if they had gone to a slightly less competitive school, they would have been in the Top 5%.

Not really true. I went to a top 10 university. I was only in the top 25% of my high school class. It was a very competitive, private prep school. Universities take the competitiveness of your school into consideration.

SFace says

How many areas are considered truly outstanding school districts? 5% -10%.

I am a product of one of CAs ONCE pre 1981 so-called truly outstanding school districts, and that same district (while today having many 20M plus listings) is so fucking ghetto ridden from busing in outside students into the district for funding, so horrendous I wouldn't send a dog to the same schools I came out of then.

Point? Selling CA on public school today is not even a remote possibility.

zesta says

I'm starting to repeat myself, but from my perspective my primary goal in sending a child to a competitive school is to prepare them for life. You're right, there aren't enough "good jobs" for everybody. There never have been and I don't believe there every will be.

Should they follow the "track" and get accepted to HYP, so be it.

If are able to parlay their social relationship with success-minded peers into something else, that's great too.

If not college, I hope the pressure and resources to achieve intellectually and academically may prepare them for cut-throat "real world".

If you really want to prepare you kids for the "real world" college is the WORST way to do it. The best way? Kick'em out at 18 and slam the door.

zesta says

I think this is where you're underestimating top-tier schools. In these schools the students are already taking AP classes and preparing for college-level AP tests. If the teachers are "teaching to the test" they're teaching for the AP tests, not the CST/STAR tests. The AP test are already a magnitude more difficult than the CST tests.

That's fine. It means they are well prepared test takers on difficult material. The point still stands, top schools don't care about the API of the school you go to.

Yes you will be prepared, but you will also be 10-20% lower in class rank just because it's hyper competitive. Does a more well-prepared student who gets into UCSB have more opportunity than a student who didn't have as much high school opportunity but gets into Harvard?

That's the point you are not considering.

dannybsmith says

Not really true. I went to a top 10 university. I was only in the top 25% of my high school class. It was a very competitive, private prep school. Universities take the competitiveness of your school into consideration.

No they don't. That's completely false. I know HYP, UC Berkeley, UCLA, UPenn don't even look at the API scores of the schools. There are valid reasons WHY they ignore them which I agree with.

Courses, GPA, SAT scores, and extra curricular, yes... API of the high school, never.

So how do they know the schools are competitive? Like I said, anecdotal stories are fun, but facts are facts.

Goran_K says

That's fine. It means they are well prepared test takers on difficult material. The point still stands, top schools don't care about the API of the school you go to.

If my two choices are being well-prepared on difficult material vs being taught to the lowest common denominator in order to make the CST scores look good, I'm picking the former.

Goran_K says

Courses, GPA, SAT scores, and extra curricular, yes... API of the high school, never.

Agreed, that college admissions would not consider API as a factor. However, since there's going to be a rough correlation between API and the difficult of the coursework, # of AP classes offered, students don't need to be at the top of the class to get into a top university. How else would you explain the a high school that gets 10% of its class to Stanford, 20% to top private schools and another 20% to UCB, UCLA, UCD?

Goran_K says

Does a more well-prepared student who gets into UCSB have more opportunity than a student who didn't have as much high school opportunity but gets into Harvard?

I think a more-prepared student would probably excel at UCSB and a less-prepared student would fail at Harvard.

New Renter says

zesta says

I'm starting to repeat myself, but from my perspective my primary goal in sending a child to a competitive school is to prepare them for life. You're right, there aren't enough "good jobs" for everybody. There never have been and I don't believe there every will be.

Should they follow the "track" and get accepted to HYP, so be it.

If are able to parlay their social relationship with success-minded peers into something else, that's great too.

If not college, I hope the pressure and resources to achieve intellectually and academically may prepare them for cut-throat "real world".

If you really want to prepare you kids for the "real world" college is the WORST way to do it. The best way? Kick'em out at 18 and slam the door.

I hate to say you have a really solid point. I know many very rich very spoiled people (since school days) and frankly the richer they are all too often the more fucked up they are.

I don't know one who could wipe his own ass with both hands under a spotlight.

raindoctor says

career is a 20th century invention. If you go back to the history (like 100 yrs ago), kids continue to follow what their parents used to do: farming, blacksmith,ing share-cropping, herding, etc. We are past that.

If someone wants to do any of those jobs, they are still free to do so. Most people don't consider those jobs/careers "good jobs"

raindoctor says

If one wants to get into UCSD/UCB, yes, Cupertino/Gunn is good:) That's not how people look at it, esp those who know the game of top schools

I think if one wants "maximize" the HYP route, there's an entirely differently level of schooling available. Pay an arm and a leg (non-pass through) and send your kids to a private east coast school that are basically HYP feeders.
New Renter says

If you really want to prepare you kids for the "real world" college is the WORST way to do it. The best way? Kick'em out at 18 and slam the door.

I personally think a 4 year degree isn't for everyone. Too many kids get pushed to college when they're not going to get a job that requires that degree. Better to identify the kids that aren't cut out for it and just send them to trade school. Good money can still be made by craftsmen. Better yet, have them start reffing games early and train them to be a MLB/NFL/NBA ref.

zesta says

raindoctor says

career is a 20th century invention. If you go back to the history (like 100 yrs ago), kids continue to follow what their parents used to do: farming, blacksmith,ing share-cropping, herding, etc. We are past that.

If someone wants to do any of those jobs, they are still free to do so. Most people don't consider those jobs/careers "good jobs"

The question is not about what kind of work is considered career. What I was saying is: there is no guarantee that an engineer/doctor/management consultant/manager father/mom can pass his career to his/her kids.

This has created perverse problems: schools (and which schools), jobs (which kind of jobs), courses (which courses to get 4.0), voluntary work (what kind of voluntary work to get that dream admission), internship (what kind of internships one should to get an offer from blackstone, goldman sachs, etc).

It is rational for parents to send their kids to Gunn, Cupertino, etc. The primary justification they provide is: best learning. While it is true that these schools may provide best learning opportunities (in terms of scores, metrics), the real justification is elsewhere: these schools give a best shot at becoming part of top 0.01 percent.

I know about east coast prep schools. I know someone who went there. Again, there are two kinds of kids that go there: (a) kids of super duper wealthy; kids of celebrities; kids of senators, (b) the others. These kids from (a) can do well without HYP; however, HYP wants them for exclusivity, selectivity, fame and money. Adcoms want people from (a). They don't want people from (b). Many think that just going to phillips Andover, Exeter, opens the doors to HYP; actually, it works the other way: Andover wants kids from (a).

You know, Sr. Bush's dad was in some committee at phlipps (or some elite prep school). Prescott Bush did not want to see Italian kids in that prep school. So, these prep schools, even today, filter out many kids for various reasons, the way HYP filters out. Sure, you see some ordinary guys get admits from HYP (like that white girl, who worked as janitor in his high to support her mom); you see HYP likes such publicity: whenever they admit kids with such background, that increases their publicity.

MIT is a different beast. Kids in the group (a) I mentioned above don't want to be part of MIT crowd.

Of course, these east coast prep schools help one get admitted to tier 2 Ivys easily. Not a big deal. In this economy, BA from Columbia does not help one get anywhere. Even a BA from Stanford means nothing nowadays, unless the kid's dad is well off and connected.

Times have changed since 1970's. Nowadays, the competition to get into top schools tells us about the state of economy, and lack of careers (jobs).

My colleague is from India. He told me about the job situation in India in early 1990's: in those days, even to get a job at Indian outsourcing companies like TCS/Infosys, one should have to go to top Indian schools like IIT. Today, no undergrad at IIT wants a job at TCS/Infosys. So, these TCS/Infosys go to private colleges to recruit. Let me give you a hypothetical analogy: in the past, companies A and B used to go to HYP to recruit; now, these companies go to de anza college, san jose city college to recruit, because there are many jobs available to kids at HYP.

The whole mantra of 'get good education; go to the best college; etc' tells a different story, if we look at underlying changes in economy.

zesta says

Agreed, that college admissions would not consider API as a factor. However, since there's going to be a rough correlation between API and the difficult of the coursework, # of AP classes offered, students don't need to be at the top of the class to get into a top university. How else would you explain the a high school that gets 10% of its class to Stanford, 20% to top private schools and another 20% to UCB, UCLA, UCD?

Again, anecdotal. I can't explain fantasy what if scenarios. I can only talk about how top universities actually pick students for admission. I'm not saying you have to be Top 1% to get into a top university, but being 25th percentile at Top High School isn't a good way either. Just look at your own kid's scenario. You said they were a 4.0 student at a highly competitive, high API school, but look where your kid went to... UCSB. Your own personal scenario actually proves my point. It's hard to shine brightly when you walk among the stars.

zesta says

I think a more-prepared student would probably excel at UCSB and a less-prepared student would fail at Harvard.

See, you're not being serious, and sort of trollish. You know the correct answer to the question. Someone who was 4.0 in Top High School at UCSB is simply not going to get the same opportunity as 4.0 from Hood High at Harvard.

I'm not saying UCSB is a bad school, but the brand simply won't open as many doors like an Ivy League school. The past 3 U.S presidents all had Ivy League backgrounds. When was the last time you heard of a president from UCSB?

Buying an overpriced home just for a high API public school is, and has always been lunacy.

raindoctor says

Let me give you a hypothetical analogy: in the past, companies A and B used to go to HYP to recruit; now, these companies go to de anza college, san jose city college to recruit, because there are many jobs available to kids at HYP.

If employers are forced to recruit from second tier schools because the HYP graduates suffer a plethora of job prospects then why do I keep seeing stories like this one?

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/04/53-of-recent-college-grads-are-jobless-or-underemployed-how/256237/

zesta says

Better yet, have them start reffing games early and train them to be a MLB/NFL/NBA ref.

Whatever you do DON'T let your babies grow up to be STEM employees. Drug dealers, pimps/streetwalkers, VP candidates, all fine, anything but STEM!

New Renter says

If employers are forced to recruit from second tier schools because the HYP graduates suffer a plethora of job prospects then why do I keep seeing stories like this one?

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/04/53-of-recent-college-grads-are-jobless-or-underemployed-how/256237/

New Renter, its a hypothetical. I am showing how the situation has changed in India for education and jobs. Since many are not aware of Indian elite schools, I have provided a rough translation in American terms. That scenario is hypothetical.

If decent educated folks can get jobs, we won't be seeing this much competition for brands of schools, etc. So, people wanna go to top schools to get a secure job, etc.

Goran_K says

The point still stands, top schools don't care about the API of the school you go to.

Yes you will be prepared, but you will also be 10-20% lower in class rank just because it's hyper competitive. Does a more well-prepared student who gets into UCSB have more opportunity than a student who didn't have as much high school opportunity but gets into Harvard?

This is correct. That is, I agree.

There are schools with strong AP programs, and with graduates that go to the very best colleges, and yet their API is not top tier because of their diversity ( socioeconomic and academic diversity). The students who bring the API down are not in many of the AP classes, if any, but the diverse environment is good for them none the less, because they have role models, that is other kids that are 'cool' who are also high achieving.

I digressed from your topic, but my point was that a school doesn't have to have an extremely high API to serve the needs of the strongest students. And in fact there may be some things gained by being in a more diverse environment.

Then again, if a school does have a high API, it is more likely just on that information alone to be a school that can serve the needs of a strong competitive student. Finding the more diverse school, that would serve his or her needs takes more research, and is not so straight forward.

Goran_K says

Just look at your own kid's scenario. You said they were a 4.0 student at a highly competitive, high API school, but look where your kid went to... UCSB

FWIW, It was a family of a friend Gunn that was middle of the class and was still admitted to UCSD.

Here are some BA HS stats:

Palos Verdes Peninsula High posts their college admittance stats with about a 500 person graduating class:
http://www.pvpusd.k12.ca.us/penhi/collegeacceptance/collegeacceptance.html

10% acceptance rate of applicants to Stanford (6 accepted in class of 2008)
5 accepted to Harvard, 3 wait-listed out of 14 applicants.
55% acceptance rate to Berkeley, 60 accepted in total.

Goran_K says

Someone who was 4.0 in Top High School at UCSB is simply not going to get the same opportunity as 4.0 from Hood High at Harvard.

I can accept that Harvard opens up more opportunities than UCSB. It's the same way top-tier high school opens up more opportunities than Hood High school.

Would you make the same argument that if someone wanted to go to Yale Law they'd better off attending UCSB (hood university) and be ranked near the top of their class rather than only be top 10% at Harvard (top-tier university)?

Goran_K says

The past 3 U.S presidents all had Ivy League backgrounds. When was the last time you heard of a president from UCSB?

When was the last time you heard of a president from "hood high school?"

marcus says

This is correct. That is, I agree.

There are schools with strong AP programs, and with graduates that go to the very best colleges, and yet their API is not top tier because of their diversity ( socioeconomic and academic diversity). The students who bring the API down are not in many of the AP classes, if any, but the diverse environment is good for them none the less, because they have role models, that is other kids that are 'cool' who are also high achieving.

I digressed from your topic, but my point was that a school doesn't have to have an extremely high API to serve the needs of the strongest students. And in fact there may be some things gained by being in a more diverse environment.

Then again, if a school does have a high API, it is more likely just on that information alone to be a school that can serve the needs of a strong competitive student. Finding the more diverse school, that would serve his or her needs takes more research, and is not so straight forward.

Nail on the head, and this is what Zesta doesn't get, or is refusing to acknowledge even though his OWN KID went to a hyper-competitive, high API school, but only went to UCSB.

zesta says

10% acceptance rate of applicants to Stanford (6 accepted in class of 2008)
5 accepted to Harvard, 3 wait-listed out of 14 applicants.
55% acceptance rate to Berkeley, 60 accepted in total.

Palos Verdes is a top high school in one of the most expensive real estate markets in the country. Those numbers are impressive, but what you also forgot to mention was this, on the chart you posted over 80% (I stopped calculating in the middle of the UCSD acceptances) were accepted to CSU Long Beach, ASU, UC Irvine, UC San Diego, and other lower tier schools. Sure the 60-70 students you mentioned were awesome, but what percentage of that is the total class? 10%? 15%?

What about the other 80-85%? They went to lower tier schools just like your kid who was supposedly a top student.

When you look at it in that context, it really actually shows why high API schools are simply not worth the geometric rise in price for housing.

I would hardly consider Berkeley a so-called "top-tier" school (actually I hate that phrase because no university today is what it was 50 years ago and top tier just doesn't apply to me for any of them) that stated, when any high school drop out from a community college in CA can get admitted to Berkeley it is questionable to me. I have a friend from Santa Monica who did it.

Hence why over 50% did it also in CA.

RentalWatch says

Goran_K says

I got a trolling vibe for him

There are plenty of RealTrolls here. And all over the net for that matter. Some of them are paid.

Clearly

Goran_K says

Palos Verdes is a top high school in one of the most expensive real estate markets in the country.

Bullshite. First of all this is a public district and not all Palos Verde is really exclusive to me go east of the boulevard and you are far away from desirable. Secondly, do they take from outside the given residential boundries? Like Beverly Hills, Culver City and Santa Monica now do?

raindoctor says

New Renter, its a hypothetical. I am showing how the situation has changed in India for education and jobs. Since many are not aware of Indian elite schools, I have provided a rough translation in American terms. That scenario is hypothetical.

Definitely a hypothetical, partly due to so many of those elite graduates coming here as H1B employees.

And how is India dealing with that problem? Are they raising salaries to try to keep their talent local or even attract foreign talent or do they perpetuate myths of critical STEM employees shortages to ensure an over saturated market as was done here?

zesta says

Goran_K says

The past 3 U.S presidents all had Ivy League backgrounds. When was the last time you heard of a president from UCSB?

When was the last time you heard of a president from "hood high school?"

Take your pick:

Bill Clinton: Attended Hot Springs High School (public)

Ronald Reagen: Dixon High School, Dixon, Illinois (public)

Jimmy Carter: Plains High School (public)

Gerald Ford: Grand Rapids South High School (public)

Richard Nixon: Fullerton High School (public)

Pretty much EVERY president except the Bushes and Obama Now it's true George W Bush went to an elite high school Phillips Academy, It was his fathers Alma mater.

The Bush family is quite wealthy and VERY well connected which may have played a small part in GWBs admission to Harvard.

A disturbing trend is being presented here. United States has always been depicted as a meritocracy where one succeeds or fails based on their merits. However based upon views here that it's important to get into good schools and good neighborhoods in part due to connections and network opportunities that they provide reveals the fact that "United States" as pure meritocracy is propaganda to a large extent. Seems like "who you know" matters here just like in 95% of the world.