<p>It certainly increases your chances to have more selective colleges on your list. However, it is not always an exact benefit. There are diminishing returns when you have so many apps to do, interviews, and of course, keeping up your senior year grades and activities. Some schools, the LACs in particular, require demonstrated interest. </p>
<p>I know a girl who applied to over 20 colleges. With help from her parents and keeping very organized file, she was able to do a good job. However, I found it a pain in the rear for 10 colleges for my son. All the danged attachments, and the customized apps were time consuming. Not to mention the visits and interviews that were needed for about half of his schools. To have had done 20 gives me the willies.</p>
<p>cptofthehouse: Agreed. That is why I like the idea of ‘a safe acceptance in your back pocket’. It would give the student a bit more confidence to aim a little higher.</p>
<p>A lot of kids I know here apply to BC EA and/or UMich early, then go to town on the ivies. I know a number of them at both schools after being WL and/or rejected at all the other schools.</p>
<p>I agree that as long as you have a reliable surething safety – *that you would really like to attend *-- then absolutely cast as wide a net in the reach pool as you can manage. The selectivity rates at the individual schools may still be very low but, the one true truism is if you don’t apply you won’t get in.</p>
<p>I have no problem with lotsa reaches. I’m actually less enthusiastic about matches and multiple safeties. I’d rather spend the energy on aspirational choices (as long as … blah/blah/blah … safety).</p>
<p>Merit aid makes the search exponentially more complex. The reach/match/safety tiers that offer merit aid would be very different from the need based or no need at all based list. </p>
<p>We know a boy who had a double complication – international needing much need. He applied to some 20+ schools and the results were as you say widely inconsistent. Accepted at Yale, rejected at some other super-selectives, waitlisted at Williams. He attended Pomona, by the way.</p>
<p>I think the problem comes when people are unrealistic about their own qualifications. Probably every student who scores a 2300+ on the SAT feels he/she is automatically competitive at the top tier schools. And of course, this is not true.</p>
<p>Be careful, though, about UMich as a safety, depending on UW GPA and what state you are coming from…Many,many students here were deferred from UMich (and subsequently waitlisted), but were accepted at many of their matches and reaches later on.(including Ivies)…can’t hurt to try that for EA though, but it’s not a slam-dunk from OOS…even EA</p>
<p>One other thought…it would be nice to have a safety that also provides good merit money for students above their averages…not only do you have an early acceptance, but with $$ too!!! Depends on OP’s definition of a “really good safety” though; everyone has a different opinion…</p>
<p>VP,
You’ve got it absolutely right on your Step 1 & 2. Unfortunately when you tell most posters here that they don’t meet Step 1, they cite Step 2 as the reason that they should submit an application.</p>
<p>I also agree with your last statement that a competitive applicant needs to apply to several of the most selective schools. I’m not talking about having a list with 20 schools on it, but 10-12 is reasonable under those circumstances.</p>
<p>Rodney,
Interesting point about Michigan.
I think Michigan may be getting smart and deferring or waitlisting some applicants it thinks likely to go elsewhere, i.e., those obviously using it as a “safety.” Its prominence as a safety probably hurts more than it helps in things like USN rankings. It helps to some extent because it gives Michigan a larger and stronger applicant pool, some fraction of whom do end up in the entering class. But it also hurts because Michigan ends up admitting very large numbers of OOS applicants who are only using it as a “safety” and end up going elsewhere when they get into their “reach” or “match” schools, thus inflating Michigan’s admit rate and depressing its yield—as well as its reputation among applicants, GCs, and others who look at its high admit rate as evidence that it’s not selective enough to be taken seriously. By deferring or waitlisting some very high-end applicants who are likely admits at highly selective schools, it can better manage its yield and bring down its admit rate; but if some of those kids are still hanging around on the waitlist at the end of the admissions season, Michigan can still add them to its class. I should think a lot of schools that have been heavily used (and abused) as “safeties” would want to adopt a similar strategy, which will make it harder for highly qualified applicants to find genuine “safeties.” Finally, I think from the applicant’s point of view that argues for starting with more than one “safety” because they may not all pan out.</p>
<p>bclinton: Agree with your point, but I wasn’t, in fact, talking about those who treated UMich as a safety…In fact, was referring to those who thought it was a match based on their stats..(and for some their first choice…)…I just don’t think you can ever consider UMich a safety if you are from OOS (unless they have a strong history of taking students from your school with your GPA)</p>
<p>Regarding their waitlist, if one is deferred and then waitlisted, very often the writing is on the wall…the key line in your post is “at the end of the admissions season”…we are close to being there and they have taken very few from the LSA waitlist, if any…</p>
<p>rodney,
Do you think it’s harder to get into Michigan from OOS? If so, do you have hard numbers to support that? Unlike many state schools they have no statutory in-state quota, the undergad student body is 35% OOS (very high for a state school, cf. 8% Cal-Berkeley, 17% UNC-Chapel Hill, 28% Virginia), and their admissions office claims they give no preference to in-state applicants in the admissions process, treating in-state and OOS as a single applicant pool. </p>
<p>So maybe your point is a broader one: maybe no one can treat Michigan as a safety.</p>
<p>Surely some applicants can treat Michigan as a safety. It’s a great school, and it is also a predictable admit for some students who might greatly like studying there.</p>
<p>As many people have pointed out, some of the colleges on the link I provided are not very up-to-date. Carleton’s definitely not a safety and I wouldn’t consider Grinnell or Macalester to be in most cases either. (I think I had a better link…I’ll have to search around for it.)</p>
<p>usc has admitted only 21% of applicants this year. And usc’s average SAT scores are much higher than Berkley and UCLA for the last 4-5 years. USC is hardly a safety school any more.</p>