<p>I think the reach/match/safety school classification just doesn't apply to people here. Instead, the classifications should be safety and non-safety. For someone with a GPA, class rank, course load, and test scores similar to the class averages at Harvard, Caltech, etc., there is no such thing as a "match" school. Any school with a class with an average SAT in the 1400s has a very low acceptance rate. It's MUCH easier for someone with a 900 to get into a school with an average SAT of 1000 than it is for someone with a 1500 to get into a school with an average SAT of 1450. There's just no such thing as a school with an average SAT of 1450 and an acceptance rate of 60%.</p>
<p>Then there is also the "Tufts syndrome" in which schools reject applicants they think are using the school as a safety school. These schools can't be safety schools for anyone, even applicants with a perfect GPA, a 5 on every AP class, an all-state Varsity sports championship, and a Nobel Peace Prize.</p>
<p>The reach/match/safety mentality is defective, because it implies that every applicant should go to a school where he/she would be in the bottom half of the class. This is just as defective as thinking every applicant should go to a school where he/she would be in the top half of the class.</p>
<p>I propose that everyone think in terms of "safety" and "non-safety". A school can only be safety if it GUARANTEES admission for everyone with stats above a certain level. If the school can reject applicants because it thinks they are using it as a safety, because the admissions officer is in a bad mood, because the temperature in Scottsbluff, Nebraska isn't quite right, or because of a roll of the dice, then THIS IS NOT A SAFETY, regardless of the stats.</p>
<p>Those who need financial aid should apply to multiple safety schools so as to increase the chances of getting a free ride. For everyone, no non-safety school is worth applying to unless it is clearly better than the best safety.</p>
<p>I would agree that anything with a low acceptance rate would not be a safety for even the top student. </p>
<p>I think you also need financial safeties. My son had a match-safety that would have been a financial nightmare if that was the only acceptance. Getting in is one thing, paying another.</p>
<p>I hesitate to put schools into just two categories like "Safety" and "non-safety." REason: there is a HUGE tendency for students and parents alike to start thinking that "Safety" schools are not as good as non-safety schools. Once that type of thinking starts, people end up unhappy when the non-safety schools reject them because they feel they are left with second best.</p>
<p>I think even TOP students need to think in terms of "Good bet I'll get in" (notice there is no guarantee even with a "safety" school), "PRobably will get in" (for match), and "Lottery school" (meaning that even though my stats match this school is so darned hard for every one that there's a good chance I WON'T get in). Calling schools "non-safeties" implies that you are still going to get in; calling them reaches leaves the door open for thinking that you will somehow beat the odds and get in; calling them lottery schools reinforces the ideas that no matter how great you are, getting in is going to be tied to a certain element of chance. And, calling "safety" schools "good bets" doesn't as easily lead to the thinking that "it's a safety so second best or beneath me!"</p>
<p>Frankly, even the best candidates can and should have "Probably will get in" or match schools on their list. Anyone who doesn't is unwise.</p>
<p>And, I also believe that even top students should visit and fall in love with those "good bet" schools and "probably will get in" schools first. Then, there's plenty of time to add in the lottery schools that everyone would love to go to.</p>
<p>My son's stats were not stratospheric, though clearly strong enough. In looking for the sometimes elusive "safety to love" he was fortunate to find a school which had qualities and attributes that appealed to him , and which none of his other schools had (geographically related). These attributes did not drive his college selection in general, but when in place added value to this particular school which brought it to the level such that he would be happy to attend. The school was a good safety in terms of his qualifications, but the %admitted is not very high-- so he took a bit of a risk, in fact. </p>
<p>In looking at the board for that school it is clear that kids with similar stats, who like him were accepted to more selective schools, were not accepted to his "safety."</p>
<p>What did he do differently- he treated each school in the admissions process the same. He put the same effort into every application and we were able to visit every school. For the "safety" he also applied to the honors college-- which circumvents the "Tuftsian" issue. </p>
<p>We actually looked at many schools which were statistical safeties (financial aid was not a consideration). Only this one school had the attributes that also made it a school he could see himself attending.</p>
<p>It is still on his list, along with his theoretical "top choice." The factor that put it on the list, geography, has been enhanced by acceptance to the honor's program, and a nice merit scholarship. We'll see!</p>
<p>I personally will be applying to one of the regional schools here in Ohio that have acceptance rates of 99%. Maybe I'm being paranoid, but I would rather know I have a place to go than think a 70% admit rate makes it a safety. Not that that will be the only safety, but it's a true safety, something I don't have to worry about.</p>
<p>I'm not sure any of this makes sense. My S. identified three tiers of schools, all were acceptable to him at some level. He was accepted at all his sure bet schools, none of his probable schools (mostly wait listed), and all of his "lottery" schools. Perhaps it is a matter of, this kid isn't serious, or more effort is put into the top tier applications, who knows. He's perplexed, but fine with it.</p>
<p>And that's the good thing about not having all reaches or lottery schools --- you can also be pleasantly surprised. Which, of course, is better than unhappily disappointed.</p>
<p>What's wrong with being cautious? nothing in my mind. And Celebrian, I think that, as usual, you are on the right track. I can only imagine the fun conversation we will be having this time next year as you sort through your many choices! :)</p>
<p>It's kind of funny. The two schools my son thought of as his "safeties" at first are now his top choices. As the process went along, and he waited to hear, he came to feel they were better fits for him than some of the more "prestigious" schools he had applied to. Just because a place is hard to get into does not mean it is the best place for any particular student.</p>
<p>Susantm, I totally agree. The school has to offer things that the student is looking for....for instance, if you want music performance why would you even look at a place that doesn't offer a BM degree. We visited one "prestigious" east coast school before that concept was truly understood; it had a decent BA music and music department and the oboe teacher basically told my son that his students can't make their own reeds. That was the end of that school; he didn't care how great it was on paper. It wasn't great for him.</p>
<p>If you do your research, anyone can fine tune the qualities of a school and discover those that are good or perfect matches. Academically they may appear to be safeties as far as scores and gpas go and that is great. But they will help the student achieve their goals.</p>
<p>I do not regret one bit of time spent on researching schools and finding 8 good ones. I regret that we will be telling 7 great programs that my son won't be there next year. And we do it next week. </p>
<p>Were they safeties, matches, reaches...On paper maybe someone would say yes. In reality, they were all matches. That said, I was terrified last year!</p>
<p>Overseas,
By the way, congrats on a great school choice- Lawrence has to be the best school for an international kid wanting music performance. My son loved it, but chose another school when he decided he would rather try to make a go writing about music than playing it! They have the best admissions office....I will say!!</p>
<p>Robyrm, Thanks, he was sold on the school when he visited. It think you are right about the "international kid." Our school is 250 students K-12 from varying backgrounds. His IB classes have 4-8 students in them. He is used to participating in class. There is no back row. Lawrence is a good jump in class size. ;) Also it has a decent international population that he will welcome. (10-12 %)He will go through the international orientation in the fall. </p>
<p>So to continue this "Safety-Match" conversation, in his case, he saw Lawrence as the best school for him. Also, the oboe teacher is an integral part of the faculty and doesn't move around from school to school. He teaches. My son will be for the first time in his life interacting with other oboe students. What a great thing. To top it off, he can pursue his interest in Government as well with the double degree program. It will take 5 years. In that time there are study abroad or Washington D.C. programs he can participate in. Also, they offer IB credit to a successful IB diploma that will help.</p>
<p>And then there is Appleton. Go figure, I have never visited. He loved it. He comes from a culture where kids go out at 10 p.m. to the sidewalk cafes downtown! But it is a totally safe and protective culture. He finds Wisconsin politics fascinating. He has no preconceived notions. That's it. To him, the midwest is the greatest place in the U.S. I am a Californian by birth so he knows the Bay Area. He has spent the last 4 summers in New England at a music school. So he knows the culture there and has friends from the region. He loves Appleton, Wisconsin. </p>
<p>There is nothing wrong with calling the list safety/non-safety, match/reach, safety/reach, how about blue,red and green?
What is important is that each school is chosen for a specific reason and the student and family's attitude toward them. I think the last thing that should be formally considered (and when I say last, I mean about right now for juniors, not Dec 25, senior year) is the selectivity. If schools are picked for specific reasons, then it is not too hard to rank the importance of those criteria and look at schools by selectivity that have at least some of those criteria.</p>
<p>High stat kids may as well throw out the guidelines for picking matches, they don't apply, or if you do apply the numeric guidelines you may be in for a world of hurt! DD was about 10 points under what I would call the breakpoint for "real high stat" kids, so the numbers didn't apply too well to her. She applied to a rolling admit state univeristy honors college - admission is strictly on stats, answer back in 3 weeks - this should be an important piece of high stats kids' strategies, drops the pressure way down. Her one true match/safety, which was similar in atmosphere to her reaches, we courted carefully - she visited it more and was more familiar with it than any of the others.</p>