<p>The problem with the tiered applications is persistent unpredictability. It's only in hindsight that you pretend to know whether you were right or not. My daughter got waitlisted at both a reach and a safety. That kind of inconsistency tells it all.</p>
<p>I could predict which schools my kid would get into and which he wouldn't based on admissions percentages, SAT ranges, and scattergrams that I have seen, but predictability doesn't imply certainty. That's why I used quotes when I said that I "knew" my S would be accepted at the safeties and rejected at his long-shots. </p>
<p>For each school, I took a shot at guessing the probability that my S would be accepted. The probabilities at the top and bottom were easy to guess--close to zero or close to one. It's tougher to guess whether there is a 30 or 70 percent chance for the schools in the middle.</p>
<p>If my S had been rejected at a safety, it could have been for some random decision by the Admissions Committee or, more likely, because I had guessed the probability wrong. </p>
<p>I don't think that the seemingly unpredictable nature of admissions changes the strategy of generating the application list starting with a few strong safeties and moving up through the spectrum of selectivity. </p>
<p>Why apply to anything other than safeties? Because you think there are "better" schools you might want to go to, so you appy to some match schools. What if you guessed wrong on your chances for the match schools? Well, if you guessed too high, it's a nice that you have some good safeties. And if you underestimated what a wonderful applicant you are, you you might be pleasantly surprised if you also applied to some reach schools. On the other hand, if you apply only safeties and reaches, then you had better be really exceptional or lucky, or you had better really love your safety.</p>
<p>My daughter was accepted at all her matches. Does that mean that they were really safeties? We'll never know. The one safety certainly wasn't a safety since, despite an interview and an in-depth visit, it waitlisted her. (She was in the top range of their stats.)</p>
<p>The best thing to do is find a good range, as Dad'o'2 suggests.</p>
<p>I agree with barrons post- but was wondering maybe a kid with a 24 act and high GPA is more "deserving" of admission to an elite school in comparison to other students from the same hs with the same course rigor. They student with the 24 has shown an ability to work beyond an expected standard maybe the high test kid will wilt when competing against other high test kids in college whereas "old #24" rises to the occassion academically. Just a thought</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It means you have an outstanding daughter, congratuations on her options! Maybe they were "conservative matches." </p>
<p>As for the waitlisted safety, it is a good example of why one safety might not be enough! There may be some factor with the school that makes it a poor safety--e.g. out of state public, acceptance rate less than 50 percent, accepts large portion of class EA/ED, "Tuft's Syndrome," etc. I wonder what your HS GC would have to say about this.</p>
<p>I know exactly what the GC would say, "Tufts Syndrome." She warned us about that particular school's practices when D applied, but D really liked the school and would have been happy there. She decided to show interest by interviewing, visiting, emailing the ad officer, expressing why she felt it was a great fit, etc. In a very telling move, this college accepted a boy much lower grades and SAT scores, and many fewer ECs. The difference? The boy was much more likely to attend the college than D was. His options were fewer. In retrospect, the boy was a better fit than D was.</p>
<p>My viewpoint on the safety thing might be skewed because we are California residents & both kids were guaranteed admission to the UC system coming out of high school, so we also had a fairly high academic bar for "safety." In fact, I truthfully wondered whether some of the private "safety" schools really were academically as strong as the UC's --- I think that might have been my daughter's sense as well, and one reason for a reach-heavy list. </p>
<p>But my daughter did get waitlisted at the one school that her g.c. assured her was a definite "match" -- while be accepted at her reaches. So my point is that if admissions isn't assured... why add a college that isn't something the kid really wants just to fill up some hierarchal idea of a "range". The schools shouldn't be chosen based on their selectivity, in any case -- they should all be chosen based on fit. </p>
<p>My daughter's problem was that she wanted urban; she wanted out of state; she wanted medium to large; and she wanted Russian. She wanted out of state badly enough to look for some extra safeties... but she had to compromise there -- neither of the safeties offered Russian. There simply were no colleges that met her criteria that also would have allowed her to follow up on her language studies. </p>
<p>It seems to me that if the kid is looking mostly based on fit, in many cases there will be plenty of "match" schools in terms of selectivity -- that's what happened to my son, who really didn't have any "reaches" that he cared about. But if the idea is to go looking for "match" because the kid's desired schools are too difficult to get into -isn't that conveying the message that the safety isn't good enough? And down the line if the kid is left with only the safety.... have we made things better by arranging a rejection or waitlist from a college the kid didn't want in the first place, but only added because we (or the g.c.), were insisting on something "better" than the safety? Fine if that's a college the kid wanted.... but I am saying that there's no real point if that school wasn't on the original short list.</p>
<p>I've learned several things. </p>
<p>First, what an OP is. At least I think I did. Does it mean "Original Poster?" Let's assume so.</p>
<p>Second, that threads fray. If you've followed this one, you know what I mean.</p>
<p>Third, that I touched a nerve. I'm not alone. 167 posts! But, more to the point, my D is not alone. That's reassuring.</p>
<p>Fourth, that CC is an awesome resource. Great advice. Lots of it.</p>
<p>Fifth, that there is no right answer or easy solution to my D's situation. In other words, we now need to distill. </p>
<p>Finally, it will all be OK. My D will do as well as she's going to do. She'll get into the school she's meant to go to. And when it comes right down to it, what defines her and her life will be very very very little about how she scores on the SAT/ACT.</p>
<p>And with that said, we'll do everything we can to maximize her choices.</p>
<p>Thanks to everyone. We can close the shoppe now. </p>
<p>Stanford78</p>
<p>Best wishes. Have fun distilling. Yes, "OP" means "original poster" or "original post" depending on context.</p>