Safety vs Match vs Reach

<p>I hear these terms thrown around a lot in forums such as CC. What do they REALLY mean? I understand the basic concept of their definitions... but do they strictly refer to test scores? (as in are you in the range of middle 50% of SAT scores and such?)</p>

<p>Thanks in advance for the clarification.</p>

<p>In mostly number-focused schools, it's mostly a matter of GPA and SATs, yeah.</p>

<p>It gets more difficult with smaller schools that place more emphasis on essays and stuff, because while of course good stats are only going to help you, it's hard to just have someone say "Oh, and my essays will be good, too" and believe them.</p>

<p>By browsing these forums; I kind of developed a sense of reach/match/safety, but would definitely like to know what % range they refer to.</p>

<p>1) All colleges with an admissions % < 20 are reach schools for everyone.
2) After that, a safety generally means your scores are above the mid 50%.
3) Ballpark: in the 50%.
4) Reach: bottom of or below 50%.
5) Take into account your grades as well. If you have a naviance, it should be pretty clear.</p>

<p>I think for a school to be a safety (a school your 100% sure you will get into), your scores have to be way above the mid 50%. My scores are above the mid 50% for every school I'm applying to, and I only consider a few of them safeties.</p>

<p>It's a very relative term. For me, it means a reach is a school with not only a selective admissions, but a subjective and highly variable admissions. One based not on numbers. When you move down the spectrum to safeties, you can almost ensure your acceptance based on scores, and your essays and ECs are no longer a real deciding factor. </p>

<p>Reaches, in my mind, are question marks.
Safeties are periods, definite (nearly).<br>
And matches are bizarre, because they're what you make them. A match means you're probably not the most stellar student there, but certainly not the worst. You're upper-average in stats, and you like the school. You "click," but don't have to worry about super-selectivity.</p>