<p>I've seen that many students and parents approach college applications the same way they might buy a car or a watch. They would like the "best" (BMW, Rolex) but more realistically expect to buy something in the middle (Honda, Seiko), though through bad luck they might only be able to get something they dont really want (Kia, Timex). When applied to college apps, one gets the "Reach, Match, Safety" paradigm. The reach is a "best" and hard to get into college ('best" being learned from USNWR ranks and prestige), the "match" is a match only in "get in-ability," and the "safety" is a school one would rather not attend but might have to be stooped to. But spending four years at a college is not like wearing a watch. What is missing from this paradigm is the true meaning of "match," which should mean the right fit for the student, and this conclusion is more of an art than a science: Big school or small, urban or rural, Research Univ or LAC, Greek system or not, academic strengths and specialties, what the classroom experience is like, etc., etc. "Reach, Match, Safety" should be replaced by "Match, Match, Match." Why aim for a brand name just so you can be proud of the sticker in your cars rear window? Why apply to any school you would not want to attend? By moving from the concept of getting kids into the "best" school to a concept of finding the "right" schools, we would be doing students a tremendous favor.</p>
<p>Some people do the brand name shopping, but not always. For example, I am very interested in MIT’s business program, but because of my stats, it is a reach for me. Ultimately, if I were accepted, I would probably attend, but that is unlikely, and safety schools tend to be selected for financial reasons or as a last option if someone is rejected from all of their other choices.</p>
<p>This is true of some people, but those people have not properly assembled a college list. “Fit” is a quality that should apply to all schools you apply to, whether reach, match, or safety. Obviously, the schools that you would less prefer to go to probably are not as much of a fit.</p>
<p>True, though. If you are applying to Harvard and MIT just because your guidance counselor told you that you need a balance of “reaches, matches, and safeties,” then you should probably rethink doing so. The admonition is typically intended for people with reach-heavy lists. If people are contented with their matches and safeties (and some are), good for them.</p>
<p>I’d put it differently: there’s nothing wrong with having “reach, match, and safety” schools in temrs of likelihood of acceptance; that’s just being realistic. But the schools you apply to should all be “matches” in the sense of “fit.”</p>
<p>“Reach, match, and safety” shouldn’t be defined in terms of prestige—though loosely speaking, there does tend to be some correlation between difficulty of gaining admission and where the school ranks on the prestige scale. But “reach, match, and safety” should be based on a hard-headed calculation of one’s odds of admission. It does not necessarily indicate the desirability of the school for that applicant. My D1’s first choice school, the one where she applied and was accepted ED, was probably a low reach/high match by the time all her stats were in; we weren’t at all surprised she was accepted because her stats were there and she had all the qualifications the school wanted, but given that college’s relatively low acceptance rate we knew we couldn’t count on it. That made it a bit reachy. There were some other schools on her list that were even reachier—and I suppose many would say, more prestigious—but she just didn’t like those schools quite as well. Still, she liked them well enough that she would have applied, had she not been accepted ED at her first choice. Her second choice was a low match/borderline safety; like her first choice, it earned that spot on her list on the basis of “fit,” not prestige. </p>
<p>IMO, that’s a sensible approach. Far too many people on CC spend too much time chasing prestige. It’s not worth it. Go for fit. And as a few wise posters on CC keep reminding us, “Love thy safety.” A safety should not be a school that you settle for only reluctantly and as a last resort. It should be a school that’s a good fit, and one you’d be happy to attend if you don’t get into more selective schools. It might even be at or near the top of your list of preferences if you’re not suckered into the prestige game.</p>
<p>Personally, if I some how got into a um… BMW, I would relish the world class steering and comfortability. On the other hand, if I somehow got rejected from all of my prospective… Hondas, I would definitely rather drive a Kia than have no car at all. You can’t just assume every Honda will accept you. ?</p>
<p>snarlatron -</p>
<p>“Reach, Match, Safety” doesn’t just apply to admissions, it also applies to affordability. Unless your parents have roughly $300,000 stashed away for you somewhere in a college fund, there is every chance that one of your “Academic Safeties” will be unaffordable without a sizable infusion of need-based and/or merit-based financial aid. Yes, do make sure that every single place on your list is somewhere that you will be happy to attend, but be dead certain that one is truly academically AND financially safe for you. If you can’t find any place like that, spend some time developing a Plan B for the fall after high school graduation.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, if someone’s favorite school happens to be a safety (both admissions and cost), then would s/he apply anywhere else, except possibly another safety in case the admissions and cost estimate of the favorite school is inaccurate?</p>
<p>In a similar vein, it does not seem to make any sense to apply to a reach or match school that one likes less than any of the safety schools.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, it’s a hedging strategy. Applicants’ preferences are rarely set in stone. One might change one’s mind once actual offers (including FA offers) are on the table. And college admissions is a fluky business: a school you might rate a match or safety might unexpectedly reject you or lowball you on FA, while a reachy school you like (just not as well) accepts you and makes you an attractive FA offer.</p>
<p>“Reach, match, safety” refers to odds of getting in – not prestige.</p>
<p>Excellent ideas and many points well taken, especially the financial angle.</p>
<p>I see too many students who are obsessed with admission to their “dream school” but who cannot say why. They do not know much about the school’s surrounding community, they do not know if TAs or Profs will be teaching most of their classes, they do not know if there is a Greek system (or what that means for student life on campus), they do not know what academic departments are strong or weak, or if the dorms are livable. But their lives will be ruined if they are not admitted to these mystery schools. They are apparently in love with the prestigious name alone, probably the result of our brand-name and status obsessed society. I applaud every thoughtful parent and teacher who will guide their kids past the prestige blinders.</p>
<p>Sometimes a reach is about more than just prestige. Career potential comes into play. Take three similar schools–MIT, Carnegie Mellon, and Case Western. All excellent schools, similar size, urban, filled with very smart STEM students. All three would be a fit for the same student, yet one is a reach, one a match, and one a safety. CMU and Case grads do well in employment and grad school admissions, but they can’t compare to MIT. There’s only one MIT. They have more employers recruiting there than almost any college, including all the top tech and finance companies (many of which were founded by MIT grads). Networking is stellar. Your friends will all be highly successful in whatever path they take, and are likely to be improving the world in some way. The MIT diploma is a defacto seal of approval for most employers, indicating this person is extremely smart and works well with others. The MIT grad is also nearly certain to have internship and/or research experience, since MIT is in a class by itself in those areas. I suppose I really don’t need to sell anyone on MIT, but the point is that sometimes the reach school is about more than the window sticker.</p>
<p>Oh please. The vast majority of MIT students aren’t “changing the world.” they’re living everyday normal lives and working at generally good jobs. Let’s not oversell what the vast majority of elite school grads do.</p>
<p>
Made in Taiwan? Does this one count?</p>
<p>
Name one?</p>
<p>
You mean that MIT is in the area of Boston by itself.</p>
<p>I can see people try to mystify MIT and Harvard by imagination. :)</p>
<p>You know, it’s pretty insulting that you assume that “reach” is all about the sticker-value. My kids want to go to reach schools for the same reasons that make the schools such a reach: they’re excellent schools, with great teachers and excellent facilities and a peer group that will inspire and challenge them. My kids have stats that make them excellent candidates for those schools. Why should I try to dissuade them from trying to go to such a school, just because those schools happen also to be prestigious? I would agree that the whole reach/match/safety thing is a rather outmoded idea, in this wildly competitive market, but that’s more because the rate of acceptance even for qualified candidates is so low, and acceptance has become so subjective, that it is very hard to find a school with acceptance rates high enough to be considered a safety, that a student whose standards are set by, say, Williams, would like as much as Williams. Not because of the prestige value, for heaven’s sake, but because Williams is a damn good school. You name me an equivalent small LAC, with students and a program on a par with Williams, and an acceptance rate higher than even 50%, and I will encourage my kids to look at it. Academic fit, for someone with high stats, pretty much guarantees a selectivity that disqualifies “safety” or even match status. </p>
<p>And I think there are at least as many kids posting on these boards who have, in fact, cogent and compelling reasons to dream of their reaches, specifically, as there are the kind of clueless prestige grubber you are characterizing the majority to be. Yes, there are some who list all the ivies, first off, in a reflexive gesture without regard to the nature of the individual schools, and I think they will have an unpleasant awakening, but in fact, that is partly what this forum is for.</p>
<p>Prestige and good programs tend to go hand-in-hand. I challenge you to name a school with a world-class program that doesnt have any sort of prestige.</p>
<p>I think the confusion here is what match means. Does it mean</p>
<p>1) Based on my profile and the competitiveness of the school, do I have a reasonable chance of gaining admission to the school?</p>
<p>or</p>
<p>2) If I do get into the school can I keep pace with my cohorts, do well academically and socially and graduate in a reasonable period of time?</p>
<p>or</p>
<p>3) If I get into the school, do I have a fair chance of getting aid and scholarships that will make the school affordable?</p>
<p>What OP is meaning is #2. For example a student goofed off in the first two years of HS and got a low GPA and joined a Flagship State U may have do very well in Cornell, Rice or such a school, had he/she got admission. So Cornell/Rice was match from definition # 2 but not a match from say definition #1, as he/she was not competitive.</p>
<p>To most people on CC, Match is #1.</p>
<p>Couldn’t agree more with bclintonk in post #4.</p>
<p>Fitting is the most important factor. If it’s the right fit (academics, financial, location, weather, size, social, etc.), then it’s a match. Going for anything that is not a fit is a waste of money and time.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Except that for many people it is. If it’s at the top of the USNews ratings, it must be the school for me.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And the same could be said about hundreds of colleges and universities that are not in the sub-50% admissions realm.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I wouldn’t dissuade them, but neither would I push them. I would encourage them to look at a variety of schools - size, location, selectivity - and find some that appeal to them. I would make sure there are safeties on their list. If there are reach schools, that’s fine, but I sure wouldn’t insist on it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What programs are your kids interested in, and what OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE do you have that kids who go to Williams get a better education in that specific program than do kids that attend less selective schools? (Hint: USNews rating is not objective evidence of educational quality, nor is admission rate.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, I’ve only been posting here a couple of months, and I don’t claim to read even all the current posts, but I’ve yet to see any posts with “cogent and compelling reasons to dream of their reaches.” I have seen posts asking for information about the quality of specific programs at specific schools, and posts asking about what schools have good programs in specific areas. But mostly I’ve seen a lot of copy-and-paste from the USNews website, perhaps filtered by geographical location. But I have not personally seen a single post that says, “I want to go to Williams [or Harvard or Harvey Mudd or Berkeley] because it has a great program in ____________, AND HERE’S WHY that program is a great one AND THE RIGHT ONE FOR ME.” (Yes, I have seen posts from alums with that kind of information, but not from prospective applicants.)</p>
<p>I’m sure there are exceptions, but I’m convinced that for most applicants, the main advantage of a super-prestigious college or university is the decal it lets mommy or daddy put in the back window of the Navigator.</p>
<p>One thing that’s always seemed odd to me is when people feel compelled to pick safeties that are less-competitive versions of their reach and match schools. I mean if you’re not going to get into a school that you think you’d like a LOT (i.e., reach and match schools), why stay wedded to that same type but in a watered-down form? </p>
<p>Why not consider a safety which is a whole different type but has some attractive non-academic factors (such as a beautiful campus, good weather, a famous name, bigtime sports, closeness to an interesting city or historical sites, or closeness to skiing or beaches) that make it more than just an easier version of the reach and match schools?</p>