<p>Every year, hundreds of thousands of qualified and overqualified students apply to 2nd-tier and 3rd-tier schools denoted as “safeties,” the home base if schools in the gray zone don’t work out. But in this day and age where being the overqualified candidate has become the norm, how safe are the safeties?</p>
<p>Speaking from my 1-hour-old experience, applying whimsically to a safety school can result in further anxiety, especially if everyone else who applied has gotten in. In my case, I know a good many people who’ve been accepted, but whose stats are perhaps not as glorious on paper as mine are. (I’ve been waitlisted.) </p>
<p>At this point, I open two topics up for discussion: </p>
<li>Have safeties truely become less safe? Is there any way to wholly depend on admittance to a school just because of its ranking and average admitted student SAT score?<br></li>
</ol>
<p>…which segueways into my next question…</p>
<li>Is it possible that these schools admit candidate whom they believe are more likely to matriculate? For example, if a safety were relatively low on my list but high on another student’s, do you think the safety could somehow sense that and accept the latter student?<br></li>
</ol>
<p>Thanks for your ideas. I’m actually pretty calm right now - I’ve already been admitted to one of my top 10 choice schools. I am a little perturbed, though, and I wonder about this whole demoralizing admissions game.</p>
<p>Often, especially at private colleges, the amount of interest expressed in the school,by visiting, etc. will be taken into account in making the decision.. Moreover waitlist is a common way to protect yield. You may be asked whether you want to stay on the wait list after April 1, when you'll have heard from other colleges. If you get into schools you'd prefer to attend, you won't return the card. If you return it, the school will assume that you didn't get into your reaches or didn't get enough aid,so you really are interested. In other words,the answer to your second is yes.</p>
<p>First, I'm glad the question is academic for you, Frecklybeckly, since you've been admitted to one of your preferred schools. Congrats!</p>
<p>As far as safeties go, I think, based on the increasingly mercurial nature of college admissions, that it's time to redefine what a safety is. I think that to qualify as a safety, a school needs to pass two tests: 1) It should be a school for which the student has stats in the top 25% according to US News, and 2) it should accept roughly 50% or more of its applicants. Over the last few weeks, so many kids on these boards have been surprised to have been waitlisted or rejected by what they call their "safeties" -- including schools like Wash U and Carleton. Schools like those, in fact I think any school with admission rates of 40% or less, are safeties for NOBODY. There are just too many variants in the process. At best they are matches.</p>
<p>I think there is a lot of misunderstanding regarding what a safety school should be. </p>
<p>IMHO, no selective private U should be viewed as a safety. Some are quite sensitive about being treated as such, and will look carefully at measures of interest etc, in order to identify and reject (or WL) kids they suspect of treating the school as a safety. Not all do this, but it is tough to know in advance which will and which won't.</p>
<p>It is much better to identify a State U or two as a safety, where the admissions process is rather numbers driven and there is no obsession with yield. </p>
<p>This topic has been a top one for a few years. The WSJ even had an article about 3 years ago that mentioned Franklin Marshall rejecting over qualified kids for the above reasons.</p>
<p>I am very much in favor of choosing a state school as a safety -- one that has rolling admissions. The added bonus of doing that is that if you submit your application early (which you should anyway with schools that accept on a rolling basis) you get an early answer, and possibly an invitation to an honors college within the university. Really takes the pressure off.</p>
<p>I agree. I think state schools are the wisest choice in terms of choosing a safety. I have been accepted to a rolling admissions state school already, and I'm very happy I chose to apply. </p>
<p>In terms of private safety schools, I was considering ones that had a 40% admissions rate or higher. In past years, this type of admit rate was safe for students with many qualifications. Only recently, imo, has the competition become this stiff for college, let alone safeties.</p>
<p>wjb - Agree with you and am very saddened when I see a kid rejected from "safeties" like Babson, BU, Pitzer and applying to more selective schools than that for their matches etc. Where did they get their guidance? In some cases, they state outright that their GC "stinks" and I'd have to agree.</p>
<p>Some schools have made it explicit, or at least they allow guidebooks to say(Lehigh comes to mind), that they are trying to weed out those who clearly are using them as safeties for their HYPS etc. plans. So if they can ferret out that, in their estimation, your stats-expressions of interest-list of where you applied add up to using them as safety, it could hurt you.</p>
<p>My resounding second to the above ideas is: A safety is [ul][<em>]a school where your stats are in the top 25% [</em>]the school admits a High percentage of applicants (at least 50%) and [<em>]has rolling or non-binding early admissions, so you can breathe easier knowing your safety truly is safe [</em>]a school you would be happy to attend (I currently know a sr admitted to 2 safeties who doesn't seem to want to go to either and so far no luck with match/reach)[/ul]</p>
<p>Finally, a "safety" can also be a safety/match (lower admissions % than above) if you apply early or rolling and can have it in the bag. But you can't choose that kind of school and wait until April to hear, when it's too late to alter your application strategy.</p>
<p>FB [<em>love</em> your screen name], I think you raise some penetrating questions, & the 3 replies below your opening post are also excellent. I would have loved to have seen that WSJ article re: overqualification. I would trust the info in it; I would just wonder if that continues to be operative for all or most (even private) colleges. My own D, & I know many on this board, have been thrown (LOL- hurled!) offers by many a college in the last 2 yrs -- yes, definitely many of these are publics (UT, etc.), but there have been several privates as well, for which I would think the college would know the student was way overqualified. Perhaps the latter could be explained by a college looking for students in a particular major/emphasis -- or to broaden its regional representation? (This was not the usual marketing after the PSAT business; more particular scholarship offers, etc. within the last 6-10 months)</p>
<p>I think the term "mercurial" is apt. The people that I know of who have been rejected (not w/listed, not deferred) from college choices this year have definitely not been overqualified for those colleges. Based on the colleges' own stats of last year, these were matches for these students. Based on the admissions (published stats) <em>this</em> year for '05-06, these same colleges have morphed into reaches. One year is a short time frame for a "quantum" development. Scary. Makes me anxious for my younger D & her own planning.</p>
<p>My definition of a safety school is a school that</p>
<p>1) is pretty much certain to admit my kid, based on its known behavior in acting on admission applications,</p>
<p>2) has a strong program in an area my kid is interested in,</p>
<p>3) is affordable based on its known behavior in acting on financial aid applications,</p>
<p>and</p>
<p>4) is likeable to my kid.</p>
<p>The state university in my state fits those characteristics for my oldest son. It pretty much admits people "by the numbers," and is not known to reject applicants who are successful in the accelerated secondary math program my son is now enrolled in there.</p>
<p>Of course, we will consider and apply to other schools as well. I took my son to college information meetings this school year, seeing representatives from most of the "top" schools in the country that are also strong in his chosen field. It's hard to say what will be a match for him, but it's pretty easy already to say which school will be his (one) safety school. He can apply to State U. by rolling admission before even the earliest early action deadlines, so when he applies anywhere else he can apply with confidence.</p>
<p>frecklybeckly, tokenadult, wjb--in our experience, you are right. October admittance to a reasonable safety was extremely helpful for peace of mind when dealing with the other, more trying parts of our process.</p>
<p>Wjb, excellent definition of a safety. Token, I like yours as well. Jmmom, I felt the exact way you did when I read of someone on the college admissions who considered BU and Babson safeties even though his stats were pretty much typical for their admits. The fact that he was so CONVINCED he would get in that his parents bought a condo in Boston just took my breath away. Even a "safety" isn't a REAL safety until you're actually IN.</p>
<p>No adcom likes to feel that their school is a safety school to the applicant. I have found that many kids just do not put the time and interest in their safety or match schools, and just overexude interest and visits to their reaches. Many of those reaches do not care a whit about demonstrtated interest. My son did not visit or interview for Yale, and he was accepted. Another kid at his school threw in a last minute app to Cornell and just found out he is accepted, and he did not visit or interview. He spent a lot of time wooing his first two choices which were ED and ED2 schools, and was rejected from both schools despite the time he spent on them. He was also waitlisted to a "match" school where he did visit but I am sure that his lack of enthusiasm really showed in this case as he did not like the school and felt it was a safety rather than match and had no interest in going there. Any conversation with him when the subject came up would show that in an instant, and I'll bet that the school picked up on it as well, He was just going through the paces interviewing and visiting that school. Kids are a lot more transparent than they think, and a skilled adcom can smell most unethusiastic applicants in a heartbeat. It might be as easy as 1-2-3 to apply on line, no fee to a school just to have another option, but you are going to have to then do the work to convince the school that it is a real choice. I recommended a number of schools to a friend of my S who was in trouble in December when all his rolling and early schools rejected him. I can pretty much tell which ones are going to take him at this point (well, some of them any ways) and I think there are two where he should get in and may not because he did not bother to visit or send anything special to them or request a regional rep or ask about any visits from the school reps in his area. Not good when all you did was send in the app. I am pretty sure he would have gotten in if he had just visited as he seems to be a good interviewer and was truly open about his options. But these two schools were last on the list and he ran out of time to visit as he is gone during spring break. I see this happen a lot. I have known a number of kids accepted at schools that kids swear have the "Tufts syndrome", including Tufts when the schools well knew that the kids were good candidates at more selective schools and had applied there. But they could give the schools a good reason why they would do well at their school in one of their programs, and so they were not denied.</p>
<p>I think the term "safety" is a turn off for a lot of kids. I've seen this with my own daughter - every time I tell her that a school might be a safety, she looses interest because she thinks that "safety" implies "inferior." I've taken to using the term "Good bet" with her instead and that seems to help her keep her mind open about different possibilities.</p>
<p>carolyn: we think alike. I was using the term 'safety' with my S and only received grunts and rolled eyes in return. So now, the new term is 'Great Shot' (school), as in you have great shot at acceptance.</p>
<p>thats smart thinking carolyn
"safe" to our "fear factor" culture- sounds boring-unchallenging and mediocre.
A cautionary tale
* I have a niece who attended one of the top suburban high schools in the area- she did very well was fawned over by her teachers and graduated with excellent scores and stats from the International Baccalurate program. She and her parents took to heart that she would go very far- and although she applied to 8 schools , 6 of them were Ivies- one was an instate public university that she wouldn't be caught dead at & one was a top liberal arts college.
Alas, only two schools recognized her potential- and she "chose" to go to the top liberal arts college, where she did very well , graduating 4 years later Phi Beta Kappa & magna cum Laude. Surely graduate schools would be fighting over her decision. * If not grade inflation nationwide is even higher than I realized * However, not everyone learns from prior experience, and she only applied to top schools ( UPenn- Ann- Arbor...) and none of them offered her a place to study*</p>
<p>Very disappointing but I am hoping they will * pay attention to the aunt - this time!* and instead of having her take a year off to earn money at Mervyns as she has been doing summers- she spends time doing something that will get her out in the public more- like going on a mission. It is actually something that she wants to do- and I think for this young woman- it could be a great experience.</p>
<p>Along the lines of eliminating the word "safety" in favor of "great shot, good bet". </p>
<p>Our GCs do not use the term "match". they call it "50/50". The value of this is becoming more and more clear to me as this month's decisions roll in. </p>
<p>I am seeing families (from other schools) where the kids are not getting in to their "matches." To the parents, and the kid, that word meant they would get in. I tell them that, Yes, the kid is a match, but there are twice as many others who are a match as there are places. These people are thinking that "match" = "in." Oops.</p>
<p>A whole new vocab might be in order, or a "scale" - 90% chance, 50/50, less than 25%...</p>
<p>I am more and more distressed at how many of the bad outcomes in April could have been averted with quality guidance. Those of us who have it at the HS, who discovered cc on time, who have their own expertise... are so fortunate. So, so sad for the others.</p>
<p>My son's school seems to try to avoid the terms reach, safety and match too. There are unlikely schools (your chance is a longshot), maybe schools (your stats "match" and your chances are 50/50), likely schools (chances are close to 80% you'll get in) and very likely schools (chances are close to 100%). I think this is a good idea - labelling a school a "reach" almost seems to encourage you to take a shot, and these days a match school may not admit you purely because of large #'s of apps. And safety is too pejorative.</p>
<p>(We were also told many times that no school could truly be considered a safety, even if your chances were "very likely", unless the student had visited the school.)</p>
<p>Even state universities which may have been considered safety schools change over time. Our hometown univeristy, Univ Calif at Santa Barbara had long been a safety school especially for students from our area. I had an admissions officer tell me 10 years ago that "we take care of our local kids." Unfortunately that has changed, and my children all have friends who have ended up at the local community college because they did not get into their "safety-UCSB". UCSB has become so much more competitive over the past five years, that neither the school counselors nor the students "scuttlebutt" seems to have kept up with the admissions race. Unfortunately, our state universities are not rolling admissions, so when the kids find out, it is usually too late to apply somewhere else. The high school guidance counselors really need to get their acts together.</p>
<p>A lot of schools that used to be safeties aren't really safties anymore. For instance, NYU used to be a safety school for those who didn't get into the Ivies. However, now NYU is has become a "most selective" college, which only admits roughly 30% of those accepted. </p>
<p>As far as today's "safeties," a lot of them do waitlist candidates who they feel are overqualified and won't attend if accepted.</p>
<p>jrpar - I like that rubric. Would be great if it caught on, at least here on cc. It much better expresses how the admission chances work, I'm guessing. And it makes students and their families think a bit deeper in selecting colleges.</p>