<p>I was discussing this with several parents over the weekend and didn't really know the answer so I thought I would ask here. We all know that HYPSM are considered reaches for most students given the competitive nature of admissions these days. Is this assumption also true for the top LACs? Should AWS also be considered reaches for all applicants or can exceptionally strong students consider them matches? What about other top 25 schools? I am thinking about students who are not legacies, not URM, not "recruited" athletes, no major hooks. These would be students with SATs in the 1500s, in the top 1-2% of the class from well respected public schools, most difficult curriculum, strong ECs, etc. Any thoughts?</p>
<p>Shennie, I really feel that any of the schools that only accept about a third or less of their students is a reach/match at best for anyone. Just too much can happen in the process. The little schools particularly do not have much "wiggle" room when they really want to have full sports teams, orchestras, and well balanced departments. They also tend to be more fiercely loyal to alumni and staff children. So the true "open" spots are even lower in number than face value. Also these are the schools that tend to have personal links to the prep schools. Haverford for instance is almost a safety for some of the Philadelphia private day schools. So if your student is in the general pool, you can see that the chances are not as high as you would think. There are also some strong regional considerations that these schools have as they pride themselves on having a national student body. It's easier to have a national student body when you are accepting 2000 kids than if you are accepting 400. Especially if so many applicants are clustered in certain areas. I know that they are also a bit more conscious of how many they accept from a given area or highschool. Larger schools can pretty much ignore that. On the other hand, I would not count them as the "lottery" ticket highs of HPY.</p>
<p>I don't believe there are any matches with any of the ivies and the top LAC's. My daughter was very interested in Swarthmore and went for an interview with Mr. Boch. He made it clear that they were interested in her because of her ECs. Otherwise, with her stats, which are quite good--the mid-range for any of the ivies--she did not view Swarthmore as a match. LACs, obviously have fewer spots an I believe they really scrutinize their applicants for points of interest. My daughter ended up going to Dartmouth which was her first choice. Swarthmore and Yale were her 2nd and 3rd choices.</p>
<p>It is easier, IMO, to consider the HYPS and top LACs as lottery schools for anyone. It could be that a kid meets all the critera, 1550, val, tremendous ecs, etc., but is the fifth floutist to be reviewed RD. Unfortunately, the orchestra only needs two floutists this year, and those slots went to ED apps, so the 5th is not likely, regardless of the stats. Instead, an oboist with lower stats might get in bcos they need to complete the band. Just a simple example of the things that we cannot control.</p>
<p>I agree that the top LAC's can't be considered true "matches" for anyone, even with super stats. It's a matter of numbers - just consider that Williams has already filled over 40% of the class with ED acceptees - there just aren't that many spots left. Add to that Jamimom's point above about having to fill out the class with those who will play on various teams, orchestra, etc., and it is really tough.</p>
<p>Shennie, I agree with what has been posted, particularly in the sense that has been discussed before, when you call a school a "match", somehow, after a few weeks of waiting and hoping, it somehow morphs into a "safety", which is a dangerous change of attitude. This is the answer for the other parents, particularly those who aren't obsessing as we all are.</p>
<p>In reality, I think a strong student with a well done application, who has done their homework, and knows which LAC they want, applying ED (an important point) probably would be a match at either AW or S. What we tend to forget is that match doesn't equal admit, that's the trap, so you have to think of them as being even more selective than perhaps is truly the case for the strong student.</p>
<p>I guess what I'm saying is what has been stated before, for a strong "unhooked" student, ED can help, especially at a school that is interested in fit, and a school the student clearly wants to attend.</p>
<p>Thanks for the replys. What you are saying pretty much confirmed what I was thinking.</p>
<p>Cangel, that is a great one liner for TheDad's collection, " Match does not equal admit". That is the best way to put it as many of these terrific kids certainly are matches. But when there are too many matches in the pool, the match becomes a reach or even a lottery ticket.</p>
<p>I was browsing through the Yale Results and Harvard Results threads yesterday, and it was just shocking, and heartbreaking, to read how many AMAZING kids with great GPA's, SAT's, EC's, hooks, you name it, even legacies, had been deferred or even rejected. There is no sure thing, and I wonder how much this has to do with 'who' reads your application, and their frame of mind; but the bottom line is, when you are lining up your schools, have a good spread of schools.</p>
<p>A good strategy I think, is to apply very early to 2 rolling schools, and then target 2 EA schools, and when those results come in it's so much easier to decide where else to apply. Of course this is assuming you are not an ED candidate.</p>
<p>Actually some ED schools still let you apply EA or rolling, so long as the EA/rolling apps are non binding.</p>
<p>I second the opinions above. Any school admitting 20%-30% of applicants is a "reach" for all the kids-- because of the number of applicants is high enough to require that some of the 1500 type kids will be rejected.</p>
<p>Generally speaking, with no hooks, around what ranking would an LAC become a match for someone with similar stats to shennie's example? What would be the rankings for safties? The US New Reports does not let me see the acceptance rates for schools below the top three. Based on what I have learned from CC, I think that it would be something like the top 10-15 would be reaches, from 15-30 would be matches, and below would be safties (there are exceptions of course). Most people I know seem to think that only the top 3 or 4 are reaches, and that schools from 4-15 are matches for students with good SAT scores, grades, and EC, but no hooks. It does not seem possible to me that this is correct. :confused:</p>
<p>yemaya13: </p>
<p>I would imagine that the LACs from 15 on down would be decent matches too, but many are still selective so they are not sure things. Also some might think they were just safetys for this applicant and turn him down assuming he'd go elsewhere.</p>
<p>Assuming the app was crafted well and the student demonstrated genuine interest in the school: I would estaimate that if this hypothetical student applied to all LACs from 1-10 he'd probably be admitted to 3+ of them. If he applied to all from 10-20 he'd probably be admitted to 6+ of them, etc... But if a kid applied to one school from 1-10 and one from 10-20, he could concieveably be denied at both.</p>
<p>Apply to enough schools in each tier that your odds improve.</p>
<p>I think Cangel has noted the key difference between AWS and HYPS - ED can make the former schools matches for a reasonable number of applicants; ED/EA at HYPS just makes the odds in the lottery a bit better for some.</p>
<p>RD, HYPS are still tougher than AWS, but AWS would be match schools for a very small sample of applicants.</p>
<p>In my opinion, Swarthmore, Williams, Amherst (and similary competitive universities) can be a "match" for a student with a high class rank. But, there's a catch. Determination of "match" is much more of a qualitative assessment than a simple quantitative formula (SATs, etc.).</p>
<p>For example, a suitable class rank can only be judged with some knowlege of the high school. The quality of the application is critical. Presenting a cohesive, focused identity (involving some extracurricular activity or interest) in the application is critical. Communicating specific reasons supporting a "fit" for the school is critical.</p>
<p>From a quantitative standpoint, where many people miss the boat is the failure to understand what the real "stats" are for specific types of students at the particular school. Make no mistake, different standards apply to different students, so a superficial glance at overall median SAT ranges can be very misleading. For example, I believe that a white applicant from an upper class suburb needs to have 75th percentile SATs plus decent qualitative stuff or 50th percentile SATs plus outstanding qualitative stuff to consider a school a solid "match". A Puerto Rican applicant from a NYC public school would have a different standard, both in terms of stats and qualitative stuff. And, so on and so forth.</p>
<p>Biggest pitfall? From what I seen here on College Confidential, I would say: horrible essays. Most kids miss the whole notion that essays must give the college a reason to believe that the student will contribute something of interest or value to the campus community.</p>
<p>I think that grades and scores are very important factors at A/W/S (and I would add Pomona, except that it would then be WASP, oh dear . . .) BUT they are only two pieces of the mosaic. </p>
<p>References (showing character, involvement), essays (showing writing skills, involvement), EC's (showing talent, involvement) are equally and critically important at these schools, more so I think than at the ivies or at large state universities. </p>
<p>Involvement is really the key word here -- these schools are looking for doers: sports, art, politics, theater, community service, music. There are many ways to be engaged, but over and over again I see kids at these schools who are intensely involved in one or several non-academic pursuits. </p>
<p>How their recommenders describe the students' interaction in class is also very important to these LACs. When the educational premise is classes of 15-20 kids or less, everyone has to pull his/her own weight. The student bodies are small and the kids must work and play well with others, thus character and personality are also keenly evaluated. Because the schools are all writing intensive, a fluidity of expression is critical as evidenced by lucid, compelling essays. </p>
<p>I would say in short that AWS appraise holistically; they are looking not only for smart, academically accomplished kids, but also for interesting people who do interesting things who will both stand out as individuals and fit in as part of the campus society.</p>
<p>Yemaya, I think you are on the right track in general. Keep in mind that not a lot of tangible "quality" separates LAC #4 from LAC #14 - what separates these schools is their competitiveness and their USNWR rankings, it is sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy - doesn't really mean much if one school goes from #10 to #5 back to #7.</p>
<p>As Interesteddad is saying I think, to delve any deeper, requires really looking at the individual and the individual school, things like geography, ECs/interests fitting the school, can the student pay/ how much FA can the college really afford to give, etc.</p>
<p>But, you know, as long as you don't fall in love with a particular school (I think any school a kid totally falls in love with is automatically a reach, just to prevent disappointment), then making this group of 10 reasonable matches, this group reasonable safeties, is as good a way to approach assessing your chances as any other.
If you can, with some confidence, identify 4 schools where you have a 50-50 chance of acceptance, then the odds of completely striking out, and not being admitted to any of them are 1 in 16, less than 5%, that's a fair definition of a match to me. THe hard part is not falling in love with a particular one of these, and honestly assessing your chances to identify those 50-50 schools.</p>
<p>Where kids and parents "mess up" is having blind spots about their applications. As Momrath has put very well, the selective LACs are "holistic" and AWS, while each tends to attract students of certain "types", look at the whole person, and ignoring your weakness will cause you to overestimate your chances. I'm not saying explain away your weakness in the application. I don't know, but it makes sense to me to concentrate on your strengths in the application - I'm saying don't forget the weak spots when you are deciding how many schools are enough - after all that is basically what all the angst is about?!</p>