<p>^^</p>
<p>And the silly semantics continue. For starters, you did misunderstood my point of having “a” highly likely school to mean only ONE such school. And only applying to ONE school. </p>
<p>You also are missing how such schools become sure bet safeties in states such as Texas. One can have various acceptances from what you call the various buckets at UT well before Thanksgiving. It is not because the applications are due later and that certains programs are not reserved to auto-admits that the admissions are delayed to April. They work ALSO on a rolling basis system. Add a few schools in Arizona, and the “safety” part of an application process is … done. And with 3 to 6 schools in the proverbial bag.</p>
<p>Still want to talk about a possible shutout in April? This is ENTIRELY different from gambling without highly likely schools. </p>
<p>Lastly, this entire debate on semantics is plain silly. There ARE students applying to the UC system or USC that have chances vastly superior to what you call high matches. They would have to have a horrible set of circumstances to be rejected. Obviously, they also happen to be extremely poor candidates to convert an admission offer into an enrollment. But that is a completely different debate. </p>
<p>In the end, there are NO vast differences between Cal or UCLA and other state flagships in Michigan or Wisconsin, safe and except the huge number of applicants who toss their hats in the ring without much hope but with the help of UC wide application. And THAT is why there are 80 to 100,000 applicants in California and why that admit rate is what it is! </p>
<p>Students who are competitive at our most selective schools nationwide are indeed likely or … highly likely to get the nod in their own state. </p>