<p>
Well, if I'm going to be quoted, I want to make a point of clarification. The 'reach for the best' strategy must absolutely,positively, definitely also include applications to safety. schools. The higher you reach, the more likely it is you won't make it and will need that safety net. </p>
<p>Also, while "build from the bottom up" and "love thy safety" are definitely the ideal, that is can be very difficult for a kid who has criteria that the safeties aren't going to fulfill. My kid tried to start with safeties, but just didn't like them. So the solution is that is to have several safeties, and the more different they are from one another, the better. My daughter had 4, 3 of which offered merit aid when they accepted her. They were all different enough that if she had been left with her safeties in the spring, she would have had several very different schools to choose from -- I think it would have worked out fine, because even though she would have been disappointed, she would have still felt like she had a choice, and the merit awards would have helped ease the pain of rejection at preferred colleges if it had come to that. </p>
<p>The other clarification I have is with the word "best" -- best is what the kid wants the most or what seems to best fit the criteria the kid wants. If need-based financial aid is important, then it helps to be aware that the very top colleges tend to offer better aid packages than many less selective schools -- a good reason to ignore some colleges that the gc might be pushing as "matches". (No "match" if the college doesn't promise to meet full need and the kid's stats aren't good enough to garner merit aid -- better to look for another safety in that situation). </p>
<p>But other than that: "best" does not necessarily mean the most prestigious or the most selective. It just means the college that is most desired.
Agreed completely, but the flip side of that is: don't be deterred by one or two weak spots in an otherwise strong record. Be aware of the weaknesses, but build the application around the strengths. If needed, make sure to explain weaknesses that need explaining (and which have a good explanation) - in our case, my daughter made sure that the g.c. explained specific factors about her school that made it difficult to schedule some courses that a college bound student would have been expected to take.</p>
<p>And don't get too hung up on standardized test scores: good or not-so-good, they are probably the least interesting thing about any student. Great scores won't get a kid into an elite; not-so-wonderful scores won't necessarily keep a kid with a strong academic record or other significant achievements out. My daughter is a living example of the fact that a non-URM, non-athlete, RD applicant can get into highly selective colleges despite bottom-of-range test scores - so much for the "top half" of the applicant pool rule or all the other myths about which kids make up the lower half of the score range.</p>