<p>I agree with mathmom – there are very few “matches” for high stats kids. I think it now breaks down into:</p>
<ul>
<li>super reaches (slim chance/ lottery schools)</li>
<li>high reaches (good possibility of getting in)</li>
<li>target reaches (kid definitely has the stats to get in, but admissions unpredictable)</li>
<li>safeties (kid is guaranteed admission)</li>
</ul>
<p>All of those “target” school use to be matches, but they are now so inundated with applications that outcomes are far less predictable. When my son was applying to colleges, I figured that any school where his stats were at the upper range of applicants, and where the school accepted 35% or more of the applicants was a match. But those same schools now have admission rates of 20% or less. It’s not that the schools criteria for admission has changed, it’s just that the competition for those spots is now more intense, and the colleges have to make more nuanced decisions, balancing their desire to admit highly qualified student with their need for yield control. </p>
<p>cptofthehouse, my point was that we encouraged our kids to pick schools based on where they’d be happy/challenged, not based on prestige or racking up acceptances that would never be seriously considered. We also insisted on a financial safety and that some of the schools on the list had merit $$ opportunities.</p>
<p>We didn’t consider any school a match or safety. We called them targets – where with some extra love and honed essays, a reachy school could turn into an acceptance. Worked with both of my kids, but the game has changed so much even in the last four years, it’s scary.</p>
<p>Heck, our flagship now has an average HS GPA of 4.03 and SAT over 2000, and accepts just under 50%. </p>
<p>The problem is that for some kids the “where they’d be … challenged” part is hard – the off-the-beaten track LAC’s with strong academics but more relaxed admission standards have now moved into the realm of “highly selective” --meaning they are also turning away more qualified applicants than they have space to admit. I tried to direct my d. toward safeties, but she came back after an overnight visit to a suburban LAC that had seemed like a good bet feeling that the academic environment of the school fell far short of what she was looking for. She got lucky – she was admitted to her reaches even when so-called match schools waitlisted her --but that was 8 years ago. She was admitted to U. of Chicago in a year when they accepted 35% of applicants – could she get in today? would she even try? </p>
<p>Yes, my d. could have been both happy and challenged if she had ended at one of the in-state publics that were her safeties - in that case, the sheer size of the universities would have guaranteed that she would have been able to find her niche. But she was probably right about that safety LAC.</p>
<p>Yes, calmom – one of the things we learned here on CC going through this process is that students should look for places where they will be able to grow over the next four years. What fits at age 17 may not by 19 or 20. One of my kids visited a highly ranked LAC and the profs told him they couldn’t keep him challenged for four years because of the coursework in his intended majors that he came in with from HS. The other S sat in on classes at a few schools and felt the discussion in upper division courses was not as rigorous as those he had in his IB program. </p>
<p>At the same time, going to the top school one is accepted into isn’t necessarily the best thing, either. As we have discovered, mental health issues and/or unaccommodated ADD can really make a student’s life difficult when one must balance classes, organizing work, holding a job and performing the routine tasks of daily life. (And these were kids who had chores and responsibilities at home before they left for college.) If grad school is in the picture, getting hte best grades possible are the key. Many of S1’s friends took the merit $$ route at our flagship and are now at tippy top grad schools.</p>
<p>I am going to put a plug in for Colgate, even though it is cold and in the middle of no where. It is a LAC, with strong econ and CS departments, as well as geology and other science majors. It tends to attract well rounded athletic type. They have a lot of intramural sports, with most people playing one or more sports. </p>
<p>D2 was a very good writer. She did benefit from working with a professional on her essays. The coach helped D2 with the main topic and the tone. D2 had 3 different versions of the main essay. D2’s personality definitely came through her essay(s). She has a dry sense of humor. I think if her coach didn’t encourage her, her essays probably would have been more serious and her true personality probably wouldn’t have come out as much. I laughed and cried a bit when I first read it.</p>
<p>“Why college X” essay is more about what an applicant can bring to the college, not what college could do for the applicant.</p>
<p>D2 was told that schools look for student who are:
willing to take risk when it comes to learning
intellectual curiosity
able to adapt to new environment easily (many college students have a hard time adjusting to their new environment)
will continue some ECs in college (dance, sports, newspaper…)
has global prospective (Tufts, Colgate)
can look beyond oneself (instead of just doing individual competition, do some tutoring/volunteer work, more relevant for Asians)
leadership (editor of newspaper, president of student counsel)
…this is what I could remember.</p>
<p>As other publications have shown, some schools, like Harvard, are looking for students who may show up on the cover of Newsweek or Times in 20 years, but many schools like Cornell/NU like well rounded/smart/hardworking students.</p>
<p>I agree with the poster who said what OP is doing can be very risky. If it goes south (how many of our children didn’t get into their school of choice), OP could get blamed. I would be in the position of advising rather than managing. </p>
<p>That list is 5+ years out-of-date, but for the most part, schools at either end line up fairly well with their relative US News positions. Well enough to build an early list of reach-match schools, anyway.</p>
<p>The OP’s “target” (or low reach) schools, in my opinion, fall roughly in the 20-40 national universities range (CMU, Tufts, BC, Rochester, CWRU, Lehigh) or a little higher than that, say 15-35, for national LACs (such as Wesleyan, Bates, Colgate, Richmond). My advice would be to start visiting a few schools in these ranges to get a clearer idea of what you really want.</p>
<p>"The OP’s “target” (or low reach) schools, in my opinion, fall roughly in the 20-40 national universities range (CMU, Tufts, BC, Rochester, CWRU, Lehigh) or a little higher than that, say 15-35, for national LACs (such as Wesleyan, Bates, Colgate, Richmond). "</p>
<p>This is the best advice yet for the OP and frankly all she needs. As tempting as it is to sit there and dream of Dartmouth and NU, THIS is the young man’s sweet spot. Think here and you might be pleasantly surprised; think top 20 and you’ll likely be disappointed. </p>
<p>Oldfort’s bullets are valuable. Whether there is a Why Us? or not, they are points schools look for. Anyone with a hs kid should hang on to that.
And I agree with tk (and others) about the top 15-40. The old expression is: where do you think all the bright kids go, when they don’t get into that Ivy? But don’t forget the safeties.</p>
<p>So, somehow Dartmouth came up, now the real work begins. But as said, helping another family, no matter the good intentions, has to be done very carefully. Their dreams and egos are involved. </p>
<p>When one uses the words “reach, match, safety” or any other equivialents, there is a big difference as to what they refer to. To they refer to stats? Actual chances of admissions? Desire of the student/parents for the kid to go there? My kids’ choices were absolutely not in order of selectivity. Though an ivy might be considered the penultimate match in the grouping of school, it was not in the top echelon for my kids,and two of them turned down the admissions offer (killed me because I would have loved for them to have gone there). </p>
<p>I agree with most of the advice her. OP’s friend is no babe in woods here in terms of knowing how high stakes admissions works. Likely the kid will apply to HPY , maybe SCEA for H with the legacy hook, and tnen a scattering of schools with varying admissions rates. </p>
<p>I feel the same way about Colgate that Oldforte, does, by the way. It truly is the “9th” Ivy, and would have had Brown’s spot had things gone a bit differently during the formation of that athletic league.</p>
<p>Isabella, we don’t know if you are a parent or younger person, whether you have any experiences with college decisions. It’s good to see the glass half full. Sure. But this is high stakes and “just saying it, doesn’t make it so.” The attitude that everything will be easy-peasy has led to many disappointed kids. </p>
<p>Harvard has Restrictive Early Action. No one should assume this kid is a shoo-in, there is no such thing for the elites, even for legacies. And, it may not even be the right school for this individual young man.</p>
<p>Baloney. What’s your angle? The only thing someone savvy can come close to predicting is whether a kid’s app “should” make it past first cut. The rest is subject to a host of factors. If you know admissions, you would know that, first and foremost. The “success” of many admissions consultants actually includes they way they steer kids to happy “other choices.” This is a case where it is a serious mistake to assume. You want to go back and see what little we do know about this kid- and all the missing pieces. Some “theory” about branding is nothing more than a theory. </p>
<p>Isabella, you can peddle your confidence on the Chance Me threads. There’s a poster there, in grad school, in another country, who actually thinks she can give percentage chances. You cannot predict. To insist is border trolling. I have experience and I don’t say “lock.” And certainly not for a kid who currently has somewhat lopsided scores and limited ECs- and really isn’t sure yet, what he wants. There are “miles to go,” for OP and her friend’s family. Best advice is coming from those who suggest a drop down from the very top tier. and some active research and visits. Imo.</p>
<p>Yes, Harvard has what they call “Restrictive Early Action” . Though one does have to check things to see if there has been changes this year for things any applicant/parent knows from prior years. Things have been changing a lot and quickly these days.</p>
<p>“The OP knew how to brand her kids into multiple Ivy invitations,”</p>
<p>Wow - for someone so new around here, you know a lot about Alumother and her kids. Especially given that Alumother is a relatively infrequent poster.</p>
<p>I think it’s quite plausible that with the OP’s privileged family background, she knew a few more things than the average bear (or tiger?), but I don’t think it’s very gracious to suggest that she just “branded” her kids there and that they weren’t deserving and hard-working. And graciousness is a quality that Alumother exudes, always. </p>
<p>I have read all the posts in this thread but just thought to mention he is not a legacy at Harvard because his father went to Harvard Law school not undergrad at Harvard. I don’t know if sibling is considered legacy at Harvard. His GPA is lowish because it’s 3.9 weighted not the same as 3.9 unweighted.</p>
<p>I think you have made some false statements here, Isabella. You stated that Harvard is not having a SCEA this year when they are having it’s equivalence. You are saying a student is a “locK” at as school that is highly selective. Not true. No lock here. And this “branding” thing is off the wall. Not true at all. I know plenty of kids who are not “branded” and got into top schools including HPY. Please refrain from making statements off the top of your head that have no facts backing them up, especially absolutes that are rarely true. </p>
<p>I do not think Alumother ought to worry about the results or potential blames. She is helping her best friend by looking up useful information and sharing it out of kindness. Neither she or her friend is seeking or expecting guarantees. They are not naive. </p>
<p>Since this started, she amended the 80 percent chance to about 50 percent. That opened the door to a vast number of matches, or whatever some here like to relabel. </p>
<p>We all agree that the best tool to avoid regrets or blames is to build the application from the bottom up, starting with highly likely schools. From there, building a compatible list of schools with variable chances of admission is highly doable. </p>
<p>Givens are the heightened chances via SAT retakes, sensible essays, and strategic applications if early decisions are in the cards. </p>
<p>In the end, if this kid cannot find a VERY good school with a bit of effort, I wonder who might! We seem to oscillate between shoo-in at HYPS and having to settle for a safety school. That is insane! Again, I believe that this stems from the need to categorize schools based on subjective assumptions of selectivity. </p>
<p>By the way, SCEA is REA is SCEA. Same thing! </p>
<p>Personally, I don’t feel that aiming for a “sweet spot” is the right strategy so long as you have safeties that you like (and your psyche isn’t so fragile that it would be shattered by rejections). If you apply to 8 elites and only get in to Cornell, what does that make you? An Ivy Leaguer.</p>
<p>And if you apply to 8 elites and don’t get into any, you’re crushed. I just never, ever see the point of treating any elite as any kind of match, and I still say it’s safer to focus on a sweet spot a little bit lower and then be pleasantly surprised, than to pin too many hopes on the tippy-top with low admissions rates and be dejected. </p>