<p>As a senior, recently I have noticed a disturbing trend among my peers. I want to preface this by saying that I don't think there is anything wrong with applying for reach schools, it is good to aim high and try to push yourself but there is a point where it has gotten ridiculous. Everyone in my grade has become absolutely obsessed with reach schools, and sometimes for no apparent reason. I live in a suburb of Seattle, and people have been applying in hoardes to schools like Michigan, UVA, Stanford, Penn, and more and then counting on UW as their 'backup'. The majority of them have not even visited any of these schools but become obsessed with the idea of going to these schools because their college councelors (I live in an affluent community where everyone hires expensive private college councelors) told them they should look into them. I was wondering if this trend is a normal thing, because I didn't see it at all in any of the past senior classes. Has anyone else noticed this?</p>
<p>This is the wrong board to find out about “normal”. 
I was wondering the same, and have talked to coworkers of mine - with family incomes probably between 70K and 140K. Most of their children are not looking at specialty colleges - a fairly unknown LAC, a third-tier state U, another third-tier state U, a local arts school… In my circle of families with gifted children, most are considering and want the super-top schools, but most don’t have their hearts set on them. Of my coworkers AND close friends, only my child is actually at a top school, and he had other schools he would have been happy at had he not been accepted or had financial aid not been sufficient.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There IS something wrong with applying to reach schools. This whole model is flawed. For a meaningful college experience, a student, after considerable research and reflection, should apply to matches, not mere brand names.</p>
<p>
What snarlatron said!!! Absolutely true!</p>
<p>Sometimes reaches ARE matches, though - these are fuzzy terms and fuzzy meanings. If, after research and reflection, the student finds that the best-fit school has a very low acceptance rate, then the school is an emotional/educational match and an admissions reach. That was the case for my son.</p>
<p>There could also be times when a “brand name” is right for a student; maybe the desired industry hires 90% of its students from Ivies, or the student is such a stellar sports player that he honestly has a decent shot at pro and needs to go to a school with a great coach. But I see no point in “the best school that accepts you” unless “best” is defined with all the student’s personal needs in mind.</p>
<p>And I think that outside of CC and particularly affluent and/or driven communities, most families understand this.</p>
<p>
On the contrary, I don’t think they’re fuzzy terms at all. “Safety,” “match,” and “reach” are terms used to describe admissions difficulty – nothing more, nothing less. The difference between a match (good chance of admission) and a good fit (suitable for the student) is quite clearly delineated on CC. </p>
<p>“Safety” or “reach” says nothing about the desirability of a college. For many posters, their top choice is a safety or a match college. Furthermore, what constitutes a reach varies wildly from one student to another. Harvard may be a reach for one student, whereas the University of Montana is a reach for another. </p>
<p>As for your last sentence, I see no problems whatsoever in choosing the “best” college to which one is admitted, finances aside. Why not? If an applicant has done his/her work properly, (s)he has whittled the 2200+ four-year colleges in the US down to a mere 6-8 colleges, ANY of which (s)he should be quite happy to attend. Should one have the fortune of being able to choose between offers, there are many worse ways to select a college.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If true then this is a useful distinction. I see the two terms used as synonyms usually. The concept of “fit” is what I intended in my above post.</p>
<p>Selectivity, more than price, is the college market’s indicator of demand relative to supply. More selective schools generally are schools that more top students (the ones with the most choices) find more desirable. So, if you believe you are like most top students, it isn’t necessarily irrational to apply to reach schools. In doing so, you are acknowledging how other students vote with their feet in choosing colleges. </p>
<p>Now, if you think the market undervalues something important to you (such as price or distance from home), then don’t follow it. </p>
<p>Is there an “epidemic” of applications to reach schools? Maybe so. The internet and social media (including sites like this one) make more students aware of more options. Meanwhile, social & economic changes have raised anxieties about whether an education at the local public university is still a good ticket to a prosperous lifestyle. Whether these anxieties are well-founded or not, the fact is that most students still choose to attend college within a few hundred miles of home. Most of the nearby options aren’t going to be reach schools for most good students.</p>
<p>The reason why students are flooding to get into elite colleges is because the middle class is shrinking and people are doing everything in their power to make it into the upper class. Going to a top school does not guarantee one access to the upper class and likewise going to an average school does not prevent one from entering the upper class, but it is unique in that pretty much anyone has a decent shot at an elite college if they have a good academic record. One cannot say the same thing about elite employers - for the most part they restrict their hiring to people with connections and people from elite colleges.</p>
<p>Parental anxiety and pressure drives it . . . if you start from “I want my kids to have the best” there is no stopping rule to be satisfied with anything less than “the best.”</p>
<p>Parents also don’t get that the admissions process is changed . . a friend was sure that his kid was going to get into Dartmouth because he went there and the kid had “great SATs” (all 3 sections a 700 plus) . . . he just didn’t want to hear about the current rejection rates for sterling kids like that (80-90%.)</p>
<p>Last, we buy the idea that there is a generic small set of “best schools” so much that we now look to a second rate newsmagazine for college advice. SHEESH!!</p>