Unless you’ve got a super killer hook:
Chelsea Clinton: NMF plus POTUS for dad
Malia Obama: URM plus POTUS for dad
Malala Yousafzai: Nobel Prize winner
I guess I would define a “match” for a kid with top-notch stats as a school where the student would be in the top quartile in terms of grades/scores and with admission rates that are not so low that they qualify as “lottery” schools. For students with near perfect grades and scores, admissions rate does become the primary indicator of what’s a “reach” vs. “match”. The good news is that there are a LOT of matches full of intellectually curious, hardworking students. Which is why I question the need for “reaches” even for top-notch students. Maybe especially for top-notch students. As long as the student has explored her options and given consideration to a full range of social and academic fit issues.
“Reach” isn’t a category of school. It’s a relationship between the difficulty of admission to the college and the student’s aptitude and credentials. A college that’s a reach for one student might not be for another. And THAT is the main problem. We didn’t define “reach” in financial terms. All the schools my kids applied to were accessible from a financial standpoint. The main focus was on having a list that included at least a couple of excellent colleges with high probability of admission, combined with some that were tougher admits.
In my son’s case, based on his stats and EC’s it was easy to find excellent colleges that fit his interests and in which he had a high probability of admission (all his numbers, which were very strong, were in the top 25% of enrolled students). Only one college he applied to was a true reach simply because the acceptance rates were so low. He got into all of the others, which included a couple of in-state universities and a handful of out-of-state private colleges. He was calm throughout the process and very happy with the outcome, and even would have been willing to attend the state flagship if that was his only or best option. He ended up at UChicago.
For my daughter, who wanted to attend an art school – not an art program in a larger college or university – we were quite ignorant of the admission criteria or her chances. We knew that admission hardly depended on her test scores or grades (as long as they were good) but would depend a lot on her portfolio. But how to make a good one? How would she know it’s good – except by applying for and gaining admission? This application process was full of angst, uncertainty. Putting the portfolio together was a demanding extra-curricular effort. Some angst and uncertainty was reduced (and her skills strengthened) after she attended the pre-college summer art program at the Art School of Chicago. She applied to six colleges based on their reputations and programs, including a couple that were likely to be easy admits (safeties). She got into all of them and enrolled at RISD. She probably would have been happy with a couple of the others.
My daughter initially applied to three schools that really were sure things for admission for her. They were her top choice colleges. She added one reach later in the application process, and we shed her to add one parent pick.
Really those first three schools would have been enough.
A few years ago I realized that safety/match/ reach is problematic and that students should instead research fit/fit/fit.
I’d modify that to: fit/money/fit/money/fit/money
By definition, a student with top notch stats is in the top quartile, so you haven’t defined anything. Define “admission rates that are not so low that they qualify as “lottery” schools.”
I think that a lot depends on the personality or temperament of your child. Some do better being a bigger fish in a smaller pond. Some thrive on open competition. Some are pragmatic and would be happy at any place that is accredited in their major. Others yearn for a true “life of the mind” with like-minded peers. So yes, fit within one’s price point should come first.
But fit and reach are not necessarily mutually exclusive. If the reach fits, and it’s affordable, then why not give it a try while keeping expectations low, as @Pizzagirl suggests? If the attempt is primarily prestige-driven, there are probably better ways to spend those application fees.
That’s arbitrary, too, of course. I could give you my definition for my student, but that would not apply to everyone. What is fairly consistent, if you look at discussions of rankings (which tend to be synonymous with admissions rates for the schools that are ranked highest) or “chance me” responses by veteran posters, is that there are some schools that are “a reach for anybody”.
At the time when D was first thinking about applying to schools, the acceptance rates for the more selective schools she was interested in ranged from around 12-20%. In the two or three years since then, those same schools are now publishing acceptance rates that hover in 10-15% range overall and even lower in RD only. That is in contrast to a “match” school for someone with good stats that might accept around 35% of students who apply. I think this precipitous drop in acceptance rates is one of the things that made me reconsider the accepted wisdom that top-notch students should necessarily include “reaches” among the schools they apply to.
There are also different types of reach. Academic match with financial reach for example.
My D’s school was a match for her stats and interests, but we needed a major scholarship to be able to afford it.
As an example, I looked at Kenyon college. The SAT range is 1870-2170. Is this really a match for a kid in the mid-2300s? That’s almost 200 points above the 75 percentile, and perhaps 300-350 points above the mean. That doesn’t sound like a ‘match’ to me. Or is it a safety? Yet the acceptance rate was only 26.5%. So?
^ My kid’s school’s three categories are likely, possible, and unlikely.
IMO, any place that admits less than 30% and uses holistic review isn’t entirely predictable and therefore, isn’t a safety. For the hypothetical that @mathyone suggests above, I’d say Kenyond would be a likely.
For me, true safeties are places that auto-admit for stats and fall within budget. I suspect my definition is more narrow than most.
My daughter applied to four reach schools, none of which were mega reaches. Given her rank in HS, some of her teachers questioned her choices and wondered why she was not applying to some “reachier” schools. I knew she was aiming high enough; she was wait listed to one of her reaches- which came as no surprise to me. This particular school took zero students from our HS for two years in a row- in the past they used to take at least 1 or 2 each year.
She is happy and in a good place. She has friends, loves her professors, is engaged in the school community, and is challenged academically without being overly stressed.
Out of the three “reachy” schools that accepted her, she attends the one with the lowest ranking (but the best price).
I do not think reaches are necessarily better. If she got off the wait list at her higher ranked reach school, she still would have picked her current school.
@mathyone I guess I’m missing your point. What are you trying to say?
In answer to your question, yes, in my opinion, Kenyon would be a match for a student with 2300/3.9UW who wanted an LAC with a strong English department. An accomplished student would be able to find plenty of like-minded classmates there. And at 26.5%, it’s not a safety even for kids with top-notch stats. If the hypothetical kid above likes Kenyon as well as she likes Brown (for example), why should she forego an ED app to Kenyon on the off-chance she might be accepted to Brown?
The common advice to have #reaches/matches/safeties seems to assume that “reaches” are necessarily preferable to “matches.” And I don’t think that’s always the case.
I agree with your point as long as the school offers what the student values and the parents are willing to pay for it.
I just think the labels are too muddied by the low acceptance rates to have much meaning for the kids who are competitive at those “lottery” schools. The labels should be a comparison of the applicant’s strength to the typical admitee, but as acceptance rates have plummeted, rates rather than stats seem to be determining the labels more often than not.
“As an example, I looked at Kenyon college. The SAT range is 1870-2170. Is this really a match for a kid in the mid-2300s? That’s almost 200 points above the 75 percentile, and perhaps 300-350 points above the mean. That doesn’t sound like a ‘match’ to me.”
A ~25% acceptance rate?? How could that possibly be a safety? Of course it’s a match. Kenyon doesn’t bow down to the kids in the mid 2300s or anything.
One friend remarked that while her eldest son had applied to a number of extremely selective schools (reaches for everyone ), she was going to discourage her younger one from doing the same because she felt that the multiple rejections would really rattle him emotionally. While I am not necessarily in favor of coddling, I think that for some kids, this has to be part of the consideration. Some kids can take a “why not?” approach; others may be incapable of that.
My point is just that for students with top stats, these labels are being applied according to admission rates, not according to the strength of the student body. If Kenyon’s admission rate were 70% would you all still be saying, that’s a match for my hypothetical mid 2300 “reach-worthy” student? For all but the most prestige-chasing, the admission rate has zero to do with how well the student will fit in at the school. And therefore it makes little sense to use them to assess whether a given student would be a better fit at “reaches” or “matches” or “safeties” or to say that a student should apply to more “reaches”. Do you really hear people saying “You should apply to more schools with admissions rates under 15%, because that’s the kind of admissions rate where you’ll fit in”?
It all depends on how confident and determined the student is. I know one who EDed a non-HYPS top 10 school, had an easy time there, and ended up at a HYPS professional school upon graduation. As planned.
My oldest had the stats and activities for the reaches for everybody schools.i He found two safeties and then applied to a bunch of those reach schools. Some accepted him and some rejected him, he attended one of them. He’s the sort who thrives when challenged. Youngest had a similar strategy though his stats weren’t quite as impeccable nor was the rest of his resume. He’s apt to be lazy and learns more when surrounded by high achievers. He might have gotten better grades at a matchier school, but he might also just have worked less hard.