In addition to the language, I like that there are 4 categories instead of 3.
With my kids, we have their lists broken down into 7 categories/levels of probability.
3 Likes
@skieurope, @happy1, @MaineLonghorn, @Lindagaf @CC_Mike
What is the next step in the process if this change is to happen? Do we need more feedback? Or…?
Why do we need an “official change”. Just use whatever terms you want to use. I have been using “sure thing” or something like that for years instead of safety….and I just explain in my post.
I’m not sure a wholesale change is needed.
2 Likes
I agree with thumper. I’m going to continue categorizing as I always have.
1 Like
I think that people can continue to use whatever terms they would like. However, I think it would be beneficial for the sticky post that gives students instructions on how to write a chance/match me thread to have the categories renamed.
1 Like
Here’s one thing I noticed when reading AustenNut’s recent posts on chance me threads (which are wonderful, informative, kind, and well done so kudos for that) - whereas “reach” is inherently motivational, “unlikely” comes across as discouraging because it follows “possible” (which gives a sense of “unlikely” being a euphemism for “impossible”). So any wording scheme has its pluses and minuses and I’m not sure a change is needed from the status quo. But thanks for putting so much thought and effort into it!
1 Like
Thank you for your kind words. This is one of the reasons why I was hoping for discussion to be made aware of other points of view (and unintended consequences). Since adding a “Guaranteed” category was mentioned for cases of auto-admits and such, would it make sense to add an Extremely Unlikely category of less than 1% or 5%? Because I don’t intend for unlikely to be discouraging, but I think students need to know that odds are, they’re not going to be accepted. It’s not impossible, it’s not as unlikely as winning the lottery, but the odds are not in their favor. So what are people’s thoughts of the categorization system below? Does this assuage some of your concerns @UnsentDementor?
Guaranteed (100%)
Extremely Likely (90+%)
Likely (60-90%)
Possible (25-55%)
Unlikely (5-25%)
Extremely Unlikely (less than 5%)
1 Like
The issue is…these are not the same for all applicants.
2 Likes
Well…my two concerns are #1 not having a huge issue with the current names (safety/match/reach) and #2 the high end of your new scheme sounds “predictive” in a way that doesn’t make too much more sense for an individual application than it would as blanket statements. In other words, HPYSM would be “extremely unlikely” for almost everyone, and even for the few that maybe are more “likely” for HPYSM it would be on the basis of the kinds of hooks that we probably shouldn’t be parsing on CC general threads (for example national/int’l awards that make the poster identifiable, recruitable sports that have their own threads and forums, and race which we shouldn’t really discuss at all by CC rules).
I don’t like Chance me. At all. Would rather just discourage the whole exercise. What I do like is “find me more matches/safeties”. But I’m also fine with “reach” as a label, now that I’ve thought about it a lot with you starting this thread.
2 Likes
Thanks for this initiative @AustenNut. It’s well intended, although it may be hard to change the prevailing “safety/match/reach” vocabulary just because it’s so ubiquitous outside of CC.
But back to your new categories: I would change “unlikely” to “low probability” and “extremely unlikely” to “very low probability”. I think it better characterizes chances at those schools in a less negative way than “unlikely”.
5 Likes
I agree. On the chance me threads where I answer, I state early on that I can’t chance the OP. How can anyone provide a chance without having access to critical application components like the school profile, GPA in context of the high school, essays, LoRs, and counselor rec? It’s just a fool’s errand.
Further, having a more refined mechanism of categorization may give the appearance to some that the results are somehow more accurate, which is obviously not true. It’s just posters, some with relevant experience and some without, making their best guesses in the absence of critical application components. Add me to the list of those who want to (and will continue to) discourage chancing.
2 Likes
How about “hard to predict” for anything with an acceptance rate 20% or under.
And chances…l.well…all of them are hard to predict!
Although…I am not in favor of changing terms.
How about “safety/match/reach” ? Short, clear, and easy to remember. 
All kidding aside, I think there is far too much gravity around the existing terms to change. Additionally, the terms suggested, though well intentioned, are clunkier and don’t really add any more clarity than “safety/match/reach”.
My $0.02…
4 Likes
I have no personal stake in whether the categories get renamed in the chance me/match me sticky. But the reason that the whole idea came about was because of individuals who are concerned about the mental health of our young people and what the CC community can do to help.
There have been numerous articles about the increased stress on our youngest generation, during the pandemic, but also prior to the pandemic. There are too many examples of “standout” students who seem to have the “whole package” (GPAs, test scores, ECs, leadership, etc) who have mental crises, sometimes taking their own lives, and this is happening on a more frequent basis.
As mentioned upthread and in the mental health thread, the term “reaches” has the connotation that if a student tries enough, works hard enough, accomplishes enough that s/he can get in, and that if s/he doesn’t get in, then it’s a rejection of the student personally. People who have been around CC long enough realize that 95% of people who receive denial letters in the spring for the Top X schools were highly qualified. Students with a 2.5 GPA and 1050 SAT score are not making up the thousands of students who are denied; they’re not applying to the highly selective institutions. So then you end up with a large pool of extremely accomplished students who feel dejected and that they weren’t deemed “worthy,” especially if they happen to get shut out or even if they “only” get into 1 out of their 8 or 10 (or more) reaches. Using terms that reference likelihood or probability changes the focus to be on the university, not the student. It depersonalizes the acceptance/rejection.
Too often I have seen an attitude where only Top X institutions are considered “worthy” institutions, and that it’s a disappointment or letdown if someone has to go to a less selective university. Not only is that bad for a high stats student’s mentality, but how does that affect students who aren’t in the top 1% of accomplishments? And even though it doesn’t seem like it here on CC, 99% of students are not in the top 1%.
Sadly, as mentioned upthread, the term “safety” seems to have a negative connotation attached to it, as a school that is more of an option of last resort simply because it has a high likelihood of admittance. It is kind of an echo of the thought that if a school that would admit someone rejected by more selective universities, then the “safety” university can’t be that good of a school, something which is not true at all. Yet if that’s how students feel about where they end up (whether a school was their “safety” or whether it was a “match” for someone but they see it listed as a safety elsewhere and thus attach the negative connotations of a safety to themselves and their choices), then it cannot be helpful to their mental health.
As @MWolf said in the mental health thread, it seems as though “unless they attend a college with low acceptance rates, they are condemned to an inferior “experience” at best, and a friendless, boring, and intellectually dead four years at worst.”
If the majority of the people at CC don’t want to rename the categories in the match me/chance me sticky, so be it. But what can we be doing to create a more mentally healthy environment for students going through this process? My thought is that renaming the sticky categories would be a low-hanging fix to start to change the thought process for applicants and their families, but perhaps there are other suggestions people would like to offer.
2 Likes
I do think explaining what one means when they respond is important. For example…when talking about a “reach”….I usually say “you have excellent credentials (if that is true) but so do most of the applicants to these schools. The acceptance rates are very very low, so apply and see. Good luck and let us know.”
And for a safety “having a sure thing is a good thing. And having a sure thing with early action or rolling admissions is even better. Getting that first college acceptance is a good feeling.”
5 Likes
Going to a “safety” needs to be shifted to being a strengths-based positive option somehow, I think. The alternative language can help reframe the process and the outcome.
The next few weeks are pure agony for some. Kids wonder in person and on CC why they gave up a “normal” teenage existence to end up at their “safety.” They need to be investigating what are the opportunities for them at the schools They were accepted to instead of waiting for Ivy day. It is less of a crushing blow when they know they have great opportunities ahead of them.
There is a thread a few of us commented on yesterday where the OP student says she felt like she had to apply to one school just to have a mid-range option, but there was not true interest. Flipping the language would have helped her see the strengths in the less selective colleges earlier in the process.
Some of us can try out the alt languages, see the responses, and we can share ideas on this thread. We know that match becomes less and less of a thing each year, so that word may go away on its own.
I appreciate the care and thoughtfulness involved in this.
3 Likes
But that’s why a safety should be the first thing chosen…and why I prefer to state that this needs to be a sure thing. I really dislike when students say they “ended up” at their safety…because fir many…this turns out to be an excellent choice where they thrive.
I think one thing we need to do is frame that a student should not be defined by where they go to college…but rather what they do once they are there and beyond.
Changing what we call these types of colleges is just a name.
2 Likes
IMO, the problem is not necessarily with the terms but the overall process of developing a list. For both of our kids we started by presenting the process as developing a list of schools that they would love to attend that could be mapped to the safety/match/reach catagories. Their challenge was to love their list and each school on it.
3 Likes
Agreed that this is a problem. There is this idea that a student must create a “balanced” list with safeties, matches and reaches. Some GCs even push for a certain number of applications in each category. But really, if each school on the list is a good fit (financially, academically and socially) then besides a “sure thing” school, nothing else is absolutely required. A good friend of mine has a son who was a NMF. He applied to his state’s flagship, MIT and Princeton. All 3 have math departments that met his needs really well. He was accepted by the flagship but not by the “highly unlikely” schools. He is thriving at the flagship, and at a great price. Insisting he apply to “match” schools only would have muddied the waters. My own child applied to only “highly likely” and “possibles.” That is a perfectly fine way to make a list.
2 Likes
One other aspect to consider: if the student needs to earn a merit scholarship to be able to afford the school, then the assessment* must be made on the likelihood of the merit scholarship, not admission, for that student.
The same can apply if the student is aiming for a particularly competitive major (e.g. direct admit nursing or computer science at some colleges), where the assessment* must be made on the likelihood of admission to the major, not admission to the school, for the student.
*As in (old scheme) safety/likely/match/reach or (new scheme) guaranteed/extremely-likely/likely/possible/unlikely/extremely-unlikely/unrealistic.
5 Likes