Question about "reach schools"

<p>"I think there are two types of reach schools: one--where the student's stats are in the lower percentage of accepted students..."</p>

<p>I have seen no evidence ANYWHERE (and I've looked for it) suggesting that students accepted but with SAT scores in the bottom half of the accepted pool do not perform as well as those in the top half. My d.'s school spent three years studying this question, and they just couldn't find it. All this really suggests, of course, is that the adcoms know what minimal level of academic talent they need from applicants.</p>

<p>Schools do, of course, have different reputations for workload, grades, etc. There are schools like UCLA with very little grade inflation, relatively little academic assistance available, high "weed-out" rates in certain majors, and lower retention rates. Then there are schools that make a fetish of grinding (I've never known why that is attractive, but some kids clearly like it.) They are "work hard, play hard" schools. And there are schools with very high selectivity but where, if you choose your courses carefully, you can and will find easier (sometimes much easier) than a top high school. All of these share at least one thing in common: 50% of the students will graduate in the bottom half of their class.</p>

<p>No substitute for homework.</p>

<p>Mini:</p>

<p>Adcoms goof. Re-read the story of the American Indian student who was admitted at Wesleyan in the Gatekeepers.Some of the 25k admission counselors do manage to get marginal students admitted to some of the most selective schools (why is Ivysuccess called Ivysuccess and not Podunksuccess?). Getting admitted, however, is not the end of the story; it's just the beginning. This is why even the most selective schools have remedial support, starting with writing centers, and why there are anthologies of bloopers.</p>

<p>Of course they goof. But graduation rates over 6 years are well into the 90s, at AWS in the high 90s! Wasn't there a study of football players at H. about 5 years ago that indicated higher graduation rates than everyone else? What this says is that 98% of students can do the work, and maybe more than that if provided the right supports at the right time.</p>

<p>If you examine the dropout rates at most institutions, you find that they are associated with: 1) lack of family income; 2) difficult family situations; 3) medical problems, either one's own or one's family; 4) mental health problems. I bet if you looked at statistics for any on the top 20 schools in retention, you'd be hardpressed to find 2% dropout rates for purely academic reasons. And, after accounting for the four characteristics above, I don't know of any school that has been able to demonstrate that accepted students with lower SAT scores do not do as well - and I know they've been looking HARD. Bowdoin has been looking at those numbers for 30 years. Mt. Holyoke for 7. Smith's study drew on data at HYP, I'm told, as well as its own institutional data base.</p>

<p>Mini:</p>

<p>The 25%-75% SAT range for highly selective schools is not very wide. I personally don't see why a student with a 1400 cannot do as well as a student with an 1600. But there are students who are admitted with far lower SAT scores than that at top schools.
For me, though, the bigger issue is how much effort it took a student to achieve particular board scores or GPAs. The SAT has a ceiling effect, like all such tests, and cannot distinguish between top scorers, let along those who take it once and those who take it multiple times after extra tutoring. All As are not equal, even within the same class. Some students do not have to work hard to turn in top-notch work, and others need to put in enormous effort to achieve the same level of excellence. Those who have to work very hard for their grades may be better off in schools where the expectations are not as high, the workload not as demanding. This, as you and I are agreed, is different from selectivity of admission. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Wasn't there a study of football players at H. about 5 years ago that indicated higher graduation rates than everyone else? What this says is that 98% of students can do the work,

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I don't think it says so. In my opinion, it says that H recruits football players who are well qualified academically and disciplined enough to do the work, same as musicians, community activists, budding journalists.</p>

<p>Interesteddad,
The word "fanciest" in your reply is the tip-off, methinks.</p>

<p>There appear, according to trends, studies, etc., two correlating factors to partying/drinking in college. One is frats: that has been discussed on other threads & in many articles.</p>

<p>The other factor is money. I don't know that any controlled studies for private U's have been done, but I can tell you that a recent one was done at UCBerkeley. They tracked (previously) high-achieving students from monied households in "fancy" school districts and found that these students dissipated their 4 yrs & barely got by with "C's." Studying was minimal & often last-minute. Their primary focus was social, not academic. Drink & drugs were high on the list. This is to be contrasted with low-income Caucasians & immigrants, who worked & achieved equally at Berkeley as they had before, rejecting partying: the work ethic was paramount in that group. They often also put off pairing romantically until after college graduation.</p>

<p>My own personal observations of the partying & academic-slacking syndrome is this (based on both dd's private schoolmates): The students from well-to-do homes WAY underperformed in elem & middle schools, often relying on parents' legacies, or their ability to test well, etc., to get them into excellent private high schools. Once in h.s., they did perform well enough to get into selective colleges of one sort or another. However, once in <em>college</em> they have so far reverted to their elem/middle school underperformance again. This tells me that the school name & the (bare) degree-as-a-ticket is more important to them and their families than the achievement, learning, & growth gained therein. It also tells me that they're more focused on gaming the system than contributing to those environments, at least academically. They understand, or have been told, that sheer legacies don't cut it unilaterally any more, so Daddy having gone to an Ivy League will not in itself admit them. (Have to work in h.s., therefore.) </p>

<p>This is just our experience as a family.</p>

<p>And edad, I totally am in a similar position with regard to D#2. The interesting thing is, we are anything but rich, but D#2 loves a party, & would be lured by that at any college or U in which the excitement is more social than academic. In D#2's case, I think the problem is that she IS extremely bright, & knows just how much she can "get by" with in order to be performing better than her peers. (She tracks how well her peers perform.) She understands that standing out can often earn one an "A" in a relative sense if not an absolute sense. She is not totally driven by such pragmatism & relativism (she also does have a great deal of internal drive & inborn competitiveness), but I have to admit that it is a personality factor. Surely she's not unique in that respect. Some students, particularly those who draw much of their identities from their peer relationships, will be drawn to partying when the temptation is near.</p>

<p>Bottom line: I think the tendency to party is a combination of environmental factors, such as the studies show, and personality factors, rather than some given environment at one college or another. I do think that the "reputation" of a college is important in college choice, in that a student & family have to investigate whether the primary motivation of a large portion of applicants is to party, rather than to study.</p>

<p>And some college students, as noted in the Fiske Guide and in The Insider's Guide, say that isolated campuses are particularly prone to the party syndrome (& drinking), because of absence of alternative distractions in and near campus.</p>

<p>rubyred -</p>

<p>Another look at a post I did not too many days ago:</p>

<p>


</p>

<p>.</p>

<p>Very good points made by all so far. Just want to emphasize that even at top schools there will be athletes and legacy kids who are not way up there in academic ability but who rarely flunk out. The key to not getting in over your head academically is getting good advice in course selection. All courses are not equally demanding at any school. Any admitted student who takes his/her work seriously and puts in the study time, asking for help when needed, should do well enough--non-serious students don't have to worry so much about grades since there's little point in their going on to grad school anyway. My experience of successful grad students is that they are not heavy party-types.</p>

<p>"My experience of successful grad students is that they are not heavy party-types."</p>

<p>Amen, pyewacket. My experience as well. When confronted by peers about perceived lack of academic ambition, undergrad college slackers have often admitted that they are confident of parents' connections to get them to the next step after college graduation. That is usually not even grad school, but straight into a business where a parent has a connection, association, or ownership; alternatively, they may squeak into a lower-level professional school, & from there into a respectable upper-level career track -- again due to parental connections, despite a lackluster reputation of such a professional school. Seen it & heard it of it many times myself.</p>

<p>They believe that they have no need to be worried; hence, the carefree attitude during college, & heavy attention to recreation.</p>

<p>Anyhow, back to the original question. I don't think you have to worry about the "reaches" - if the adcoms take him, he'll be able to do the work. Whether it is the best school for him (or for anyone else) is matter only he (with your help) can decide. And it has a lot more to do with him than it does with the school. </p>

<p>I think your only concern should be a school that offers little or poor academic support. And that would be true if the school was a reach or a safety. (and no matter where he goes, he has a 50% chance of being in the bottom half of the class! ;))</p>

<p>RR - just from a students perspective for you - I applied to MIT as my reach school - and while I was a strong student who loved a challenge, my stats were way below their average - way below (with the exception of my GPA). All I can figure is that they really appreciated my passion and my "unique view of the world," as they admitted me. I loved everything about the school, and while I knew that I would struggle like no tomorrow, I accepted because I love a challenge and I felt that I truly fit in there. To be honest, I have struggled more at this school than ever before in my life, but IT HAS BEEN WORTH IT. Being in the presence of those who are constantly challenging me to be better - and those whose ideas and opinions are so creative and amazing, inspires me to do things I wouldn't have thought of - a reach school may worry parents (it did mine) but if your child is up to the challenge, encourage them - no matter how far out of their reach it seems! :) Just my two cents :)</p>

<p>Rubyred's original question was:
[quote]
If a student has x,y,and z stats and fits well with a,b,and c schools why would that child even consider trying to get into a 'reach' school

[/quote]
I think some of this discussion has deviated from that issue. The question is (I think): having identified schools that are good fits and good matches, is it necessary to also find "reach" schools simply for the sake of aspiring to something more difficult?</p>

<p>The best answer I've seen in this thread is simply that the kid may grow and change over the course of senior year - so it's good to at least have some added choices. (Assuming that the kid gets into the reach)</p>

<p>But I have to say that based on my own experience and on having followed the process over the years since my son entered college, I think the happiest outcomes are the kids who are able to identify good match/fit schools early on. Either they apply to a range of fairly similar schools - get into them all, often with attractive financial aid awards -- or they settle on a first choice and apply early. Can anyone doubt that Carolyn's daughter will do well at Earlham? There's a kid that has done her research early on, figured out where she fit and what she wanted -- and is looking forward to a very relaxed senior year. </p>

<p>The problem with the "reach" is that by definition it is a school that the student probably will not get into -- so simply aspiring to the reach carries the risk of disappointment. The biggest problem is that when looking at "reach" schools, the idea of "fit" generally becomes less important than ranking or prestige -- and instead of defining the school in terms of how it best meets the student's goals, the student is tempted to add more "reach" colleges to the mix under the rationale that a greater number of applications will increase chances of getting in. Or the student ends up applying to the reach school ED, for the strategic advantage that affords -- whether or not that is the best fit. </p>

<p>The irony also - when stats point one direction and aspirations another - is simply that on an objective basis, the stats are probably giving the right answer. I'm not much of a believer in standardized test scores -- but really, to the extent that they have any validity, won't my kids "fit in" the best at a school where their scores are mid-range? It's a little more complicated than that - some kids really do thrive on intense competition, and some kids are much happier in environments where they can quickly claim a position as leader of the pack - and that's a personality factor, not an ability factor. </p>

<p>I do know that as an adult I became a much happier person the day I decided to drop an intensely-competitive career (practicing law) in favor of a more flexible, less competitive but less prestigious career path. That's not to say that I regret my 20 years as a lawyer... its just that there is something to be said for aspiring to "normalcy" rather than having to worry all the time about winning. Given that we all want our kids to be happy, there is something to be said for setting reasonable, attainable goals.</p>

<p>Lightyears ago I read this advice about hiring. (I think it was Robert Haft?) </p>

<p>The three questions that you should ask about the applicant are
CAN s/he do the job?
WILL s/he do the job?
Will s/he FIT in?</p>

<p>It occurs to me to be a simple but good test for college choice as well. Being able to succeed in a high pressure environment is very different from wanting to. Fit is everything.</p>

<p>It seems like there are two ways of looking at this: from Mini's research, it seems that an accepted student at a school with reasonable support services has a very small chance of flunking out. However, a happy college experience is not just about survival; a student who constantly feels in a state of struggle may not be able to avail him/herself of other, wonderful, extra-curricular opportunities. So, it comes down to the student trying to envision their comfort with challenges/pressure, and to prioritize their overall satisfaction over other (prestige) considerations.</p>

<p>The almost universal posting of SAT score ranges make it easy to judge fit from that point of view. But, as others have said many times before here, GPA is just as important for fit. How does one find the middle range of a college's GPA? Some schools provide at least some grade info freely in handouts, such as Northwestern. Sometimes, the US News online rankings have this if I go to the trouble of listing colleges in their comparison rankings. I have no idea if these are weighted or unweighted, though.</p>

<p>I think it was Digmedia whose thread on something like "Scenario for Admissions Disappointment" advised seeking out the admissions record stat sheet from the child's high school. But our school doesn't keep this, probably because they are too embarrassed about what it would say about them.</p>

<p>Someone posted the TJHSST stats, which indicate that even those amazing kids, many with near-1600 SATs (old) need 4.0 GPAs to get into Ivy/Ivy-like colleges. Those were weighted, but not very much.</p>

<p>In fact, it may well be that if a student's GPA is under 3.9, it doesn't matter how high the test scores are, Yale is not a good fit. Does anyone here know of reliable GPA data that would shed light on this?</p>

<p>Xmere - I think you're right. There is another thing that is of primary importance: being high in class rank. Take a look at the percentages of accepted students in the top 10% of the HS class. At Yale, 99% of admitted students were in the top 10%. Now, my son had around a 3.9 unweighted GPA in HS. Yet he was not in the top 10% of his graduating class. The cutoff was somewhere north of 3.9, and most of the top 10% had a 4.0 average.</p>

<p>The main thing to remember though about a school like Yale (or the others in that category) is that your stats can predict that you WON'T be accepted, but your stats cannot predict that you WILL be accepted. Because of the sheer numbers of extremely highly qualified applicants, most of those applying with stellar, outstanding, world-class stats will be rejected.</p>

<p>I think that class rank is more useful than GPA for comparative purposes because of the differences between schools -- some do not weight grades, and some that do weight grades have only very limited AP/Honors offerings. I mean, its silly for me to compare my daughter's 3.9 unweighted GPA with some kid's 4.3 weighted GPA - even if her school did weight, there aren't that many AP classes offered - I don't think would be possible for a kid to take a full schedule and get a 4.3. So when a college does have average GPA reported, I look at it - but I don't give it a lot of credence. Unfortunately, they don't tend to report class rank more narrowly than "top 10%" -- I can draw some conclusions from the stats there, but it would help me even more if they included top 5% and top 2% figures. </p>

<p>Even Yale says to look at rank instead of GPA. Their answer to the question,
"What is the average GPA to get into Yale?" is "Most admitted students are ranked at or near the top of their senior class". See <a href="http://www.yale.edu/asc/guidelines/faq.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.yale.edu/asc/guidelines/faq.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Calmom and Digmedia:</p>

<p>Our school ranks only the top 25 students (this is about the top 5% of the class). They have stopped ranking anyone else, so it is even harder to figure out where a student stands outside those top 25 kids. </p>

<p>Maybe that's the answer, though. If one is not in the top 5%, forget it, speaking of Williams and the like. Assuming no special preferences or something else unusually amazing, I mean.</p>

<p>More and more schools are refusing to rank, but Michelle Hernandez says that colleges still get an approximation from the guidance department (ours is hopeless, but probably that is an aberration).</p>

<p>At the end, though, a kid still has to answer the question, "so why, if you have a 2300+ SAT score, couldn't you get a 4.0?" It's a reasonable question.</p>

<p>Well, some schools are pretty tough in their grading practices - which is where class rank comes in. If you have a 3.8 but are the 2nd ranked kid in a well-respected school .... then you are probably doing pretty well. </p>

<p>But you are right - your school has figured out that kids need to be top 5% to make it into the most competive schools -- or else they need another hook. So to me, I think your school has it right: rank the top 5% to give them the benefit their status affords; don't rank the rest so as not to hurt the others. The kids with other hooks can use them -- and if you aren't top 5% yourself, then you have the information you need. </p>

<p>The answer to the 4.0 question really depends somewhat on the grade pattern. If you have B's only in really challenging courses -- you could simply say, "I chose to challenge myself by taking AP Calculus my sophomore year". But that might not work if you have a pattern of getting A's in the toughest classes, and lower grades in courses that look easier. But they don't really ask that question -- they really are more interested in where you stand in relation to everyone else at your school.</p>

<p>Of all my son's HS friends, all are on track after frosh year to graduate with honors(gpa>3.5) with the exception of the friend which enrolled at a "reach" via early decision. While he enjoyed his frosh year, he is mired with a gpa of 2.75 and has decided to switch from a dual econ/polisci major to history.</p>

<p>BTW, his brother at Amherst, also an ED admittee, rapidly switched from a math to an econ major after frosh year.</p>

<p>Both are very diligent students which were perhaps enrolled in "reaches" which were too challenging for them.</p>