<p>Reaches: Dartmouth, Princeton, Duke, Stanford
Matches: Vanderbilt, Virginia, Notre Dame
Safeties: UT-Austin, Texas A&M, SMU</p>
<p>Basic Stats: 2390 SAT (800M, 790CR, 800W), toughest course load at competitive private school, Eagle Scout</p>
<p>Match: Harvard</p>
<p>Safeties: Yale, Princeton, MIT, Stanford</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Your confidence is admirable. :)</p>
<p>Reaches: Harvard, Stanford, Princeton, Amherst
Matches: Dartmouth, Brown, Georgetown, Swarthmore, Tufts, UChicago
Safeties: UVM</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s not a good idea…</p>
<p>
In what way?</p>
<p>Honestly, I don’t care much about the categories—they could be reaches, but I do have some legit matches too.</p>
<p>Yeah, I think that those should probably be reaches, especially since they both have acceptance rates of about 10%, maybe lower for Brown.</p>
<p>Heh, maybe. The actual categories don’t really matter, so long as you have a range.</p>
<p>cornell ed + local cc if i fail</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Between UVm and Dartmouth, there is a huge difference in admit rates and scores (and other factors affecting selectivity.) Between Dartmouth and Amherst (etc.), there is a very small one. A negligible one. In fact, for any given individual, when you account for factors such as your location or personal interests, a given individual’s chances of admission to Dartmouth might actually be lower than his or her chances at Stanford. This year, Chicago’s applications are up by more than 40%. Do you really want to assume that admission to a school like that is “likely”, when so much depends on hard-to-predict factors such as the essays? </p>
<p>Maybe so, if you’re a risk-taker and you really would be perfectly happy to attend your safety. It’s a little hard to tell, however, what would make an applicant happy who is choosing schools as different from each other as Stanford, Dartmouth, Georgetown, Amherst, Brown, Chicago and Swarthmore. They are all good schools but in geographic setting, educational philosophy and curriculum, size and atmosphere - important factors other than selectivity - they cover a fairly broad range within the top N very selective liberal arts colleges and universities.</p>
<p>
Agreed, though as I said, it’s largely irrelevant.</p>
<p>
Yes, I’d still contend my stats are well above their 75% percentile and my personality fits the school. But, as I said, I think it’s largely irrelevent <em>where</em> exactly these schools fall on the list. I’m reasonably confident of getting into at least one, and if not would be perfectly happy at my safet(y/ies).</p>
<p>
Not really. They all have relatively intellectual atmospheres, strength in the humanities, and don’t have certain undesirable characteristics.</p>
<p>^ O.K., then it may be that you are fairly easy to please and not very sensitive to the differences. You’re in the driver’s seat in this process, so you can take it wherever you want to go.</p>
<p>However, if “intellectual atmosphere” is the one thing you really care about (to the point you’re willing to ignore inner city v. remote rural location, for example) then it seems you are to some extent bucking the conventional wisdom. All your match and reach schools attract very bright students, that’s true. But, you’re likely to find fairly striking differences in intellectual atmosphere between Chicago and Swarthmore on the one hand and Dartmouth on the other. Not that there isn’t any overlap in the students they all attract.</p>
<p>I know of one senior whose list of schools varies a lot in terms of of style. It includes MIT, UChicago and Columbia. These are very different schools, but said senior has specific reasons for applying to all of them.</p>
<p>Grinnell, Haverford, Macalester, Wellesley, Oberlin
Bryn Mawr, Brandeis, Pitzer
Mount Holyoke, Beloit, Dickinson, maybe Bard</p>
<p>I have more but those are the main ones. Sort of in order of unlikely to likely. My first choice is Oberlin.</p>
<p>^^ Chicago and Columbia are quite similar in several respects. They are both selective urban research universities with undergraduate Core Curriculum programs that share historic roots. Unlike Brown and Amherst, which run on Open Curriculum plans. But hey, to each his own.</p>
<p>Reaches: W&M, Duke, Penn, Columbia
Matches: Emory, Georgetown, Georgia Tech, Clemson
Safeties: Tennessee, Auburn, South Carolina</p>
<p>Haven’t gotten the list too narrowed down yet, but so far I’m looking at Duke, Northwestern, Notre Dame, Vanderbilt, Rice, and WUSTL as reaches. And I have an automatic admit to UT Austin as long as I stay in top 10%, thanks to being in-state, so that’s the only safety I really need. </p>
<p>Now I just need to find some matches…maybe Tulane?</p>
<p>Everyone seems to have relatively whittled lists at this point. When I began filling applications and supplementary sections last August, I had a list of twenty-five but eventually narrowed it down to six at the end. Fortunately, after my EA decision was released last December, I was able to eliminate “safety” and “match” colleges and save a large sum of money.</p>
<p>^I’m planning to apply EA to a few schools to eliminate the burden of safety applications I’m only so-so about. </p>
<p>Also,
</p>
<p>Like others have said, that’s not the best idea–it just doesn’t cover a wide range of admit rates. You’re looking at sub-20% rates…and then UVM. Obviously we can’t say for certain you won’t end up just fine, but this is the kind of scenario that’s just asking to become a “I only got into my safety…now what?” post come next April. Unless, of course, you’d be 100% happy attending your safety.</p>
<p>
I’m of course applying EA to a couple of schools on my list too. Should I not get in then, I’d probably reconsider my list.</p>