Private Schools In Rhode Island

[CoventryDude]

As for the social stuff, you have my sympathies. BTDT. Thankfully that crap got left behind when I left for college.....

Originally Posted by ricitykid

Also, there's this kid I know that I attended Rocky Hill that was an excellent student there but is a terrible public school student here.

Could be that (s)he (?) got the attention he needed at RHS. My youngest attended a public school for one year-he didn't fit in with the mold they tried to keep him in. At RHS he had more freedom to be himself and he flourished. The smaller class size and involveent fo the parents as well as the schools responsiveness to the needs of the children.....we feel we got our moneys worth at Rocky Hill.
My kids were assigned considerably more homework than their peers in town, and exposed to a broader field of ideas, concepts, and information. That didn't make them any diferent in behavior or tastes than the kids the played soccer and little league with, but it planted the seeds for later development.

I wonder if Rocky Hill gives out a lot of financial aid?

they do have financial aid available- it depends on what your version of "a lot" is, though. The school is very expensive.

[traceyr13]

Originally Posted by professorsenator

You do realize that competition at the ultra-elite level is heavily dependent upon SAT score, right? Your diploma from a fancy private school will not overcome a lackluster SAT; conversely, an outstanding SAT score from a public school will go a long way to getting into a prestige school. Perhaps the second most important predictor (after SAT score) of elite college entrance is family alumni connection (i.e. your dad went to Cornell). And that's something that a private school can't offer, either.

Actually, SAT scores are not nearly as important as they once were (thankfully). As someone who spoke with admissions counselors on a weekly basis for 4 years (2002-2006) and then worked as an academic advisor at the University of Texas last year, I can say confidently that virtually all universities rank their admissions criteria with the following priorities:

1. GPA, taking into account courseload (AP classes? Honors? etc)
2. Activities/accomplishments (sports, music, volunteerism, etc)
3. Recommendations
4. SAT scores/alumni connections

Every year, more and more schools are making SAT scores optional. Several "most competitive" and "very competitive" schools don't require them anymore.

[professorsenator]

Originally Posted by traceyr13

Actually, SAT scores are not nearly as important as they once were (thankfully)....I can say confidently that virtually all universities rank their admissions criteria with the following priorities:
1. GPA, taking into account courseload (AP classes? Honors? etc)
2. Activities/accomplishments (sports, music, volunteerism, etc)
3. Recommendations
4. SAT scores/alumni connections

As one who works in academia, I must disagree. Were your statement true, then there would be enormous variance of SAT scores at elite colleges (lots of kids get high GPA, have activities, letters, etc. but don't get a 1400 on the SAT). Thus, were your scenario true we would see numerous kids at, say, Princeton with SAT's of 1100.

In reality, of course, the SATs of typical students at such universities are very high. Coincidence? I don't think so. The fact is that most elite universities look very heavily at SATs, but its impolitic to admit as much.

[traceyr13]

Or, there could often be a correlation between high GPA and high SAT scores.

I'm not saying that SAT scores are inconsequential, rather that many of the admissions directors I have personally spoken to over the past several years, including at elite colleges, have told me that SAT scores are very much on the downswing of admissions criteria. I truly believe it is inaccurate in 2008 to say that SAT are the most important factor in college admissions, or even in the top 2. I understand if you disagree, but I doubt admissions directors are blatantly lying to school counselors all over New England.