Does the concept of "Reach," "Good Fit," and "Safety" incorrectly sway our thinking?

College Search & Selection
1

<p>My daughter organized her list of potential schools into "I would love to go here," "I maybe want to go here," and "I'd go here if I didn't get into any of the others."</p>

<p>Her list is based on a lot of things, but for my purpose here I'll call it "Personality/Aspiration Fit." The interesting thing is that Selectivity by any measure (be it average SAT scores, acceptance rate, etc.) is not high on her list of criteria. It is fourth, maybe fifth, at best.</p>

<p>The result is that within each of her categories there are schools that we would normally consider Reach, Good Fit, and Safety.</p>

<p>(At this point in her winnowing process each of her categories contains about five schools. Her SAT scores are very good, middle to upper 600's, but not elite.)</p>

<p>After extensive reading and research of her choices on my own I gotta say I like her list. I think she's on the right track. I think her favorite schools would afford her the best opportunity to pursue her interests and to grow, mature, flourish and achieve her goals. Isn't that what this is all about?</p>

<p>And it makes me question the whole concept of "Reach, Good Fit, and Safety," the overriding principle of which seems to equate "Good School" with "Hard to get into." Are we doing our kids a disservice by leading them down that path? Are we giving them the right guidance? Are we missing the point? Have we turned this into a "Paper Chase?"</p>

<p>I know this: I'm thrilled with my daughter's approach. I am completely confident that she'll end up at a school that is, in Goldilocks' words, "Just right" for her.</p>

<p>Your thoughts about the "Reach, Good Fit, and Safety" concept and whether it does our kids' justice?</p>

2

<p>I would love to attend HYPSM, but then again, I have to be realistic. Even after narrowing down your college list according to "Fit", one must once again sort it by reaches, matches, and safeties for pragmatic reasons.</p>

3

<p>I agree. People think that selectivity and quality are automatically linked. They are not. Most of the people in my graduating class did not even apply to any private schools; the top students--who are easily as intelligent as students at top privates--are now going to schools that were safeties for them, but they were their first choice (two are going to UC Davis, one to a state school in Ohio--not OSU--and others to low-ranked state schools). They didn't care about selectivity, and so their first choices were their safeties. One of my own "matches" was Berkeley, but I had a few big reaches that I got into but would have easily chosen Berkeley over. Preference and selectivity shouldn't be linked.</p>

<p>Students on this site are especially prone to thinking that the two are necessarily related, and it's a flawed thinking. I'll add, though, that there is some correlation between quality and selectivity, but that doesn't mean that the quality will necessarily appeal to students (it tends to, though).</p>

<p>Another problem when defining reach/match/safety is the difference between how you match up and whether the school should be considered a safety/match at all. Some students' stats (and ECs/awards/etc.) compare well to those of schools like Cornell, but schools like that really shouldn't be considered matches. Likewise, though a student's stats may be above those of a school like UCLA or Berkeley or Northwestern or Vanderbilt or Chicago, those schools really shouldn't be considered safeties (often acceptance rates and other stats are misleading, too). This arrogance plagues CC, unfortunately.</p>

4

<p>I'm doing a lot of the scut work for my d at narrowing down colleges, who isn't home to do it for herself this summer, unfortunately. (I submitted my prospective list for review on CC recently, and the 2 reviewers who responded felt my list was just right! Guess my labors have not been in vain)
I just had the amusing thought that doing all this work, sifting, poring over sites, etc. will come in quite handy for the students when faced with another important life decision: picking a husband/wife!
I wish I could have the same chance to sift thru that line-up for my d!</p>

<p>(although she was blessed with intuition, already decided she didn't want a boyfriend in HS, disappointing 2 aspirants to that role in the process, and I think will be as selective as oldest sister has been in that culling process)</p>

5

<p>armchrtravlr I smiled at your reply because I've had the same thought myself. </p>

<p>After a certain age, (10? 12?) the kids are who they are. We've (hopefully) taught them manners, right and wrong, and given them a good work ethic. After that point we function as the gutter-bumpers in the bowling alley of life, nudging them back onto the straight and narrow if they begin to stray. But I wonder, is there anything else can we give them? What's the most important thing we can give do for them to give them the best possible chance at being happy and content in their lives. I think the answer is what you suggest.</p>

<p>For example, I think that one of, if not THE most important quality one should look for in a potential mate is the quality of friendship. A true friend is someone who knows everything there is to know about you and still likes you anyway. Add to that romantic love and a truly shared outlook of partnership in life and you've got yourself a good start.</p>

<p>Another quality I'd suggest is fair mindedness; the ability to actually listen, and the strength of character to concede fair points made by the other partner.</p>

<p>I could probably go on but I don't mean to start a whole new thread, and I fear I'd get myself all bogged down in arcane discussions about the merits, or lack thereof, of my suggestions. </p>

<p>I just mean to say, armchrtravlr, I'm with ya.</p>

6

<p>Reach/Match/Safety is one of the better concepts in the college admissions process. It encourages kids to dream, to be realistic, and to be prepared for less than what is hoped for. I think that is a good approach to facing life as an adult.</p>

7

<p>My now-27 (yikes!) yr old still isn't married,not for lack of offers. </p>

<p>She has a new guy on the horizon (and apparently another who at 36 knows what he wants, but she is making him wait, one guy at a time is her speed), and when I asked her what made the new guy special,she said 'his kindness'.</p>

<p>Decidedly not bragging, but this is a girl who's gifted intellectually, attractive, tall with long legs, smooth as silk when dealing with others--and very moral. She's also religious, and says she will meet her husband when she is supposed to. Also very opinionated, in a very nice way--I wouldn't dream of saying anything on this topic-- anymore, that is!</p>

8

<p>I see the point of Reach / Match / Safety, but I think to start out in that framework can be a mistake. I think that the first things kids should do is generate a list of schools where they would be happy to attend. I don't think that selectivity should be a part of the equation in the initial search. After a list has been generated, then look to see if they are schools where you have a reasonable chance of acceptance. This is where you take the schools you like and place them in the categories of R/M/S. </p>

<p>Contrary to popular opinion on this board, I think it is perfectly fine to apply to all safties or to have your first choice school be a saftey. If you look at your list and find that it is mostly made up of reaches or matches, then you need to add some safety schools, but atleast by that point you have a pretty good idea of the kind of school you are looking for. If a reach school is what you are looking for then go for it, but I don't agree that everyone should apply for reach schools just for the sake of seeing if they can get in. </p>

<p>It seems to me that students who carefully choose the schools to which they apply, apply to schools where they would be happy to attend, and pay attention to the application process usually end up with a positive outcome.</p>

9

<p>I really agree with shennie above that when generating a list of colleges, one definitely shouldn't be thinking about whether something is a reach/match/safety. I see a lot of the ratio like 3:3:3 or something, if it works for them great but there are SO many great schools that could be matches/safeties. On the opposite side, if one kid wants to apply to mostly reaches with a couple liked safety/matches I think that's fine as well.
And to be practical (like so many other people are saying), someone should know what their chances are at a school, but I think preventing someone from getting fixated and totally falling in love with one school also kind of prevents that heartbreak since I think most people can fit at many schools.</p>

10

<p>Winchester,</p>

<p>I agree that selectivity and the concepts of "reach," "match," and "safety" are badly overemphasized, especially on CC. Exclusive reliance on these concepts reduces the college selection process to a high-stress, zero-sum competition for a small number of slots in the most selective schools, in a rigid, one-dimensional pecking order. I don't think most students choose their school that way, though you'd never know it from reading CC. Most go to school relatively close to home, the vast majority at in-state public institutions. It's a much smaller pool of status-conscious high achievers---a subset, probably a minority, of all high achievers---who get wrapped up in the competition for slots at the most selective colleges. (Consider: about 2/3 of the nation's 2.8 million HS grads this year will enroll in college in the Fall, roughly 1.9 million matriculants; of those, a record number, 27,000, applied for admission to Harvard). And even for that group, excessive focus on status, prestige, and selectivity is self-limiting. One comes to define one's own success in finding the right college by how high up the pecking order one scores; by that measure, there are bound to be far more failures than successes, and even relative success, like getting into a top 20 school instead of the top 5, can come to look like failure. </p>

<p>I also agree that the most important concept is "fit," and what that means is a highly individualized, subjective, and multi-dimensional thing that you can't get out of US News rankings. I further agree that for many students there are both "reach," "match" and "safety" schools that are a good "fit," and that in general you're better off being at a "match" or "safety" school that's a good "fit" than at a "reach" school that isn't a good "fit."</p>

<p>That said, though, I wouldn't throw out the concepts of "reach," match," and "safety" because I think you need to be realistic about your prospects. If all your best "fits" are "reaches," that's a problem, and you'd better supplement your list with a couple of "matches" and at least one "safety" that's at least an approximate "fit." </p>

<p>I'll admit to being something of an educational elitist myself. I went to very good schools: Michigan as an undergrad, two Ivies (two of the very best, actually) for graduate school. I've taught at some outstanding schools. I place a high value on education, and have high educational aspirations for my own children. But D1's college search will not be a mad race to get as high up the US News pecking order as possible; we're both clear about that. I expect her credentials will be strong enough to get her into a very good school, but frankly I don't care whether it's top 5 or top 30, so long as it's a place she really wants to be and is happy and productive in her educational pursuits. (Though here's where my own educational elitism comes in: if it's not top 30-40 or so in either the LAC or research university category, I'd have serious questions about whether she's getting the quality of education she's capable of getting).</p>

11

<p>
[quote]
Consider: about 2/3 of the nation's 2.8 million HS grads this year will enroll in college in the Fall, roughly 1.9 million matriculants; of those, a record number, 27,000, applied for admission to Harvard

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Is that true? I had heard it was 1/3.</p>

12

<p>"(Though here's where my own educational elitism comes in: if it's not top 30-40 or so in either the LAC or research university category, I'd have serious questions about whether she's getting the quality of education she's capable of getting)."</p>

<p>I know someone who is in that situation because of his parents. I feel sorry for him because he wants to go a different school but is going to be forced to to apply to a top 50 because of his parents. :(</p>

13

<p>To bclintonk and shennie,</p>

<p>I share the sentiments of your statements below:</p>

<p>"That said, though, I wouldn't throw out the concepts of "reach," match," and "safety" because I think you need to be realistic about your prospects. If all your best "fits" are "reaches," that's a problem, and you'd better supplement your list with a couple of "matches" and at least one "safety" that's at least an approximate "fit."" -bclintonk</p>

<p>"I see the point of Reach / Match / Safety, but I think to start out in that framework can be a mistake." -shennie</p>

<p>Paraphrasing what some famous writer (Mark Twain?) once said, "If I'd had I more time I'd have written a better note."</p>

14

<p>Well, what you've actually got is a matrix!</p>

<p>Your DD has three boxes: Love, Maybe Love, Settle For. All you've got to do is divide each of her three boxes into three parts: Reach, Match, Safety.</p>

<p>The first box is really the one she's into. So just focus on that LOVE box, and the LOVE-Reach, LOVE-Match, and LOVE-Safety.</p>

<p>You're home free... just by dividing the LOVE category into three. She may have <em>no</em> schools in the LOVE-Reach category. Great! No reason to force anything in there.</p>

<p>Your daughter's way first, then overlaying Reach/Match/Safety, is a great way to go. The match overlay will simply reveal whether she needs to consider more schools that are matches -- if the LOVE-Match category is empty, or the LOVE-Safety is empty.</p>

15

<p>^^^ kyledavid80,</p>

<p>Yep, it's true: 27,000 applicants to Harvard for the class of 2012. Straight from the horse's mouth:
A</a> record applicant pool for the College — The Harvard University Gazette</p>

<p>On the 2.9 million estimated HS grads in 2008, see the NY Times:
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/09/education/09admissions.html?fta=y%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/09/education/09admissions.html?fta=y&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>On the percentage attending college, see the Bureau of Labor Statistics:
College</a> Enrollment and Work Activity of 2007 High School Graduates</p>

<p>You do the math. About 1.5% of this year's HS grads who will attend college in the fall applied to Harvard.</p>

16

<p>I don't doubt the other figures, but I'd thought only 1/3 were attending college. I suppose it was actually that 1/3 weren't attending college.</p>

<p>Thanks for the links. :)</p>

17

<p>
[quote]
You're home free... just by dividing the LOVE category into three.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>DunninLA is on to something. First look at the list along the dimension of "I really like this college." Then look at only the top schools along that dimension from the additional dimension of "How likely is it that I will get in?" If you have a safety you really love, you are golden. All the rest is frosting on the cake.</p>

18

<p>I like the DunninLA / tokenadult approach.</p>

<p>Right now there are about 15 schools on her list, with about 5 in each bucket. As she continues her research she can add/drop/reshuffle among buckets. We'll look to the Love bucket first for visits and/or application submitting, making sure she's covered in the reach/match/safety categories by reaching into the Maybe bucket if necessary.</p>

<p>None of this is set in stone, of course. She'll continue to learn and adjust her preferences throughout the process. As with her older brother before her, one or two visits may alter her thinking. (He had some small to medium schools on his list, but after seeing just one of them he knew he wanted to attend a large university.)</p>

<p>Thanks all for your views. You've been helpful.</p>

19

<p>Plus, if you fit a university well, it tends to show more naturally in the essays - and your chances at that university will thus increase :)</p>

20

<p>Imparts an unjustified sense of entitlement.</p>