<p>^yeah, I’ve never heard of HADES before I came on CC. It’s so promoted, because everyone uses it. And I mean everyone. Even the wise on here use it to prove a point.
Oh, and I also think this should be moved onto the main thread, not just for parents. Spread awareness!</p>
<p>Maybe applicants wouldn’t fixate on a handful of school names if there was a less pleasant acronym like CHASM GELD</p>
<p>@GMTplus7: Isn’t that the name of some new band? Yeah, I think my daughter has the latest CHASM GELD album…</p>
<p>haha-- for a while there, I was worried that you weren’t kidding ;-)</p>
<p>For awhile after joining CC I didn’t even bother to find out what HADES was, and when I did I was sort of shocked and confused by it. I joined CC after I sent in all my applications. I think I joined the day before I got my acceptance letters actually. I’m glad I didn’t join beforehand because I think reading all the chance me posts and HADES threads and school ranking threads and school comparing threads would have put doubt in my mind if I was a worthy candidate at any of the schools I applied to and if the schools I applied to were good enough to even consider. I was even surprised today to find out now that it was made up by a student. I think it’s a great idea to try to ban it, but unfortunately there doesn’t seem to be much hope that such a popular term will fade in to disuse.</p>
<p>Really? It is just shorthand for those who don’t want to type out every school name. I think the name is appropriate because this whole process of applying to these schools is hell.</p>
<p>For those who may be offended by the connotation, would calling it SHADE make it better??</p>
<p>How about CHASED?</p>
<p>Oops, sorry GMT, it seemed so obvious and I had not scrolled up to the top before hitting post.</p>
<p>It’s not very creative, but since I never could remember the acronyms, nor which schools they represented, I have always just used the phrase “acronym schools.” It gets the idea across without really zeroing on any specific schools.</p>
<p>The best school is the one that "fits’ your kid. Full stop.</p>
<p>Schools are like shoes-- one many have be all the rage this year and fancy as all get-out but if they don’t fit, they pinch your feet and give you blisters. Not good at all.</p>
<p>^this for sure^</p>
<p>Rather than being creative how about adopting something already in use, albeit not that popular, like the ESA (Eight School Association) as a marker?[Eight</a> Schools Association - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight_Schools_Association]Eight”>Eight Schools Association - Wikipedia) It’s purpose is even broader than the athletic focused charter of the Ivy League</p>
<p>I truly hate it when applicants use acronyms like HADES, GLADCHEMMS. The acronyms emphasize name only, and not a whit about the difficulty of admission. </p>
<p>I propose using the terms:
FAR REACH: 5-8 kids competing for each spot ( <25% admit rate)
REACH: 3-4 kids competing for each spot (25-35% admit rate)
PROBABLE: 2-3 kids competing for each spot (35%-50% admit rate)</p>
<p>Example of usage: “Groton is a FAR REACH school”</p>
<p>I deliberately did not express the admit rates as percentages in the list above, because I get the impression that it doesn’t really sink in for applicants that a 26% admit rate means 3 applicants out of 4 kids will be getting an unhappy outcome on March 10. I see kids treating 26% admit rate schools as a “safety school” for a 16% admit rate school-- aargh!</p>
<p>Would you jump out of an airplane if your primary parachute had a 16% chance of opening, and your reserve chute had only a 26% chance of opening? Loading aboard the plane more of the same risky type of parachutes is not a good strategy for a happy outcome. It would be prudent to have at least one reliable parachute. If you are not willing to use the reliable parachute when all else fails, then maybe you should consider giving up skydiving… </p>
<p>Here are percentages:
FAR REACH: <25% admit rate
REACH: approx 25-35% admit rate
PROBABLE: approx 35%-50% admit rate</p>
<p>GMT, as a parent who went through this process last year (and as a former skydiver), I love your suggestion and your analogies (Though I question the premise of “one ‘reliable’ parachute.” 
)</p>
<p>BTW, for those who consider schools like Concord Academy a “hidden gem”, I learned from a friend whose DC was denied this year, that for 2013 they had more than 800 apps for 100 slots. And apparently NMH had something like 1600 apps this year. So obviously, the wider world of applicants has managed to “find” these schools, neither of which is an “acronym” school. I can only imagine that the same is true for many other previously “hidden” gems. Obviously, they have been unearthed. And, like employers in a tight market, they can choose exactly who they want, in order to tailor their incoming class makeup. </p>
<p>It seems that there are many more FAR REACH schools than parents and applicants are aware of. It also gives a better picture of those “probable” schools that so many families so readily dismiss. Really, if 2-3 kids are competing for each spot, in a self-selecting crowd, you still need to bring something particular to the table—at almost NONE of the schools is it a given that any particular child will get in.</p>
<p>@GMTplus7</p>
<p>Here is another way to show applicants just how difficult it is. How about some hard numbers. Directly from the Exeter website.</p>
<p>This year there were 2,468 applicants.
495 of those were accepted.
This means that of those 2,468, 1,973 kids were not accepted.</p>
<p>The vast majority of children applying to Exeter and other schools like it will NOT be accepted. I am also very sure that most of those applicants were well qualified. It is very tough to get in.</p>
<p>So if I get this right . . </p>
<p>HADES = FAR REACH: <25% admit rate
GLAD CHEMS = REACH: approx 25-35% admit rate
ACRONYM = approx 35%-50% admit rate
(jk) </p>
<p>The reason the HADES acronym has “legs” is that it contains within it the observation that concentratiing on schools by their perceived exclusivity (whether done by FAR REACH or some other naming convention) is in itself problematic.</p>
<p>Going US News one better in pretending that the underlying attitude is value free is a fiction . . but march forth and all that :-)</p>
<p>What NHMopm said is true for colleges too . . . I wish more parents - who tend to concenrtate on the profile of accepted students - understoodf the profile of rejected students</p>
<p>Example: Brown says no to
- 76% of Valedictorians
- 85% of Salutatorians
- 82% of applicants with an SAT 800 CR
- 83% of applicants with an SAT 800 Math</p>
<p>knew the rejection data data is your frirned</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The problem is, there are clearly many more FAR REACH schools than HADES or GLADCHEMMS. So folks thinking that adding, say, Concord or NMH equals “casting a wider net” may find themselves disappointed come next M10.</p>
<p>Don’t know if anyone else feels the same way - schools or colleges once admit rate dips below 20%, the game becomes significantly harder to play (i.e. outcomes are hard to predict based on stats, hooks of all kinds play bigger roles, etc.). I’d group schools with admit rate < 20% into the “far reach”, and those of 20%-30% as “reach”. Schools with admit rate of 30% and above are generally easier for well-rounded kids with no significant hooks, or off chart excellence in one particular area, or super luck to get in.</p>
<p>I am curious at to whether those with kids in HADES schools object to the term (finding it elitist of something, maybe)? I guess I can’t see what the fuss is about because if those looking for schools fail to look beyond wanting ‘HADES’ for name sake only…well, there is a bigger issue there that they might pay the price for later (i.e. by not looking for best fit for your child but ‘best’ name recognition).</p>
<p>I did ask a boy (and his parents) not at a HADES school, but at a very competive school, what he thought of the term. His view (shared by his parents) was that he totally did not care. He is confident in the strength of his program and has no need to worry about how others define it or whether or not it is ‘grouped’ apart from HADES. More importantly, they picked the school that suited him best. Period.</p>
<p>Is the problen the ‘exclusion’ of other ‘top’ schools in the definition?? I am trying to get a clear understanding of if HADES is offensive or misleading…or both, to most.</p>
<p>T</p>