<p>For the juniors and younger students (repost from another board):</p>
<p>For most of you on this site, the reach/match/safety paradigm DOES NOT APPLY. This paradigm only applies for those you consider "lower achievers". At a school with an average SAT of 1000, the acceptance rate will probably be at least 70%, anyone with sufficiently high grades and scores is probably guaranteed admission, the nonacademic factors (extracurriculars, the mood of the admissions officer, the temperature in Scottsbluff, Nebraska, etc.) are MUCH LESS important, and someone with an SAT combined score of 1000 will probably be admitted. But at a school with an average SAT of 1500, the acceptance rate will be quite low, the admissions process is much more unpredictable, and even the majority of those with a perfect 1600 will be rejected. Schools with an average SAT of at least 1400 AND an acceptance rate of at least 70% are about as common as Hilary Duff fans who like to smash beer cans against their foreheads. Thus, top students have no schools that fit the definition of "match".</p>
<p>For the higher achievers like most of you, there are really only two categories: "Sure Bets" and "Other".</p>
<p>And yet I know of a girl who batted 1.000--seven acceptances after seven applications--in applying to Harvard, Princeton, MIT, Caltech, U Chicago, and two other schools whose names escape me. She did NOT have a 1600 (although her SAT I score was almost that high) and she is NOT someone with an ethnic hook or geographical hook, nor is she a recruited athlete. She just had really, really, really strong academic preparation before she applied, which gained her some national-level EC recognitions. The only kind of rejection I can imagine for an applicant like that is a "Tufts syndrome" rejection by a school that thinks it has no chance of getting her to matriculate. </p>
<p>Now, whether I'll ever have a child like that in MY family is another story, but I think that there are applicants who are in the "match" category even at the most sought-after schools.</p>
<p>"or most of you on this site, the reach/match/safety paradigm DOES NOT APPLY. This paradigm only applies for those you consider "lower achievers". "</p>
<p>Not at all true. The people with the low stats can apply to some of the many colleges that take virtually all comers until their freshman class fills up. After all, there are plenty of open admissions colleges. The low stat people aren't trying to get into places like HPYS, just community colleges and low ranked public and private 4-year colleges.</p>
<p>"For the higher achievers like most of you, there are really only two categories: "Sure Bets" and "Other"."</p>
<p>Not true. Just look at high achieving folks on CC boards who got no acceptances. In some cases, this was because they applied to only reach schools and safety/match schools. The safety/match schools rejected them because of either lack of perceived interest or because the applicants had stats so high above the colleges' average that the college doubted the students would attend.</p>
<p>As for the student that tokenadult described, my guess that if the student lived in the Midwest and applied to East Coast colleges, the student benefited greatly from the colleges' desire for geographic diversity. If the student had lived in the NE, the student probably would not have done as well because the Northeastern top universities and LACs are flooded with similar applicants.</p>
<p>Wait a minute jhsu I think youre saying Hilary Duff fans don't enjoy smashing beer cans on their foreheads. How else would they spend their time?</p>
<p>What you say may apply to the majority of kids, but what you are not taking into account is that leaves many kids who are not in the MAJORITY. You really want to cover the worst case scenario when you go through this process unless you decide instead that repeating it next year, or scrambling through the pieces is a better alternatives. There are really a pretty sizeable number of kids who were terribly disappointed this year, as they are each year.</p>
<p>There are only a few kids (none I know personally) who have NO acceptance for next year. THe biggest issues seems to be that kids did not put enough thought into their safety pick as they were just going through the motions of adding that school (sometimes they just picked any ol' school) as a safety. They had no thought that they would be stuck with that choice. Had they looked at the process more realistically they may have some more palatable choices at this time. What I see high achievers doing too many times is that they carefully cherry pick their top choices, nurture them, imagine themselves there, visit there, talk about those schools, research them, and ignore the safety that the gc or parents insist they throw in there. I remember when we lived in Westchester, how several kids were devastated at the thought of going to a SUNY they just threw in the mix when their other highly selective choices did not pan out. If the SUNY choice was so deplorable to them, there were hundreds of other schools out there that would have fit them better and were not as selective as their choice schools, and they could have been on the list if those kids had spent more time looking in that category, and understanding that those schools may well be what the choices are. Even for top students the most selective schools can be lottery tickets. Yes, there is that rare bird accepted to all the ivies, little ivies, Stanford, Duke and Hopkins too, but there are too many kids with similar stats denied by all of them, now looking at Safety U with total disdain. Some did apply to what they perceived as safeties, but are selective schools that required more courting than these kids gave, and they were denied. My son' s counselor told me that a number of kids were turned down at Skidmore, Connecticut College, Wheaton who should have been shoo ins but they did not bother to show any interest in those school and they do count demonstrated interest heavily.</p>
<p>< The low stat people aren't trying to get into places like HPYS, just community colleges and low ranked public and private 4-year colleges.></p>
<p>I'm talking about the "lower achievers" looking at the slightly competitive colleges. For someone with an SAT of 1100 and a similar GPA and class rank, the college with a class average of 1200 and acceptance rate of 50% would be a "reach", the college with a class average of 1100 and an acceptance rate of 60% would be a "match", and the state school that only requires an SAT of 1000 would be a safety.</p>
<p>< "For the higher achievers like most of you, there are really only two categories: "Sure Bets" and "Other"."</p>
<p>Not true. Just look at high achieving folks on CC boards who got no acceptances. In some cases, this was because they applied to only reach schools and safety/match schools. The safety/match schools rejected them because of either lack of perceived interest or because the applicants had stats so high above the colleges' average that the college doubted the students would attend. >
My point exactly!</p>
<p>Any school with the Tufts Syndrome is NOT a "safety" for ANYONE. But for someone with stats much above such a school's class average, it can't be considered a "match" or "reach" either. So it's in the category of "other".</p>
<p>I know of a student with perfect scores, stellar academics, and National achievements in Multiple areas--who was not accepted to his first choice school. Seems unbelievable, but it happens, and just goes to show that NO ONE can count on acceptance at the reachiest of schools. </p>
<p>For the highest achieving students, even if you call schools "matches" for them, remember that some cc posters and high schools define matches as 50/50s, and so there is a chance of getting in, or not, whether or not it SEEMS likely. </p>
<p>Another great morsel of CC wisdom is that there are sooo many high- achieving applicants, and soooo many THOUSANDS of applicants at the top schools, that just by numbers alone, one can see it is best to not count on anything. </p>
<p>Have a good list of various types of schools, ALL of which the student would be happy to attend. If a student wants to try for schools where admissions are competitive, try. That is, after all, the only way to maybe get in. But to avoid pain, bitterness, and looking back instead of rejoicing in the acceptances that DO come, really know and like at least several schools and realize how very fortunate we are to have so many great schools to choose from.</p>
<p>Re: post #3, the student I mentioned in post #2 applied from a northeastern state that floods colleges every year with applications, which is why I said she had no geographical hook. </p>
<p>And, editing here to reply to other good points made by Northstarmom and Jamimom and others, by all means plan an application list from the "safety" school(s) up, as all experienced parents advise. In my state, for the interests of my oldest son, the safety school is our state university. It offers pretty much a sure bet for getting in, has no "Tufts syndrome" tendency like Wesleyan or other schools to reject "overqualified" applicants, and it offers strong, affordable programs in what he is interested in. The profile he develops over the next few years, especially his grades in graded outside classes and distance learning classes, will determine what is a "match" and what is a "reach" for him. His interests and desires at the time will determine where he applies, but I will be on the sidelines reminding him to apply to the safety school.</p>
<p>I'm not sure if that the example you're thinking of was a clear case of "Tufts Syndrome". You're referring, of course, to the prospective film major who had a Harvard legacy and was accepted at HYP, Brown, UCLA, NYU, Hopkins and Vassar, but, inexplicably rejected at Wesleyan. I think in that particular case, it was not only obvious that he would have gone somewhere else (I was thinking Harvard, but, he wound up at NYU), but, that even if he came to Wesleyan he would not have been happy there. It was clear he was only interested in studying one thing: film; and even then, ONLY interested in the production end. He would have chafed under the amount of reading and writing required to earn his degree and under Wesleyan's liberal arts appproach in general. In a situation like that, I see nothing wrong with giving his place to someone else, especially in a popular program like Film Studies.</p>
<p>I interpreted the OP's comments to mean that with the deluge of qualified applicants--- reachs and matches can not be counted on based on traditionals rules of thumb related to being in a certain SAT range. I think thats a good point .</p>
<p>If you build your list from the top down, the logic presented by the OP applies. But, if you build your list from the safety up, it doesn't. A 1600 SATer with a 4.0 might erroneously consider Brown, Penn, Cornell or Dartmouth a safety. Of course, this would reflect someone with "book smarts and no common sense". 1600s must have safeties - REAL safeties......and these safeties are NOT the "lesser Ivies" (to be painfully particular in picking apart the Ivies/top LACs - I'm gagging myself).</p>