<p>Does anyone wonder if a reach school will be too challenging for your kid? Being a reach school, most of the students attending will have higher stats, so is there any concern that your kid will struggle and become frustrated? I know many if not most like to see their child get into the best school possible...just wondering if anyone gave this any thought.</p>
<p>Often “reach” means everyone else wants to go there so admission is very competitive; its not always (or perhaps even often) that everyone else has meaningfully higher stats. By the time you’re in the top 5 percent of the country in the SAT you can succeed just about anywhere, and thats a 2100 score. Maybe you won’t be the brightest kid they’ve ever had, but you’ll be plenty bright enough not to struggle if you apply yourself.</p>
<p>That’s a great question. Its funny, but watch the movie “The Social Network” and then decide if you really think your child can compete at Harvard. I know that mine would be swallowed whole.</p>
<p>I think it depends on the kid, and how he or she is affected by peers. Would being surrounded by high achieving peers encourage the student to reach higher himself? Or would he be bothered by not being one of the top students? </p>
<p>The most selective schools also tend to have very high graduation rates, and a lot of support services readily available for those who need help (if the student is willing to take advantage of them.) I would be reluctant to send a kid to a reach school that has a reputation for being “sink or swim”, or with low graduation or retention rates.</p>
<p>The reachiest schools aren’t necessarily the most difficult in the country, especially when some of them give almost exclusively A and B grades. I’d be more worried about competing in an extracurricular sense, since admitted students are likely to be truly exceptional newspaper editors, science researchers, charcoal artists, etc.</p>
<p>I’m not just talking about the elite schools…what about mid tiers?</p>
<p>Good post glassesarechic about extracurriculars. You don’t want someone hipchecking you out of the way for something you are passionate about. There is also every type of student at every school. Also remember that reach schools have all types of students there, not just academic stars. Division 1 sports schools have special tutors available for the athletes.</p>
<p>There’s something to be said about not going to a reach school–the old saying “better be a big fish in a small pond”. </p>
<p>Some students are so narrowly focused on their own “thing” and in their own little bubble that they don’t realize there are students out there who are more [select appropriate word] articulate/athletic/intelligent/influential. However, most students have some kind of cognizance of the world around them, and they will inevitably compare themselves to the competition. </p>
<p>I believe that being in a reach school, while certainly challenging, can have substantial drawbacks, especially for those students who aren’t cutthroat, pumped up with inflated egos, or completely immersed in their narrow interests.</p>
<p>I loved the scene in the restaurant where Zuckerberg (Harvard) was arguing with his girlfriend (Boston University). She kept saying she had to go because she had to study, and he kept insisting that she didn’t have to study. Finally she asked him, “Why don’t I have to study?” And he said, matter of factly, “Because you go to BU.”</p>
<p>
That’s a good question. I think everyone should go to the best school they can, but that’s often seen as “the highest ranked” or “the most prestigious” or even “the most academically rigorous.” Really, the best school for one student may not be the best school for another. The formulas for what a student is looking for will vary greatly. For example:</p>
<p>Student A: Northeast or Mid-Atlantic + Big City + Moderate-Fairly Strong Religious Climate + Academic success for a 3.6/2100 student + Strong Philosophy department + Small - mid-sized school + Good social scene without fraternities/sororities</p>
<p>Student B: Mid-West + Less Urban + No religious climate + Academic success for a 3.5/1900 student + Strong Engineering program + large school + Fraternities/Sororities</p>
<p>Student A wouldn’t like Student B’s school and vice versa. The academic difference isn’t enough to cause Student B to fail at Student A’s school, but it may make Student B thrive less than at the proper school.</p>
<p>Returning to the original question, I would say that academic challenges are good, but you have to know where the line is drawn. Should the kid who just got into his reach school (not necessarily a “reach for everyone” or “top school”) because of something non-academic attend? Sure, he’ll probably want to go, but whether he should or not is a question best handled by looking at the academic climate of the school. If the student would be overwhelmed or overworked, it may not be the best choice. If, however, the student has resolved to perform better in college and is determined to do well and loves the school, then it may be the best choice.</p>
<p>A student should always attend the best school possible, it’s just that a school has to be decided as “best” for that student first.</p>
<p>IMO, this is a scenario in which parents’ help is fundamental for a kid’s thriving. It may require a lot of maturity to make a realistic decision when you’ve been offered the moon; this whim should be carefully regulated.</p>
<p>It is a myth that the most elite schools only give As and Bs. Plenty of students are put on academic probation or asked to leave for sub-par grades (under 2.0). With no curves in a highly-gifted and competitive environment, many bright students confront the first Cs of their lives.</p>
<p>To answer the OP’s question–ask yourself if your child would be all right with being in the bottom 25th or 50th percentile. If not, if his happiness is based on his ranking, then the easier academic environment might be a better fit. If he purely seeks academic challenges and a rigorous intellectual climate regardless of grades, then the elite school could be very satisfying to him.</p>
<p>
Key word is “only”. Change that to “mostly” and its true. Here’s an example from Columbia in the Ivy League
And so when the previous poster writes “ask yourself if your child would be all right with being in the bottom 25th or 50th percentile” — that would put her/him in the B+ or A- range at Columbia. Something I think most people wouldn’t see as too onerous.</p>
<p>Maybe it’s not that they have grade inflation, maybe the type of students that attend generally work and study hard enough to get good grades, and the professors don’t feel compelled to give X% Cs, Y% Ds, and Z% Fs.</p>
<p>
Sure, that could explain the grades. But a plausible explanation along these grounds would also need to explain for why students in previous eras weren’t willing to work as hard since its incontestable that average GPA’s have risen over time.
</p>
<p>
As “selective private schools” have grown far more selective (see Harvard’s 1960 admit rate and 2010 admit rate), the academic credentials required to be admitted have grown dramatically. Thus, one might surmise that the average student there now likely got better grades in high school than the average student 50 or so years ago. Since high school grades are the best predictor of college grades (as study/work habits continue), it would only be logical to assume that college grades would rise, too.</p>
<p>If your kid is a humanities kid, you may not want to send him/her to MIT to study Electrical Engineering. However, if your kid is smart and has good study-habits, he/she will do fine in the reach schools to which he/she has been offered admission. These schools are reach because a lot of kids want to go to them, not because the workload is impossible for smart kids with really good study habits.</p>
<h1>15 --That is why Princeton now has put a cap on how many A’s each professor can give out. Is it fair for the high achieving students to know only 20% of the class can receive an A no matter how much they work? What about all the students from bad high schools–are they automatically subject to lower grades since they did not have the advantage of prep schools?</h1>
<p>I agree with BillyMc- if you have 1600 admittees many who were vals, sals, and 2200 plus scorers, isn’t it likely these kids know how to study and deserve their As?</p>
<p>It would seem to me that a reach school will generally have more intelligent peers and a support system in place. A large public school where many of your classmates party much of the time would make it harder to stay on track and do well.</p>
<p>Now it’s true that if you were the math/science wiz kid in a small town and find yourself at CalTech, you should be prepared to perhaps find yourself on the bottom half of the class.</p>
<p>I agree with some other posters-reach doesn’t mean MIT/Yale/Harvard etc. Maybe your child’s reach school has an average GPA upon admission of say low 3s.
It depends on how your child would feel in that situation and whether they would be motivated or discouraged.</p>