<p>Neither Hopkins or Chicago is a safety for these students. My older son had much more than these credentials and was accepted by Chicago but outright rejected by Hopkins. It could have gone the other way. He applied to 5 Ivies and was accepted by one. The ONLY TRUE SAFETY for this student is the honors program of his STATE UNIVERSITY. Do not neglect to shoot one of your applications that way. Other than your state U, a school can turn you down for any reason. State U honors programs wind up with some fantastic students by default.</p>
<p>A reach school is a school where you are most likely to be rejected. It's fine to say that Chicago is not a safety, but to tell a student that it is def. a reach is not fine; unnecessary stress is quite annoying.</p>
<p>Katdc87, </p>
<p>It is apparent that you use a different definition of reach than most of us do. That probably accounts for some of the differences in opinioin here.</p>
<p>Most of us would include what you describe as a reach school, a probable reject, in our definition of reach, but would think of it more broadly. We tend to think of a school that't a slam dunk, usually a numberically driven decision, as a safety; a school with a high probability of admission, usually because the applicant's stats are in the top quartile of the pool, as a probable, and anything else as a reach.</p>
<p>Some schools are widely known as reaches for everyone. </p>
<p>Those of us who have seen a few cohorts go through the process know that Chicago is in the reach category for everyone - see the long list of examples above. </p>
<p>If you really find differing opinions annoying, please go argue somewhere else than the parents forum. We don't need petty debates. You don't have to agree with our opinions, but you also don't have to post here.</p>
<p>This is a website devoted to petty debates.</p>
<p>In this case, I would argue in favor of slightly larger state schools that offer a great education:</p>
<p>University of Delaware
University of Maryland
Ohio University
University or Colorado
University of Illinois-Urbana-Champ.</p>
<p>Two students rejected by UChicago in S's HS class were accepted at Princeton and Duke respectively. I think what folks are saying is that relying on a 4 in 10 chance of getting in still means there is a 6 in 10 one won't get in, especially given Chicago's not by the numbers approach. A safety should be just that, as sure of a bet as one can make.</p>
<p>I never said Chicago was a safety. I just said it isn't a definite reach.</p>
<p>"I never said Chicago was a safety. I just said it isn't a definite reach."</p>
<p>Geesh.</p>
<p>Maybe you could turn such hair splitting into an admissions essay. And do us a favor, save it for the adcoms.</p>
<p>I don't believe we have enough info about the OP to predict outcomes, but IF a category is discussed, I think that the most accurate place to put Chicago would be <em>neither</em> reach nor safety, but match. And since we know that a match school can go either thumbs-up or thumbs-down in the final analysis (given the true hair-splitting process in admissions, even qualitatively speaking), it is still important for the student to add one or 2 safeties. Today's match can be tomorrow's (literally) reach, due to the unknown factor of the pool of fellow applicants & what they bring to the table. This happened by the dozen in the recent cycle -- with match schools in the Northeast morphing into reaches overnight.</p>
<p>It is very possible that Chicago is match for a student with these stats, but virtually no college or U these days admits by stats alone. Some weigh stats more than others; some "guarantee" admission for a certain numerical record. (Usually that's a Public, but many publics, such as UC, review comprehensively & routinely reject high-stat students without "extras.") If anyone thinks that Chicago is unique in its "holistic" or qualititative admissions approach,then UChicago's marketing people are possibly WAY, WAY underpaid.</p>
<p>"If anyone thinks that Chicago is unique in its "holistic" or qualitative admissions approach, then UChicago's marketing people are possibly WAY, WAY underpaid."</p>
<p>Epiphany, I could not agree more with your above statement.</p>
<p>No, Chicago is not unique in its holistic approach, but does have its own unique holistic approach, as do others. It is looking for certain things in its students, others look for different things in theirs. This is why "numbers" only gets one so far in the prediction game. A match at these schools must match those intangibles as well as the numbers, that is why it is best to assume "reach" unless one really thinks one has truly communicated one's fit for the college.</p>
<p>Yes, as epiphany said, admissions is a hair-splitting process!! There is quite a difference between a match and a reach school, and one would think that you would know this. I guess you don't. :(</p>
<p>Yes, we do. Unlike you, we have experience with the process.
Let us know in April, where you got accepted. Meanwhile, stop being so offensive.</p>
<p>Posts from student CC'ers, including even on PF, are often far more spare than their actual understanding would reveal. Many, if not most, do understand that the intangibles in an appl. are an imp. element. Many CC students post stats as the focus because they realize that those are often a portal to getting the essay & other elements even considered by an adcom. Sure, not all of the students here have the same comprehensive understanding, but do not assume that the brevity signifies brief knowledge. (Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't.)</p>
<p>My comments regarding the match category were meant with that assumption: that the OP may have well understood that qualitative features matching that institution would necessarily have to be apparent as well. (I assumed that the OP just might have known that one must "have truly communicated one's fit for the college.")</p>
<p>I also said specifically that I didn't think we had enough information (i.e., intangibles & communication of fit) to make a judgment about the OP, but that based on stats alone, a Match for Chicago would be the closest of the 3 categories. All my statements were contingency statements.</p>
<p>Numbers "only gets one so far in the prediction game" at almost every school in the nation except those Publics who specifically state that numbers provide in-State "guarantees." In some States a State University is accessible by numbers alone, but not the higher-level University. Therefore, in this respect, The University of Chicago is in the majority among the pool of 4-yr institutions, not in the minority. The fact that "what it looks for" in an applicant is different from what College X or University Y looks for is hardly earth-shattering information.</p>
<p>I guess I would throw this back to the OP at this point, & advise any student to figure out what you want in a U, & search for, apply to, those colleges & U's which fit your needs & wants. Your application (beyond your stats) will probably then naturally reflect your match with that institution, without extremes of effort or contrivances. (aka The carolyn Strategy). The College Search & Selection Forum is sometimes a better place to start than Chances, Admissions, or PF.</p>
<p>As to the earlier point--the fact that certain students have been accepted from (certain) Ivies but rejected from Chicago-- that is not an indication necessarily that Chicago was an academic reach for such students, or that such students were not in other ways worthy to attend, had not a holistically satisfactory profile for Chicago, etc. Nor is it any proof that Chicago "requires" more in the way of its admitted students than do LAC's, Ivies, or competitive Publics, or that it supposedly looks more carefully at a student than any other institution does. It may very well, however, prove one of 3 things, in any particular such admissions disparities:</p>
<p>(i) it may indicate that Chicago was an enrollment-management reach for that student vs. the judgment from another college, or vs. the funding status of a competing college.</p>
<p>(ii) it may indicate that Chicago, with its extremely liberal (unrestricted) EA policy, was playing Yield games with that student, whom it may have seen as more likely to matriculate to a college with a better fit -- <em>particularly</em> if the student had very high stats.</p>
<p>(iii) it may indicate that Chicago had an unusually high number of very similar category of applicants as to Major of interest, geography, or some other classification, & thus there was an unlucky arbitary aspect to rejection for which other categories of students were not so affected. [similar reason why one applicant could be accepted to H but not to Y, etc.]</p>
<p>Setting aside athletes & celebrities & extraordinary artistic talents (such as celebrities in the arts who enrolled in 4-yrs. after reaching celebrity status), JHU, the Ivies, etc. want to enroll true scholars & true achievers -- just like Chicago does. That is why it is slightly more believable to me that an admissions disparity would be the result of one of the 3 above reasons than that the same applicant would be considered "not qualified enough" for Chicago, or that Chicago has a supposedly higher standard than other top tier schools in the country.</p>
<p>It is also possible that the applicant wrote a great application for one school & a lousy application for Chicago -- just less likely, i.m.o. that there would be such an marked disparity.</p>
<p>I don't believe anyone mentioned a higher standard at Chicago, just a different one. From published comments from Chicago admissions officials they do not attempt to enroll a class, but instead, a Chicago profile student. This is not to say others do not want scholars or achievers, only that Chicago has a particular slant on what that is in their environment. One may communicate a profile that matches one school and not another and still be an outstanding student. That is one of the reasons the prediction game is so difficult.</p>
<p>I wasn't talking to you, marite. I'm responding to nmd, not you, so no need to be offended.</p>
<p>I know you were not talking to me, but your general tone is not very courteous.</p>
<p>Although the process may not be random; to the prospect, the process appears to be random because he does not know the true criteria. So what about those HS that have a high rate of successful placement into top tier schools-do they have an advantage because they KNOW the criteria?</p>
<p>I wish to thank you for your formula. Immediately went to library to verify the statement. {never take a something for granted, do your analysis} I admit my statistics was and still is not very good and I'm somewhat making headway. Came across a book that I read 2-3 years ago and now re-reading about statistics, What the Numbers Say, Niederman and Boyum. Easy read, enlightening. </p>
<p>Pareto's Law, been looking for it a long while. Still not there.</p>
<p>" So what about those HS that have a high rate of successful placement into top tier schools-do they have an advantage because they KNOW the criteria?"</p>
<p>Yes, many of those schools do. I have a relative that is a Dean of students at an east coast private HS and they have an admissions support profile for each top tier school that contains what each one is after. When a student enters HS as a freshman, they have a meeting with the student and parents and identify the top three choices. A 3 plus year plan is laid out, complete with summer activities and EC's tailored to the school. They have a very very high success rate of placing students into their school of choice.</p>
<p>Actually, it is known that the advantage some schools have is that the school is known to the adcoms. </p>
<p>If a particular college has sent kids to the college in the past, consistently sent a good number of applications in, and is on the visit list (college rep shows up every year), then you can bet that college understands the "back story" at that high school. It is also probable that the advising head knows the admissions reps at key colleges, and that back channel communication may be going on. </p>
<p>With enough historical data, in many cases colleges can work around the absence of class ranking, for example. More importantly, they wil have had experience to let them know that a kid with a particular profile will or will not do well, based on their past experience. Colleges DO track how various kids from various high schools do as undergrads. It is often part of "institutional research".</p>
<p>It is also important to keep in mind that top prep schools play in a different league. Although the feeder school idea is long gone, there is a curious mutuality going on between colleges and prep schools. Certain prep schools will always receive a visit from college reps - often the admissions dean, not a mere regional rep. The colleges offer custom tours, interviews with admissions officers (not the students the masses get) and so forth. Why? I suspect lack of financial need has a lot to do with it.</p>