<p>So, I've been hearing a lot about the topic of "undermatching", a growing trend in which prospective college applicants choose to attend schools that they are vastly overqualified to attend. From what I've gathered, people do this for a variety of reasons, such a financial security (a top applicant at a lower "ranked" school will get more scholarship money, leading to less student loans; and later on, less debt to try and pay off), a higher possibility of admission into honors or other specialty programs, proximity of the college to their home, general insecurity about how they would fare at more rigorous institutions, and also to seem more impressive as an academic candidate when it come time to apply for graduate school. I'm just wondering if there are any merits to undermatching, as it seems to be a legitimate concern of those interested in post-secondary education, especially concerning college applicants in the future. Any opinions? </p>
<p>I don’t know that very many students start out with the idea of “undermatching” (kind of hate that term , it has a vaguely derogatory ring for what can be an effective strategy). But a smart student applies to a range of schools (at least matches and safeties), and then assesses the results to decide where to go. Some of the reasons you mentioned may cause a student to select one of their safeties or low matches. I personally don’t think this is a “growing trend”, you can see it happen every spring out here as students and parents evaluate the choices their kids have. In our case, one of my kids did something like that six years ago (picked her safety with great merit aid, and knocked her college career out of the park – Phi Beta Kappa, senior thesis nominated as one of the top in her subject in the country, and a great job after graduation). My other kid picked one of the top schools she was admitted to, results are yet to be seen as she is just a freshman.</p>
<p>I do think there are some down sides. The better grad schools are not fooled – they know that a high GPA at a state directional is not comparable to a high (or even just good) GPA from a more rigorous undergraduate school. Picking between the two students with all other aspects equal, the second student likely will do better in grad school admissions.</p>
<p>Undermatching is a patronizing term to both the applicants and the general student body where they will be matriculating. And how is someone who wants to be paid for his efforts (rather than going into massive debt) insecure? I’d call that pragmatic myself.</p>
<p>I see no cause for legitimate concern. </p>
<p>I’m sorry, Picapole. I didn’t mean to sound patronizing. I was simply using the term that others have been using-I certainly didn’t come up with it myself. And I never meant to imply that someone who “wants to be paid for his efforts” as someone who is insecure-in fact, I was using the term “insecure” as not related to financial aid at all (if you noticed, I tried to clearly separate financial security and general insecurity in my OP, so this exact situation wouldn’t happen). I was using it to refer that many students who like to achieve can be overly harsh on themselves, and would find not achieving as they would like a blow to their self-esteem, thus leading to insecurity. I would also call ensuring financial security pragmatic, but yet if I have given you the impression that I in any way look down on this (which I don’t, the student loan crisis in this country definitely doesn’t need any more help), I do apologize. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Wouldn’t that include every student who enrolls at a safety, often because every other application resulted in a rejection (including financial rejections of admission with insufficient financial aid or scholarships)?</p>
<p>It is only a concern if a student aims so “low” that s/he attends an academically inappropriate school, or one which costs significantly more than more selective schools that s/he could get into (the concern described here: <a href=“http://www.brookings.edu/research/interactives/2013/low-income-high-achieving-hoxby-avery”>http://www.brookings.edu/research/interactives/2013/low-income-high-achieving-hoxby-avery</a> , which high achieving high school students from low income families applied heavily to non-selective schools – which include many for-profit schools as well as community colleges). It is not really such a big deal if a student attends (for example) a state flagship (particularly with a big scholarship) instead of a super-selective elite private school (despite some not-especially-believable concerns that a high achieving student would be dispirited to the point of dropping out if s/he attended a state flagship instead of an elite private school).</p>
<p>Opinions on whether the trend you speak of is desirable or undesirable vary. Some people think that going to your safety school increases the chance of being at the top of your class, and believe that being at the top of your class at your safety school can give you more opportunities than being an average or below average student at a more selective school. But there are probably too many “it depends” to make a general statement that applies to everyone.</p>
<p>Some kids choose safety schools or schools where they are overqualified because of the perceived pressure at the reach schools. Sometimes the match schools are just too competitive of an environment for a student to grow holistically.</p>