<p>After completing both of their "college match" questioneers on my D, princetonreview's "counselor-matic" has her "match" and "Safety" to alot more schools (and better schools) than collegeboard. Anyone with experience with both that can give an opinion as to which is more accurate? The princeton site's questionere was more extensive. Collegeboard seemed to base everything on SAT (didn't even ask for GPA)?</p>
<p>they are both just completely whacked, especially PR</p>
<p>I remember fondly counselor-matic recommending a women's college for my S.</p>
<p>You will do far better by using a Fiske Guide and compiling your own list.....it will save you time and it will fit your student.</p>
<p>I don't think either is very accurate but I like having the kids answer the questions just so they can start thinking about what they do want in a college. I found the pr results to be much more optimistic about matches.</p>
<p>marite, knowing my son, he might have enjoyed being at an all girls schhol! LOl Imagine the dating scene.</p>
<p>I went thru and put in my son's stats from last year. Here are the PR predictions and the actual:</p>
<p>School PR Actual
Carleton Match WL
Bowdoin Match WL
UChicago Match Accepted
Brandeis Match Accepted
Case Safety Accepted
Allegheny Safety Accepted</p>
<p>When I did this little exercise, last year, UChicago, Bowdoin and Carleton all were listed as reaches. This year, the writing component of the SAT is factored in. I used my son's SAT II writing score (a 780) and I think that it gives a falsely optimistic read on matches in his case. </p>
<p>The problem with the match category is that includes a broad range of seletivity. If you consider a match school to be a 50/50 chance, in my son's case it would have been correct. BUT, if he had choosen exclusively hyper-selective schools as 'matches' I don't think his results would have been as good.</p>
<p>Totally weird. I had never done collegeboard.com, so I put my daughter's preferences/scores/etc. in. They only came up with 17 "matches" (I don't see that they split this into safeties/matches/reaches, right?) and only 2 are on her list. Other schools you would think would end up there didn't show up. What's up with that?</p>
<p>I ran through the PR Counsel-o-matic and got the following results (I will not reveal the actual schools to protect her anonymity):</p>
<p>Matches: All 3 on her list that we thought were matches were here</p>
<p>Reaches: All 4 on her list were here</p>
<p>Safeties: The 1 on her list is here.</p>
<p>I guess this makes me feel a little more comfortable with her list.</p>
<p>I think if you look at the match list and adjust it a little, it might be ok as a rough estimate. Something like - look at the selectivity of the matches. If the selectivity is below 35% (or whatever abitrary number you choose), consider the match a reasonable reach.</p>
<p>On the collegeboard site, I think there's a little graphic that shows how likely a particular match is....</p>
<p>ohio_mom, I don't see this. Am I looking in the wrong place?</p>
<p>I'm sorry, it was some other site, and I can't locate it. I have to pick grapes right now, and if it comes to me I will post. What we did was, after agonizing and coming up with a list, did the CC stats eval to make sure we were not hideously off base.</p>
<p>I wouldn't put any weight at all on Princeton Review's estimations. One of my sons was ultimately rejected at every school they deemed "match" (initially wait listed). But, as has been stated many times on CC, "match" probably means your chances are 50-50.</p>
<p>I also would not put any reliance on ANY of the automated college search systems. I have compared 5 different systems (including PR and collegeboard) using the same stats. The results vary widely. I think that the draw back to these systems is that none of them are able to measure the effect of things like recommendations, essays, need for financial aid, geographic diversity, and perhaps most important: The schools own admissions goals and needs. Additionally, keep in mind that they do not tell you anything about how a schools applicant base may change from year to year. </p>
<p>I think they are fine as a search tool to identify other potential schools you may not be familiar with but DO NOT use them to reassure your self that your child's chances are on target. I think Hazmat said it best: You would do better to get out the Fiske Guide, talk with admissions officers, and do your own estimation of chances.</p>
<p>quiltguru when I plugged in my son's stats and interests many schools on his list also did not come up (obvious choices). They showed up on counselor- O -matic.</p>
<p>I haven't seen anything that seems to factor in the selectivity of the school correctly. The 'matches' in pr ranged from strong matches to out and out unreasonable reaches (due to his GPA) such as Williams. I am not surprise that people's son had that result.</p>
<p>These are not reliable for matches. You will be more accurate with your own investigation....The more prestigious a school the more likely a match is to be rejected. These programs are just to limited, while the decision process is affected by so many things that can't be measured. The competition, the essays...the fit.</p>
<p>I agree with Carolyn. My D and I used Counsel-o-matic solely to come up with a list of potential schools. Even the first time we ran her stats, I was suspect...then and now it lists Dartmouth and Cornell as matches for her and we ALL know how crazy that is. But what it did was bring up several schools we wouldn't even have known about since no one from her school has applied there historically (including Brandeis). We visited several, some of which stayed on her list and some of which came off after the visit.</p>
<p>When the selectivity is less than 50%, it is best, IMO, to expect rejection and make sure to apply somewhere else you're likely to be accepted and be happy to attend. As we're just entering this year's hunting season (for colleges, that is), I think we'd all like to have a crystal ball so we won't have to go through the emotional turmoil.</p>
<p>Also, indeed my heart went out to andi regarding the issue of her son. HOWEVER, posters on this board should understand that this student's statistics were never posted on the threads and readers have NO idea what his essays reflected or what his letters of recommendation read. I still think it is a bit suspect that he didn't get accepted to any of his schools at all. Yes, some kids with top grades, scores, EC's, recs, and essays don't get into some schools. But to not get in to ANY...just makes you think. Our val last year with 1600 SAT and 36 ACT (and almost no EC's) didn't get in to 7 of 8 Ivies...but he did get in to Penn.</p>
<p>I'm not sure what experience your children have had with their high school advisor. If you have a child who relies totally on what the advisor has said (I mean, what does Mom know about ANYTHING?), and that advisor gives the "thumbs up" to a list of college applications that don't include true safeties... Sighhhhh..... I finally went head-to-head with my younger son and basically forced him to apply to one true safety. Guess what? That was the only school that accepted him in the end. The advisor had looked over his list of applications, said "Great choices!" Princeton Review had told him they were all "matches". Man, a lot of bad advice out there!</p>
<p>people,
whew - that was a close one! My son believed his GC until he saw just how bad the advice she gave regarding 'take the SAT cold' and 'three years of a FL are plenty' ...</p>