<p>Compared to many on CC, we have a very low EFC and that had a direct effect on my daughter's college search. She knew from her sophomore year on that merit aid was going to be necessary (because we had the $$ talk at that time) and since her stats are good but not stratospheric, she formed her list accordingly. I do wish she had added a reach or two, as well as at least one women's college, but then it would have been MY list, not hers. She also found her sure bet school early on and truly loved it from day one. It was closer to home than she wanted, but when decision time came, their extraordinarily generous scholarship and talent award overcame geography. </p>
<p>With the outside scholarships she's earned, we'll be writing a check for less than $6K for her freshman year, and she's pragmatic enough to realize that the money we will be saving will come in handy at a later date...her "suggestions" for our future contributions have ranged from an old-fashioned Grand Tour of Europe upon graduation from college to help with a security deposit and first/last month rent on her first apartment. She says these things in a joking manner, but we're filing them away for future serious consideration.</p>
<p>MrsP -- the reason we misjudged is that my daughter is a lopsided candidate. The top choice reach colleges that accepted her were colleges that had more individualized admission criteria, including one or two where the <em>fit</em> was very strong -- so those colleges ended up overlooking the weak spots and focusing on the strengths. The strengths were important to those colleges because of the near-fit -- I can picture the ad com getting excited over having her attend. </p>
<p>The colleges that we thought were "matches" probably were more numbers-oriented, or based their admit decisions on more objective criteria. So we looked at the numbers (GPA & test score in-range, admit rate) and figured my daughter's chances accordingly. That was misreading the data, in a sense: we forgot to ask the question, why should X college accept d. over another candidate with similar stats? </p>
<p>If there is any "mistake" it was in determining reach vs. match based on admissions rate -- in hindsight, fit seems far more important.</p>
<p>Many of the safeties were also numbers-oriented/objective criteria schools, but they were also places where my daughter's stats put her well above the norm. So the answer to the "why" question was, "because d. is a much better student than most of their applicants".</p>
<p>My son applied to 12 schools - 4 reaches (accepted to 2), 4 matches (accepted to all), 4 safeties - (accepted to all with merit money). Three schools were rolling and one offered an early response with its priority application. He will be attending a match that he loves.</p>
<p>My daughter applied to 9 schools - had applied to 4 with early scholarship program deadlines before Dec 1 (accepted to 3 with scholarship - waitlisted at 1 which we expected due to their reputation), 1 safety rolling state school (accepted with merit money), applied SCEA to 1 reach (accepted), then applied to 3 more reaches (accepted at 1 which she loved) - will be attending SCEA school. </p>
<p>Had she not gotten into SCEA school, she was ready to apply to 5 more schools - 2 reaches, 2 reachy matches, 1 safety.</p>
<p>Best thing they did was apply to rolling schools which gave early acceptances and peace of mind.</p>
<p>4 reaches (deferred SCEA by Harvard and rejected RD by HYS, waitlisted at Columbia)
3 matches (accepted by Berkeley and Pomona, waitlisted at Penn)
1 safety-ish match (accepted by Wellesley)
1 pure safety (accepted by U of Washington, but also accepted into its rather selective Honors Program)</p>
<p>I thought 9 was a lot, and it was the most anybody I knew had applied to, but looking back I should have applied to 10-12 schools just for a wider selection of acceptances to pick from. But I'm very happy to be going to Pomona this fall!</p>
<p>jmmom, I started to read that thread but it's so long, I got discouraged. I'll go back to it.</p>
<p>mezzomom, another very long thread. It will keep me busy for some time. I hadn't seen it before.</p>
<p>calmom, that makes sense. I have read so much here, that when I helped my son determine which schools were match, reach and safety, I was more conservative than I might have been before. Some of the schools on his list are primarily numbers schools. A phone call to one did indicate that even if the numbers are what they look at, he was told they do take other factors into account, so he needs to be sure those are addressed in his application, something I didn't think possible at a numbers-only school.</p>
<p>Last yesr we painstakingly defined a list of selective reaches, matches, and a couple of very good safeties for a total of 9 or 10 schools. My S was either waitlisted or rejected at every match, and admitted to the reaches and safeties. We still can't figure it out..., but he is quite happy at his first choice reach.</p>
<p>I applied to three schools: one reach and two match/safeties. I was accepted to all three, and I will be attending my first (and really only) choice school in the fall.</p>
<p>4 Ivys (Accepted into Cornell, UPENN (waitlist), Harvard (rejection), Dartmouth (rejection)
11 US Schools (all accepted)
8 International Schools (all accepted except Cambridge University and University of London)</p>
<p>2 safeties (both accepted)
2 matches (1 accepted, 1 waitlisted--didn't take spot on list)
3 reaches (1 accepted--will be attending next year, 2 rejected--I was rejected from UNC-Chapel Hill, which wouldn't be as great a reach if I lived in NC, but I live in NY)
1 super-reach/ivy--Cornell (rejected)</p>
<p>My mistake was applying to too many schools that I really wasn't that interested in (which ended up being the most expensive apps too).</p>
<p>Mrs. P, determining matches can be very difficult, especially for kids who are lopsided, or who have high stats overall, or who come from an "oversubscribed area" like the NE or SoCal. Obviously we don't know how my daughter would have done, but based on the experiences of others her year, I would expect at least 2 acceptances out of the 4 match/reaches.
One important thing, I think, is that all of D's schools, except one of the safeties, were very similar in size and "educational outlook". They have some stark differences, but she could clearly articulate what she liked about each school. I really fell this strategy will lead to better applications, if other issues - money, particularly, and geography, fall into place.</p>
<p>d applied to 17. withdrew 2. accepted at 15 schools.</p>
<p>very much like curmudgeon's d - my d was trying to find just the right intersection also.........varsity sport, merit aid, national merit finalist. never dreamed d would apply to 17 schools but it became clear as the process went on that with the multiple focuses (sport, national merit finalist, merit aid) that the additional applications were necessary. another influence was that d's act score went to 32 from 30 during the application season and her sat score improved as well (to a 740 verbal). she was actively recruited by a number of schools for her sport. she also applied to some schools where she would not have competed collegiately. we wanted to her to have many options from which to choose.</p>
<p>if i were to help her again to select schools.........i'd encourage her to include more reaches and fewer matches. would have included emory, stanford, brown, dartmouth, amherst, williams, harvard, penn, ut-austin, william and mary, university of virginia. would have dropped marquette, loyola-chi., st. olaf, trinity, and valparaiso (these were match schools). perhaps the merit aid from the match schools would have been more generous had she had a higher act.........but the 32 only brought partial tuition merit aid. glad that she included tulane and grinnell in her list. tulane came through with nearly full-tuition. baylor would have given full-tuition plus 1 k a year. d only had one alumni interview and that is the school that she ended up choosing. i'm not sure why the other schools did not make alumni interviews available to her.</p>
<p>I'd like to give a reality check to parents out there like me. My D is the youngest of 4, so we've had lots of college app experience. She is exceptional---4.3 gpa, loads of ecs and varsity sports, super involved, 2140 SATs, APs with scores of 5---but we didn't want to go crazy with apps. She applied to a total of 8 colleges: 2 safeties where she rec'd generous merit aid, but decided they were too small, 2 matches where she was waitlisted and we are still in shock, 1 match (UCLA) where she was accepted into the honors program---thank goodness, her choice right now---and 3 reaches, all rejected. My advice is if your child is not in the TOP 25% of a college's stats, do NOT consider that college a match. There are so many smart kids out there and they are applying to 10+ schools. We are still on one waitlist, but at this point---Go Bruins! As a side note: we needed no financial aid.</p>
<p>D applied to: Grinnell, Earlham, Macalester, WUSTL ( matches ) and U. of Kansas, U. of Arizona, Truman State ( safeties) - Accepted at all but WUSTL (waitlisted). Attended Grinnell.</p>
<p>seven acceptances (including 1 ivy, 1 state school, a top LAC and other good LACS/universities)
2 wait-lists (1 ivy, 1 top LAC)
1 rejection (1 ivy)</p>
<p>for transferring: 1 application, 1 acceptance (it was risky...!)</p>
I think we need to get straight on terminology here -- I consider a "match" as being a college where the kid has a strong possibility of getting in (reachy-match) - or a strong likelihood of getting in (match/safety)... but certainly not a sure thing. If the odds are 50/50, I'd call the school a match, but I wouldn't be in shock at a waitlist --- in fact, my daughter was rather happy receive early notice of being waitlisted at Brandeis, because the fact that Brandeis did not reject her outright confirmed that it was indeed a "match". To me, the waitlist confirmed that she was good enough, even if she didn't make the final cut. </p>
<p>Now I would have been reeling in shock if my daughter had been turned down by UC Santa Barbara or Santa Cruz - - I had those schools pegged as sure-thing safeties. But as I posted above, the waitlist notices from match schools (she was also waitlisted at Boston U.) makes me think simply that we focused too much on "stats" and not enough on the overall admission picture for those colleges -- the "what kind of student are they looking for" aspect. </p>
<p>I would expect that if a student applied to 10 colleges - 4 reaches, 4 matches, and 2 safeties -- and was rejected or waitlisted by the reaches, got into 2 of the 4 matches and both of the safeties -- then that student would have done a very good job of assessing chances, even though the results are disappointing -- a "reach" by definition is a college where chances of admission are slim; a "match" by definition is one where chances are better, but admission is by no means guaranteed.</p>
<p>We weren't sure what was a match, and what a reach, so my S applied to 7 schools. He was accepted at all, so I guess more of them were a match than we first knew.
UCLA, USC, UCB, UCSD, UCI, UCSB, and Indiana. He received a lot of scholarship offers, but decided he really wanted to go to UCLA after all, and didn't go for the largest scholarship. Although he is a National Merit Finalist, we didn't know how important that would be to any of the UC's since they don't offer money for it anymore.<br>
We're all happy with UCLA, and glad the process is over!</p>
<p>Thanks for your comments, calmom. We didn't really mind not being accepted by the true reaches; I told her if you are not rejected somewhere, you didn't aim high enough! But the two waitlists were demoralizing, as we still think they were good matches, not reachy ones at all. We declined one wl, but unfortunately she was in love with the other. Lots of tears followed by limbo; WL is like slow torture. But she is very excited now about UCLA.</p>