<p>I agreee with soozievt. It's great that you got in, but calling schools like Tufts, Vassar, and Georgetown safeties is very dangerous when you're applying. You never know what they're looking for, and when a school accepts less than 30%, nothing is sure. Ever. Even if your numbers are great.</p>
<p>Profanity, nope, it is not "Tufts Syndrome." I have been interviewing candidates for Tufts for ten years. If you look at the stats of admitted students, they are pretty high. With an admit rate of 28%, you are going to have very qualified candidates (and this is not just at Tufts) who don't make the cut. At very selective schools, such as Tufts, not every person who has the "goods" to get in, does. The candidate pool is strong and the admit rate is still fairly low. That is true at Vassar and Georgetown as well. My D had very strong qualifications, and even with all that she had, she'd not consider a match school a safety. She had a very successful admissions outcome but she did have a balanced list. It is very chancy for anyone to only apply to reaches and matches. Very selective schools must turn away many highly qualified candidates. </p>
<p>Watercannon, good for you that you got into your so called "safeties" of Tufts, Vassar, and Georgetown. I could say the same in that my D got into all her matches (which is what I'd call that list of schools) too but she chose to add two easier schools as higly likelies...Conn College and Lehigh. She also got into Brown and Penn and waitlsted at Princeton. So, I could say she picked wisely since her acceptances were many but she'd never have risked calling a school like Tufts, a safety. Had she applied to Georgetown or Vassar, same thing. She still considered Tufts a match, that is even with double legacy. Tufts, or schools of its caliber, is not a school that is a sure bet for anyone. Also, the theory of Tufts Syndrome doesn't apply because even with two examples right here on this thread, my D and watercannon got in, though got into even more selective schools. I have interviewed numerous very qualified candidates who did not get into Tufts and they didn't necessarily get into any "higher" schools either, so it wasn't a "syndrome". </p>
<p>My focus is not Tufts here, but schools with low admit rates and pretty high stat ranges for admitted students. I have seen enough examples on CC over the more than four years I've been here where kids have college lists that consist of either all reaches or just reaches and matches. Not a wise way to go. My kid had what it takes to get in any school, but she was well versed on the state of elite admissons today to know that even very qualified people can be denied admissoins to highly selective schools. She'd never have a list of all reaches or reaches/matches. And that isn't because she was concerned if she had would it takes but because she wisely knew that that isn't always enough.</p>
<p>Whoa.... It was meant to be a joke and should therefore be taken as such. I know that Tufts is a really good school. On the other hand, the term safety from one to another. For example: say to a son of Sidney Frank, I am sure Brown can be arguably called as 'safety'.</p>
<p>Yea, watercannon and I had the same situation. don't hate since we rightly viewed those schools as safeties. haha.</p>
<p>
[quote]
the term safety from one to another.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'm not sure I understand your wording here, but did you mean to say that the term, "safety", is relative from one applicant to another? If so, I agree. The terms, "reach", "match", and "safety" are relative to each student's odds of admission at a college. Howevercertain schools cannot be considered safeties for anyone, if going by the common definition of what a safety or sure bet college is. So, yes, while my kid's safeties are some other kid's reaches, VERY selective schools are not safeties for even the top applicants, who are qualilfied enough to be admitted. </p>
<p>
[quote]
For example: say to a son of Sidney Frank, I am sure Brown can be arguably called as 'safety'.
[/quote]
Going by your example, yes, if a student is the offspring of the biggest benefactor, then his odds are not like a regular applicant's odds at that same school. However, you are talking the exception here. For instance, Watercannon called Vassar, Georgetown, and Tufts his safeties which I remarked are not sure bets for any applicant. Well, given the discussion in that exchange, I doubt that Watercannon's parents have a building named after them at all THREE of those schools, so in THAT case, I'll consider him a very qualified applicant (trusting his implication that that is the case), but that his parents did not bequeathe millions of dollars at all the schools he considers his "safeties". </p>
<p>bobbobbob wrote:
[quote]
Yea, watercannon and I had the same situation. don't hate since we rightly viewed those schools as safeties. haha.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Um, well, I surely don't "hate." You are implying some sort of jealousy? What you are saying is that both of you guys got into three very fine schools which you referred to as your "safeties" whereas many top students would consider the odds of admission at those schools as "matches" and never "sure bets." But I could do the same thing and say, my kid, a current Brown student, also got into her match schools but just did not call them safeties, like you did. So, she could have done what you did and called them her safeties (schools in the same ballpark as the ones you listed, one of which is actually on the list), and said she got into all her safeties so she was right to consider them safeties. She did have an appropriate list, indeed. And she did get admitted to those schools in the range you guys did as well. But she was wise, in my view, to NOT count on getting into them for sure given the odds even for top students like herself. Therefore, she did have two safeties that were highly likely admits. She could remove those like you guys did (unwisely, I might add) and claim she got into her "safeties" too (which she called matches). She had a positive outcome even with the reaches. But the reaches are schools I bet you guys called "matches" (Ivies) and those schools are not true matches for anyone even though her (and your) stats "match" the ballpark for these elite schools. But with the very low admit rate, it makes them a reach. </p>
<p>Laugh as much as you want. I advise students with building balanced lists. I am a college counselor. It is a bit pretentious to assume one WILL be admitted to all their schools that have low admit rates. The status of elite college admissions today is such that nobody can feel certain of admissions at any one particular school (I know my kid didn't) and not because they are not qualified but simply the odds are difficult ones. What a top student can feel some sense of assurance about is that he/she will very likely be admitted to some very selective schools, but cannot predict with any certainty which specific ones will send the fat envelope. But maybe you guys know something I don't know about all of this. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>I think it also depends very much on the admission culture. Like some schools that put a lot of emphasis on the scores and grades, it makes it more likely for student with high stats to get in even though they have the same admission rate. </p>
<p>Also, what do you mean by wise? I think there is no such thing as an 'absolute' list of safeties.And definition of safeties also varies. You might, for instance, take that definition as 100% chance of getting in while some might perceive safeties as school in which they have ≥50% chance of getting in.</p>
<p>Well when you apply to 15 great schools...some have to be considered safeties and chances are youll get accepted into 1 of them.</p>
<p>Profanity, you are right that some perceive a safety to be a 100% chance of admissions whereas others see it as having an "almost sure" chance of admissions, being a high percentage of a chance, where the person is well over the range of accepted students, and the admit rate is not below say, 30%, etc. So, my kid's safeties were not 100% either as they were not "easy" schools or anything but one could reasonably conclude that her chance to get into them was highly likely. But schools like Tufts, Vassar, and Georgetown, even for top students like you guys or like her, are often what most consider to be a "match" in that you are in the ballpark of admitted students, which is like a 50-50 chance (perhaps greater?) but the admit rate is still low enough that just being very qualified may not mean you WILL get in. So, everyone needs safeties where they are highly likely to get in, but the "level" of that safety school is going to vary for all applicants. Like I said, my kid's safeties would be many kids' reaches. She didn't tack on her state U as I see some kids on CC do...where they have all reaches and then tack on their state school where they say they do not wish to attend. She found some "highly likely" schools to add on where she would still have been happy to attend, that are still considered selective or good schools. But she wasn't cocky to think that highly selective schools could be counted on or called safeties for ANYONE (and trust me, she had the the qualifications so that was not the issue). Schools that accept about 28% still turn away some highly qualified kids. </p>
<p>bobbobbob...your approach of applying to umpteen schools so that you get into one....is not the approach I advise. It may work but it may not. A balanced list of reach, match, safety is what I advise. My kid didn't need to apply to 15 schools. Her list was appropriate and included some of the top schools in the land, but she also knew she could be happy at a range of schools. She wasn't shooting for prestige, just for the right schools for her. So, I have seen some kids on CC have lists like "all Ivies", as if any of these schools would do, and apply to more to increase their odds. She didn't do that. She applied to schools that fit what she wanted in a range of reach, match, safety, and they were all "great schools" as you call them. She did ended up with 6 acceptances, 1 waitlist, 1 deferral/denial. She got into some of her first choices, of which Brown was one of them, as well. This approach is one that I advise. Your approach with 15 schools worked for you but I know of cases where kids applied to all reaches and didn't get into them, and they had the "goods" too. So, that is a risky proposition. I also frankly feel that 15 apps are too many and unfocused. </p>
<p>Anyway, you guys, as well as my daughter, are all at Brown. For her, it was one of her first choices and so all is good. She loves it and I imagine you do too.</p>
<p>Tufts admit rate was actually 26% this year.</p>
<p>My approach was similar to bobbobob's.. I applied to 13 different schools, got into all my safties, got into some of my matches (Brown, Cornell), and then waitlisted and rejected at some of my reaches (Yale, Princeton, Stanford)..</p>
<p>Honestly, there's no point in applying to safties which youll get into for sure, but wouldnt want to go to. If I had applied to any college lower then georgetown, tufts or vassar, and then had that as the only one i got into, i wouldnt have gone abroad to study.. I only applied to good colleges, because those were the only ones i wanted to go to.. And of my list, those were relatively my safties..</p>
<p>look at Canadian schools. Generally they just have a cut-off for SATs (like if you have 1250+, they just check you off) and everything is based on GPA. It's nice if you don't have strong SATs, or exceptional GPA. They're also some really good schools for about half the price of American private universities/colleges.</p>
<p>My safeties were Boston University, Georgetown, and The University of Virginia. My matches were Brown and Columbia, and, ultimately, I chose Brown.</p>
<p>Vassar! :)</p>
<p>I like Bard and University of Vermont....those are both considered safeties.</p>