<p>I recently asked this question on the 2010 parents thread and thought I should bring it to CC at large. Can schools with acceptance rates (AR) between 40% and 50% be considered safeties? For what types of applicants? (Assume SAT percentiles correlate with AR.) Examples to consider: Macalester, URochester, Bryn Mawr, Smith, Mount Holyoke. Some of the Seven Sisters listed have an AR just around 50%, but then I also hear that these top women's colleges shouldn't ever be considered as safeties. What exactly is a safety, then?</p>
<p>Its a subjective test/analysis, dependent less on the school admit rates (though that does factor in to some of the super elites like Ivies with admit rates below 20%) and more on the student’s gpa/sat/classrank/rigor of coursework/EC’s and overall presentation. </p>
<p>MOST colleges are looking for an answer to three simple questions:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>If admitted, will this student succeed, excel or tank?</p></li>
<li><p>What does this student bring to our student body and overall campus culture and experience?</p></li>
<li><p>Will this person come here if admitted or bolt for a more prestigious school? (Yield and retention issues.)</p></li>
</ol>
<p>its really that simple. Thus, kids with a 3.8 gpa and 2190 SAT may be admitted over someone with a 4.0 or 1600 SAT. They want well rounded, balanced kids for the vast majority of their admissions…saving some spots for geeks in biochemical neurological engineering and such uber geek squads. </p>
<p>A safety for me is not a safety for you and vice versa. Or your best friend. </p>
<p>Safety schools are often some of the best kept secrets in colleges. They often give very, very generous scholarships and lucrative financial aid as lures to the prospective student. They may well be a perfect SOCIAL fit for the student. </p>
<p>Sadly, kids in high school, and superficial parents often label “safety schools” as something pejorative, as if they are settling for something less worthy and the “reach” school as the only thing worthy of attaining. Wrong. </p>
<p>Further, one’s own subjective personality may come into play. Meaning, if you are someone who is hyper competitive and a prestige monger, then Princeton and Yale may be the only place for you, but someone else with the same stats may be perfectly happy/excel and otherwise have a fabulous experience on a full ride at Michigan State or Bowdoin. </p>
<p>In short, safety means, “the school which is certain to accept me, likely to give me a scholarship and/or outstanding financial aid, and where I can see my self attending and being at the top of my game.” Its often the instate flagship school. Or it may be a well regarded private school near you or a neighboring state. Typically they admit students with scores like yours and you would be in the upper 20% of admissions for THAT school. Irrespective of their overall admission rate. (A match school is one where you fall in the upper 50%). </p>
<p>Its a misnomer that if you attend a safety school you will be surrounded by dullards and drunks. You can find those kids anywhere, lol. Even at some Ivy League schools. (You would be surprised.) You may also be surprised to find a lot of kids down the hall of your dorm with scores like yours or even higher at a safety (or match school.) </p>
<p>I can say this much, looking back three years from my kids experience: that the schools we dreamed about then are viewed very differently today and in some cases we are saying, “I am SOOOO glad I didn’t go there/ or I was waitlisted etc.” </p>
<p>Being happy/content/excelling is a priceless commodity. </p>
<p>I’m not saying you can’t be or won’t be happy at a reach school or Ivy. Not at all. Only that safety schools sometimes get a bad rap they don’t deserve, when they really deserve a second look.</p>
<p>Keilexandra, for us we considered a safety one in which the applicant is around 75% or better on grades/scores and accepted over 50% of applicants. Any acceptance rate less than 50% would be a match or reach.</p>
<p>^^^^ in that sense, then, all the Ivies are really a reach for everyone. Not disputing that personal methodology. As any school with an acceptance rate below 20% is going to be a lottery. The point I was making was that its entirely subjective to the applicant and their family.</p>
<p>While I think acceptance rates are important in determining an appropriate “safety,” I think you should consider your rank in the context of a college’s student body more important. After all, some schools are known to have somewhat “self-selected applicants.”</p>
<p>For example, at one of my safety schools, I have an ACT score five points higher than the 75th percentile of applicants; I think that alone might be enough for a definite spot, but I also happen to have a slew of alumni relatives that will also weigh in my favor. But, nevertheless, as someone above posted, I’m sure that I would do well at this college (they have an honors college and a great atmosphere), and I would enjoy myself at the same time. The financial aid wouldn’t be bad, either… :)</p>
<p>There are several kinds of safeties:</p>
<p>An Academic Safety is a place you are almost positive you can get into based on your stats. Even better if it is required to admit you based on your stats (many public Us publish the stats that guarantee admission for in-state residents, most community colleges are open admission). Note that you may not be able to pay for this place.</p>
<p>A Financial Safety is a place you can afford without financial aid other than federally determined (FAFSA) aid. Note that you may not be able to be admitted to this place.</p>
<p>Find a place where you are guaranteed admission, that you don’t need more than FAFSA aid for, that offers the major(s) you like, and that you would be happy to attend if all else goes wrong, and you will have found your True Safety.</p>
<p>None of the schools you mention are Safeties for academic reasons. They are Matches or Reaches.</p>
<p>I would look at the women’s colleges as safe if your stats are all above the 75th percentile and there are no red flags in your app.</p>
<p>The contrast between posts #6 and 7 highlights why I made this thread–even “CC wisdom” is often contradictory when it comes to safeties. (I have the utmost respect for fit and safety schools, to the point where my GC, my parents, and CCers have told me that I am too conservative.)</p>
<p>happymom - I, personally, don’t think I could find a school where I was GUARANTEED admission, where I would also be happy to attend. My #1 priority is an intellectual atmosphere (not just strong classroom academics–think TASP); my #2 priority is a small student body of <5k students. Which means that public U honors colleges are out–I have my in-state flagship as a True Safety, and I would attend if it came to that, but I dislike it. The private LACs that would guarantee admission are a significant academic drop that I don’t want to risk.</p>
<p>But to return to this specific part of the definition: happymomof1 says, “An Academic Safety is a place you are almost positive you can get into based on your stats..” Numbers alone paint a misleading picture, I think; change “stats” to “academic profile” and I would agree. </p>
<p>There ought to be a meaningful distinction in safety analysis between a high-stat/few-ECs student and a high-stat/dedicated ECs student. Not to mention the even-more-subjective LORs and essays. The former student would not be “Ivy-competitive” as I define it, because those kinds of top schools can afford to turn down numbers alone. But for the latter student, are stats still king in the safety search?</p>
<p>If we’re to be honest, the women’s schools can’t be picky enough to demand high stats and strong ECs. They have had a steady decline in the caliber of students since the ivies went coed. </p>
<p>While there are few certainties in life, these schools will almost always accept a high stats applicant who shows dedicated interest and no problems.</p>
<p>The one exception, however, might be high financial need at those that are not need blind. On the flip side, being full pay would make them very safe IMO.</p>
<p>Ah, interest! Yes, also an important factor. For the sake of this discussion, assume sufficient demonstrated interest (especially important for the women’s colleges and schools like Rochester).</p>
<p>well all of your comments OP are valid. I acknowledge them. However, you asked for a generalist definition for CC’ers, not subjectively restricted to your personal criteria. Which gets back to my point, that “safety” is subjective. There is no safety which applies to everyone or even to your best friends. </p>
<p>We are not here to pick colleges for you and ultimately you have to pull the trigger on one school. That is as stressful as wondering if you will get in. Frankly, with 2,000 colleges to choose from, there are more schools that would be great for you than you can imagine. But ultimately you have to decide how close to home you want to be and so forth. </p>
<p>WE TOOK THAT PLUNGE THREE YEARS AGO and had thoughts, second thoughts, third thoughts…and even endured the dreaded freshman funk transferitis thingie…and came out of the clouds to the clear blue sky and sunshine of sophomore year with birds singing…in other words…we hung in there and it all worked out BEAUTIFULLY…</p>
<p>if you are seeking perfection, stop now. There is no perfect school. All schools have warts. And weirdos. And unfair petty and peculiar professors. Its part of growing up. Welcome to the adult world of dealing with reality.</p>
<p>I’m a big fan of match and safety schools. Reach schools can work out…but there is often more risk…</p>
<p>wouldnt you rather be Phi Beta Kappa at match or safety school than middle of the class at a reach? For some people that answer is a very strong NO! And for them, the reach choice is their best choice. Good for them and good luck. But for most the answer is a strong YES! And that is the crux of the matter.</p>
<p>and all of the all male schools, with the exception of Hampden Sydney have gone the way of the dodo bird as well. Even VMI is thriving with co’eds.</p>
<p>Interest goes to yield, none of the single sex colleges have great yield, and they are MUCH more likely to accept a candidate they have reason to believe they’ll yield. Visit twice, write to two profs and keep asking the adcom questions for your best shot.</p>
<p>ghostbuster - Where did you get the impression that I’m seeking perfection? Your definition is valid, as is mine and everyone else’s–my “subjective” comments still apply to many students with similar profiles (“Ivy-competitive”). I would hope that even at a reach, I am not condemned to the middle of the class, since my reaches are such only due to selectivity. That is not true for the majority of applicants, I grant you; it is, however, true for a distinct section of CC applicants. So the many differing perspectives here will be useful to lurkers, I hope.</p>
<p>No…not suggesting you are seeking perfection in a college…just a careful observation for anyone who might be, whether its a reach, match or safety for them. It was really a rhetorical remark.</p>
<p>I too would hope you are not condemned to the middle of the class, but at the uber elite schools and most Ivies, you do know that the vast majority of students will have stats at least as high as yours. I have heard of too many cases where kids who were valedictorians being utterly aghast at Harvard or Yale or Princeton, e.g., when they got a handful of mediocre grades and were really struggling to stay at the top of their game. College is very different than high school. (of course this is not just a problem at the elite schools…it happens at a lot of schools. Some kids have a knack of writing papers and taking exams and some kids don’t.) </p>
<p>Nor do I suggest my methodology or opinion is any more valid than anyone else’s. Its just one perspective, offered in the slim hope it is helpful to someone genuinely seeking advice (not the faux “help me” threads from kids with uber stats who are only seeking more attention.) </p>
<p>Happiness is key. But happiness can be attained at many different schools, particularly by students who are well balanced and grounded…and can assimilate into any environment. </p>
<p>Finally, I reject the view of some kids that they can only be a success in life if they graduate from a big name prestigious undergraduate school. That is false. What you do with your degree (and the many life skills you learned in college) is more important than that lovely piece of parchment with your name on it, followed by some latin words.</p>
<p>And yes, different perspectives can be very helpful to anyone willing to take the time to read them and contemplate them. </p>
<p>I dont know where you will end up, but I am sure you will do well no matter where that is. </p>
<p>Another factor for my kid was wanting to be in a school with people different from her high school, not so different as to be quirky or contrarian, but different enough to bring a new challenge.</p>
<p>One more thing, Keilexandra:</p>
<p>There is a really interesting and extensive thread in Parents Forum about someone who went to a reach school (Duke) and did poorly…now the parents are having a hard time justifying the expense in this bad economy…and wondering how to pay for it…and pay for another sibling to go to college…its tangential, but its also relevant to some of the issues we discusssed here. Good luck and enjoy!</p>
<p>Parents Forum<br>
A letter to my college sophomore…what do you think?</p>
<p>You can handle the course load at any school you get into, it just takes more discipline than some kids have. This is why NCAA athletes are so regulated in their study schedule.</p>
<p>“are stats still king in the safety search?”</p>
<p>Yes.</p>
<p>1) Stats are easy for the colleges to publish, and easy for potential candidates to compare themselves to. It is almost impossible for any college to publish the stats vs ECs vs specific courses vs personal life experiences vs LORs vs anything else that could enter into the admissions process in a given year. Even if they could, it would be nearly impossible for a candidate to derive useful information from a multivariable matrix because the admissions pools (and consequently the decisions) vary significantly from one year to the next.</p>
<p>2) Many home-state public Us admit primarily (if not entirely) based on stats. An in-state student with the right number of years of English/History/Science/Math/Other with a given minimum GPA and a given minimum ACT/SAT score is automatically admitted. A student lacking one of these factors may have to submit a more formal application that will be read by someone in the admission office. Someone missing too many of these factors won’t be admitted period.</p>
<p>When you are looking for a safety, you don’t have to find a perfect fit, just a place that you are actually willing to attend if you don’t get in anywhere else, or if you only get into places that you can’t afford. If you can’t find a place like this, then you should spend some time developing a Plan B for the next year or two while you are reapplying to colleges and universities that you are willing to attend. Sometimes it is better for a student to not enroll in college until they can enroll at the right place.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Pretty interesting stuff. The only thing I disagree with is the middle of class=mediocre (at a top school that is). A kid in the middle of his class at these schools will probably sport at least a 3.3 and if he’s super lucky a 3.5. Not too shabby from a top school. While I don’t want to tell everyone what to do, it’s quite possible that pushing yourself to be at the top third or even top half of your class would be better for your education (and even future skills) than casual effort to be in the top 10%.
Also, I don’t know about you, but my diploma will be in English and perhaps a little German around the seal. ;)</p>
<p>As to what’s a safety-a school that has an acceptance rate over 40%, where your stats are in the top 25% or better, and your high school has a record of getting many kids admitted with your credentials to those schools without fail. The last one is of utmost importance. To be honest, if you’ve got the last one, the school is almost always at least a match. Even with some really selective schools.</p>
<p>"An in-state student with the right number of years of English/History/Science/Math/Other with a given minimum GPA and a given minimum ACT/SAT score is automatically admitted. " Happymom.</p>
<p>Well…that depends. UNC for example is still a reach instate to most students. While they have to admit 80% instate, by statute, they have a complicated admissions policy/criteria, setting aside a certain percentage for URM’s, another percentage for athletes (and they have a HUGE number of athletes competing at the top levels of NCAA Div I in most every sport imaginable, and a they factor in legacy (they specifically ask about it on the application and they want to know what you parents do for a living, whether or not you are applying for financial aid or not), and they apportion admissions by counties in-state as well. Thus, its roughly the top 10% of most high school classes. They have a STRONG preference for online applications and students who apply EA. So if you apply instate RD you are already in deep trouble. NCState and AppState are the schools where good students all get accepted. </p>
<p>I’ve heard that UVa is much like UNC.</p>