As a reminder, we don’t want to get stuck in a debate here. People use words differently and that’s ok. Once the point has been made, there’s no need to spiral into argument. 
5 Likes
I call them either Probables or Likelys
Three categories:
Reach(throw darts)
Probable/Likely/Should Get In(darts should stick)
Safety(darts punch through dart board)
Our categories:
Crazy Competitive Admits for Everyone
Competitive
Match
Conservative Admit
I think Match vs Target doesn’t matter -but safety is a huge negative and we avoided it at all costs - every school on my kids lists - even those with generous admission percentages were ones they genuinely liked for a variety of reasons and I think as soon as you call them a safety it’s a negative in their minds.
And I’m a huge proponent of finding one rolling admission school that your kid loves - having the one absolute safety as you’re already IN early in the process makes life way less stressful!
1 Like
Austen nut, do you have any faith in the collegevine chancing simulator? We are using that to help gauge probabilities (plus the CDS and median 50%).
I’m not a fan of “target” as a descriptor of a likelihood category. A target, in real life, is anything you aim for. Hitting it can be extremely unlikely, but it’s still a target. So using it as a metaphor for attainability seems confusing to me.
Of course, one could always create categories describing types of targets… e.g. safeties are “broad side of a barn” schools 
Before your question, I had never used College Vine’s chancing tool. I have heard from others on the board that they found the chancing too optimistic. I just created an account with a sample profile, but in hindsight, I don’t think I created the right “type” of profile. Rather, I didn’t create the typical CC, I’ve-done-everything-amazingly type of profile. So for the schools with my more “typical” profile, the chances seemed reasonable, but whether it’s as accurate on the tail ends with the typical CC overachievers, I couldn’t really say. Though I honestly don’t think that they have as much of a clue as the percentages would indicate (i.e. a 69% vs. a 72% shot). I would also say it would depend on your kid’s major. English, history, and math majors would probably have higher accuracy on the guesses than CS, business, or engineering majors.
Depends on one’s aim…perhaps somewhere on the vertical face of a skyscraper for those of us who really need a sure thing to aim for! 
I haven’t used College Vine’s, but I have used Prepscholar’s, which I suspect is similar. My take is that the absolute number doesn’t mean too much, as it has to be adjusted for so many factors that the calculator can’t take into account. But it has value as a relative metric, with which to compare odds between schools… or at least similar schools, like a list of small LAC’s that don’t admit by major. The more variables influence your chances, the less useful the calculator will be. (For example, if you’re applying to a large state school, the calculator can’t account for in-state vs. OOS, competitiveness of particular majors, prevalence of recruited athletes, applying early vs. later, and so on.) Still, the calculator provides a useful way of distilling your overall stat-alignment with a school down to a single number and comparing that with others, so it can be a good tool as long as you don’t put too much stock in its predictive value.
1 Like
The prevalence of recruited athletes is likely more of an issue at small schools where they make up a substantial portion of the students.
True; I was just trying not to ramble on forever about the distinctions (not that rambling on forever is outside my repertoire…)
Of course, not every student can find a rolling admission school that they like…
However, any type of early admission (EA, ED, rolling) that is affordable becomes a safety, regardless of the original chance estimate. Of course, if it is ED, the student is committed and finished with the college application process.
Collegevine does factor in OOS, choice of major, EA, ED and RD, rigor, and tiers of ECs. I’ve seen blogs claiming it’s pretty accurate +/- 5-10% probabilities but I’m wary.
1 Like
Interesting; I’ll have to check it out! I’d assumed it was another blunt instrument.
1 Like
It is, IMO.
High stats unhooked applicants need to take these online calculators with a large grain of salt.
2 Likes
Our HS automatically signs us up for College Kickstart, and they use the Unlikely/Reach/Target/Likely framework, so most of the families (including us) are doing that too.
I agree “Target” is not an ideal term in that in theory it seems to be suggesting you should prefer Targets over Likelies, when obviously that doesn’t have to be the case at all, meaning in many cases students will rationally prefer what Kickstart will score a Likely over what it scores a Target. I think the same basic issue applies to “Reach,” as it seems to be suggesting that students should want to reach for that school.
However, in practice I think most of us understand that chances of admissions and individual preferences are two different things, so we just think of Target and Reach as terms for schools where your estimated admissions chances are better than Unlikely and worse than Likely (the first closer to Likely, the second closer to Unlikely).
Finally, I note it appears to me there aren’t great common words in English for things that are in that sort of middle range of probability. As in, I actually looked up what terms kids are usually taught when introduced to probability in early grades, and it appears the standard introductory set is something like Certain, Likely, Unlikely, and Impossible. There are at least some common phrases for things right in the middle (coin-flip, even odds, that sort of thing), but apparently not much that would capture, say, something that could be anywhere in the middle fifth or middle third. Indeed, perhaps the best we can do in English is longer terms like “pretty good chance,” and that leads us right back to the poll question.
So in that sense, I think the Target/Reach naming convention can be excused a bit. Yes, it would be better if we used terms that were more strictly about odds and did not even suggest a preference ranking, but we appear not to have standard words or short terms for those specific concepts in English.
1 Like
This is mine, and it’s been used every time I’ve chanced anyone on here over the past ten years or so. I don’t typically post my classification, though, so some might misunderstand me if my definitions don’t match theirs (or at least aren’t in the ball park):
High Reach: 0-5% chance of admittance
Reach: 5-15%
Low Reach: 15-25%
High Match: 25-40%
Match: 40-60%
Low Match (I’ll probably use “Likely” in the future, as it saves key strokes): 60-95%
Safety: 95%+
My overall “Reach” range goes only to 25% because… I think a reach should be exactly what the name implies: possible, but unlikely.
Maybe a better name for “Match” would be “Coin Flip” or “Maybe”. hehe
It’s becoming increasingly difficult to find true safeties – especially private school safeties – given all the yield protection going on. Because public school admissions typically seem to be less holistic (so, based more on the quantitative portion of the app), I’m pretty likely these days to recommend a list of safeties that is almost exclusively public.
Also, it’s hard to find safeties, period, for highly competitive majors like CS and Engineering. Whether the school admits directly to the major, or students apply in their 2nd year, it’s foolhardy to view those majors as safe just about anywhere.
Actually, it is not hard for good students to find admission safeties for such majors, if one is willing to go low enough on the selectivity scale. But many 4.0 HS GPA students are not willing to consider the local less selective commuter-based public university that offers these majors, or go to scholarship offering schools in Arizona, Alabama, etc.
1 Like
Right, but do even Arizona and/or Alabama admit by major? Or is the auto admission only good for getting into the university?
Even for the top-6% in-state kids receiving auto admission to Texas, the school might be a safety for admission, but not necessarily for their desired major.
I suppose you are right – going low enough on the selectivity scale may end up in some safeties even for CS and Engineering, but I’m not sure those are easy to find at the state flagship level.
Arizona State University has stated automatic admission criteria for the campus here: https://admission.asu.edu/apply/first-year/admission
And that page directs applicants to look up their major and check for any admission requirements for the major. The CS major page at https://degrees.apps.asu.edu/bachelors/major/ASU00/ESCSEBS/computer-science says that frosh applicants need:
- minimum 1210 SAT combined evidence-based reading and writing plus math score or minimum 24 ACT combined score or a minimum high school cumulative GPA of 3.00 in ASU competency courses or class ranking in top 25% of high school class, and
- no high school math or science competency deficiencies
3 Likes
I’m not into those who are using acceptance rate ranges to define these categories (whatever names you wish to use). What schools are a “Reach/Match/Likely” (whatever names you use) vary on an individual student basis. The acceptance rate at a college that makes it a Match/Target for one kid might be a Reach for another kid.
2 Likes