<p>Thanks all. Yes, Grinnell, Carleton, UMich, Wisconsin are good choices. As for Oberlin and Chicago- I am shocked that they have such high acceptance rates. I think of them as top tier colleges.</p>
<p>O and Ch are both schools that have some self preselection, I think. They do look for fit. Bard is the same way. Also an excellent school, but not for a lot of kids. Carleton is not an easy sell. Knew kids who were not accepted there that got into more highly selective schools. Would not call it a safety. Bard and Chicago have EA, so they can be used as a safety. A lot of kids we know also have liked BC and Villanova for their EA, as well, and many top kids ended up to those two schools very happily.</p>
<p>Oberlin and Chicago ARE top tier colleges—my point exactly. So are Grinnell and Carleton, by most measures maybe even a notch above Oberlin. </p>
<p>And I agree with cptofthehouse on the advantage of Michigan’s rolling admissions policy. In fact, they have what they call an Early Response option; if your application is received by Oct. 31, they guarantee a decision by Dec. 21. After the Oct. 31 deadline, applications are processed in batches with decisions usually made within 6 weeks or so. It’s nice to have that Michigan acceptance in your back pocket as a back-up as you sweat through the admissions process elsewhere. I believe they’ll also let you know quite early whether you’re invited into the honors program, which in my judgment is competitive with many of the top schools in the country.</p>
<p>EA can be safety or early warning system. If you are not accepted to your EA school that you thought was a safety, you had better rethink your list. If you are accepted, you can eliminate all schools that you do not like as much as that school.</p>
<p>Yes, Grinnell and Carleton too, but given their locations I would expect there to be resistance among prospective students. But Oberlin is close enough to Cleveland and Chicago is …well, Chicago!</p>
<p>Case Western also comes up a lot.</p>
<p>Grinnell is an excellent school, but it is getting more competitive to get into. For the class of 2011, the acceptance rate was just over 40%, but for 2012 it was only 33.5%. </p>
<p>A lot of the collegeboard statistics are a few years old, so make sure to check the class profiles of a university/college before considering it a ‘safety’.</p>
<p>I agree that it helps to keep in mind that high-caliber midwestern colleges are “safer” than comparable east coast schools. Oberlin is great if it a student likes the slightly off-beat liberal atmosphere on campus. Macalester is a great college in a great location.</p>
<p>Oberlin has been a tough admit for those kids who do not “fit” there. THey really want you to visit and show interest. I was surprised this year at who did NOT get in there. The one admit I know is a legacy who had visited and knew the college well. His stats were not way up there; in fact lower than those who were waitlisted and rejected. Two kids from our school that I know are going to Macalester. Both thrilled about the prospect, and are great kids as well as good students. Grinnell, too is not such a safety without good demonstrated interest is what I have been told. Kids often have a hard time demonstrating enthusiasm if they do not like a school much and just regard it as a safety. That can be evident to an adcom during an interview or visit.</p>
<p>How about Trinity (Texas) and Denison (OH). Tulane may be getting tougher but they have merit aid and really pushed free “priority” applications this year with a response by Thanksgiving if it was received by Nov 1 (I think).</p>
<p>What about the idea of “safety in numbers”? If you apply to a sufficient number of match and reach schools does that make it less critical to have a real safety?</p>
<p>Build your list from a sure-bet safety on up. </p>
<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-search-selection/493318-don-t-forget-apply-safety-college.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-search-selection/493318-don-t-forget-apply-safety-college.html</a></p>
<p>Not everyone has a safety, nor does everyone need a safety. Especially if you are willing to pay full freight or are not adverse to going to a local/community college. The reason you want a good safety is because of the security you feel in having a school you really like, can afford, that will be sure to take you. It is also the most difficult school to find for most kids, particularly those who have their eyes on the more selective, well known schools. </p>
<p>We were very lucky this time around, in that my son found several safeties that he really liked. That allowed him to pick a number of reaches in terms of financial and other factors. It was no big deal for him to turn down a more selective school that did not give him any money, because he truly like other schools as much or more that did come up with merit funds. When he got into his most selective school, his super reach, with the bonus of affordability, he found he preferred a school on its on merits. By not ordering the school in terms of safety, match and reach in his mind, he was able to hone in on what he really liked.</p>
<p>By applying to a lot of match and reach schools, you have probably eliminated a need for a safety. That is, if your student truly likes those schools as well. Many adcoms can smell when a school is not first choice, and few kids are sophisticated enough to hide their disdains. They think they can, but… well, I’ve seen them. These days, it can make a difference in acceptance. As a result, it is too possible not to to get into schools that should have easy, given the stats. Several kids at my son’s school who were accepted to some selective schools were waitlisted and denied at what should have been strong match schools. They easily could have been denied at their reach schools. If you throw finances into the mix, you very well should have a safety.</p>
<p>My oldest son was an athlete. As a result he applied to mostly reach schools. At that time, I was gullible and naive enough to think that he would have a big advantage and be first in line for $$s. Did not work that way. He was denied and waitlisted at half of his choices, and only got one scholarship at a safety school that his GC insisted he throw into the mix. He nearly did not get into his state school due to a mix up in SSNs, which likely would have been a huge problem if it weren’t for the fact that he was an athlete and the coach straightened it out. He would have been in a fix if we were not able to pay full freight. With this third one, we did not have that luxury, but we were wiser to the way things worked, and made sure he had a good mix of possibillities with a number of safeties.</p>
<p>Just to respond to an earlier post: Oberlin, Grinnell, and Carleton should not be regarded as safeties by anyone. They’re not.</p>
<p>“Safety” is a moving and subjective target. The statistics are slippery, but the emotional definition is to me
- A college the thought of attending doesn’t give the student – or the parents – hives.
- A college application that will allow you to sleep between December and March. </p>
<p>After that, the definition blurs. Every year lesser known colleges with good academics become better known and therefore less safe. At some point, when the demographics turn, the acceptance rates will also turn, but for the next couple of years expect vigorous competition.</p>
<p>If you need financial aid, especially merit aid, add the dimension of financial safeties. These may or may not be the same as admissions safeties. You need two lists that hopefully intersect.</p>
<p>Your State University is an obvious choice, but not so if your child doesn’t want to attend a large university or if you have the bad luck to live in a state with a lousy university (see definition 1). Same goes for rolling admissions; whether it qualifies depends on the individual case.</p>
<p>There are enough schools that offer EA admissions that your son/daughter should be able to find one that appeals. The caveat here is that in some cases an EA application prevents an ED application. Check the rules. If your financial situation allows your child to apply ED, you may move your chances up a notch. Conversely an ED rejection or waitlist may motivate you to recalibrate.</p>
<p>I would say the single most important point to embrace and accept is that you and your offspring should spend a heckuva lot more time in researching and visiting prospective safeties than selectives. Super selectives, whether they are reaches or high matches, are easy to love. Assume you will love them and concentrate on getting to know schools that you aren’t familiar with.</p>
<p>We learned that visiting really, really helps. Meeting the kids, talking to admissions officers – many of whom are recent alums – walking around campus, seeing the dorms, ideally talking to a professor or interest – plants the seed that, hey, this college is full of smart, energetic people. It’s a safety because “xxx” fill in the blanks: location, gender imbalance, size, religious affiliation. You may never love it, but a personal relationship can lead to strong like.
You only need one safety. After that apply at will. Don’t worry about hairline differentials between reachy matches and matchy reaches. You only need one, but it needs to one that the whole family is signed up for.</p>
<p>
Yes, this is fairly common, but I wouldn’t recommend it as a deliberate strategy as the emotional impact of an “unplanned” gap year can be devastating.</p>
<p>
I’m not so good at statistics, but I don’t think that applying to more increases your chances when the individual admit rates are in the low teens or below.</p>
<p>If you have a 1% chance of finding a dollar and a 1% chance of getting hit by a baseball and a 1% chance of winning a scratch off lottery ticket and a 1% chance of bird poop landing in your head, the chance of any one of these happening is 4%. These probabilities are additive. (The circumstances that lead to the 1% event rates are independent.)</p>
<p>If you have a 1% chance of getting into Harvard and a 1% chance of getting into Yale and a 1% chance of getting into Stanford and a 1% chance of getting into Princeton, and you apply to all four, the chance of any one of these happing is greater than 1% but definitely not 4%. These probabilities are not additive. (Some of the “circumstances” - your own grades, test scores, essays, and recs - that lead to these 1% event rates are related / not independent)</p>
<p>Applying to more colleges increases your chances somewhat.</p>
<p>When you are applying to match schools that accept more than 50% of their applicants, you have a good chance of getting into something when you apply to a number of such schools. The % are not simply additive since you don’t have a 150% chance of getting into 3 schools. Sometimes with the more selective schools, you may truly have had a much slimmer chance than you think you have even if your stats are in the mid range. Many of the admits, particularly in some of those smaller elites have very strong hooks. Those colleges with strong athletic programs but small student population have a disproportionate % of athletes, for instance, and if it gets a lot of legacy applicants, it can have a great impact on the true chances for entry. </p>
<p>One of my son’s choices had close to a 50% admit rate, which put it into a good solid match for him. Until we saw that the regular admits were more like at the 25% rate. We hastily got the app in by the EA deadline, scheduled a visit sooner than we wanted to do so, and he did get accepted early. This year they had a record low acceptance rate, so I don’t know how he would have fared had he applied regularly which was the original plan. </p>
<p>I always say that the safety is the toughest school to pick. It is so fun to pick among those name schools, but finding a good solid school that a student really likes with a near certain acceptance is not easy. I was dismayed that our state system, though with many choices, really did not hit my son the same way as the privates did. I could see differences, and I did not blame him for preferring what he did. But you don’t always get everything. My son got his favorite choice and his reach school, (2 diff schools) but each had its drawbacks.</p>
<p>Thanks, MidwestMom2Kids_, for a good, simple explanation of a common error in statistical reasoning about applying to colleges. </p>
<p>Yes, what makes one particular applicant a weak candidate for one particular “match” college may very well make that same applicant a weak applicant for several other seeming match colleges. That’s why the very first thing to do in building a college application list is to find a sure-bet, take-it-to-the-bank safety college. </p>
<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-search-selection/493318-don-t-forget-apply-safety-college.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-search-selection/493318-don-t-forget-apply-safety-college.html</a> </p>
<p>Once that is done, one can live a little, and apply to any more “reachy” college that one desires, but recognize that the term “lottery ticket” college fairly accurately describes the chances of many applicants actually getting in.</p>
<p>I think of “reach” college admissions as a two-step process: </p>
<p>Step 1 is to determine whether an applicant is or is not competitive for the college. This is not at all random and there is no lottery ticket element in this determination. Any good high school counselor (or reader of this forum) should be able to make that determination.</p>
<p>Step 2 is to determine whether an applicant actually gets offered admission to a particular top tier college in a particular year. This is the part that is unpredictable and introduces the “lottery ticket” element to the process. NOBODY, not even the college admissions officer, can make that determination in advance.</p>
<p>I believe that if Step 1 places an applicant firmly in the “competitive” pool for top tier colleges, then the applicant can maximize chances to get in “somewhere” by increasing the number of colleges applied to. Step 2 is pretty much random and is determined by factors such as who actually reads the application, whether the essays are well received, etc, etc. Just because it went one way at Harvard, doesn’t mean it won’t go the other way at Yale. In fact, just because it went one way at Harvard today, it doesn’t mean it won’t go the other way at Harvard tomorrow. </p>
<p>If you can’t make the cut in Step 1, then you are wasting everyone’s time by applying to the reach colleges. Those colleges are actually not “reach” for these applicants, they are “out of reach”. </p>
<p>But if you are firmly within the “competitive” pool, in Step 1, then you only hurt yourself by limiting yourself to only a few reach colleges.</p>
<p>USC is an excellent safety. Almost everyone I know who applied got in, and at least it would be somewhat an enjoyable experience if you eventually had to go there.</p>