<p>Iderochi:</p>
<p>Ditto from me.<br>
But I do not see the point of applying to schools where one knows one will NOT be happy. My S was lucky in able to have a list of 6-7 schools (including the one in Palo Alto!) where we were pretty sure he would be happy.</p>
<p>Iderochi:</p>
<p>Ditto from me.</p>
<p>I think we need to remember that this concern of finding a safety, likely admit, good fit school that a kid will be happy attending is not isolated to the elite student. Every college applicant, regardless of academic standing, needs this type of school on their list and faces this challenge. Selectivity percentages may increase the chances of the more average students being admitted to their reaches and matches, but no one can afford to enter this process without probable admit schools on their list.</p>
<p>The key is to allow oneself to believe that you can be happy and challenged attending a school that was not at the top of your list. This takes research and a true desire to find a fit, not just picking likely admit schools to satisfy M, D and the GC. It's okay for all applicants to have high aspirations, but not get caught up in high expectations. All kids would love to have their reach schools as an option but that's just not possible. When the reach and match schools overlap, the likely admit schools are even more important. </p>
<p>I would like to see kids concentrate on finding their likely admits before they decide on any other schools. There is disappointment in any rejection (regardless of the student's academic talent and standing), but having an option where you can see yourself succeeding is key an should be at the forefront of everyone's college search.</p>
<p>I think that if I were a kid reading this thread, I'd be viewing all us parents as absolutely nuts. I think we're a generation of over-engineering parents and we've been that way for a very long time! Don't get me wrong, we're well-intentioned and only try to do the best for our kids but sometimes we're a little too over-involved.</p>
<p>It reminds me of when we were buying strollers for our babies: we researched, shopped around, went to a million different stores to test out each and every one. Did the wheels turn in all directions? Could you flip the handle back and forth so we could look at our babies AND they could look out on the world? Did the hood come down far enough to protect them from the sun? Were the belts secure enough so they all strapped in? Was there a place to attach toys? How heavy was it? How hard was it to fold up? Did the foot rest come up all the way? Was it easy to clean? And on and on. And you know what? Our little babies didn't care about any of those things!</p>
<p>Now of course I know our babies are 18 year olds with definite likes, dislikes, preferences, requirements, etc. and we're talking about a whole lot more $$ than a stroller costs but sometimes I think we forget that people are still pretty adaptable.</p>
<p>And finding a safety (or whatever you want to call it) is such a relative thing: you need your benchmark first. Kenyon and NYU were mentioned in above posts as safeties. Well, for my daughter, they were reaches - and she didn't get in. So she adapted and changed course and went with one of her match schools (which for my son will be a reach school). Now her school, DePauw, isn't for everyone, especially considering the heavy Greek presence/influence. But she loved the idea of joining a sorority so off she happily went. As I"ve posted before, sorority rush was a horrible experience for her but lo and behold, she adapted and accepted it and decided that she wants to stay at DePauw even if it means she will be an independent at a big Greek school. She's gotten used to the idea and she's adapted. </p>
<p>I know this post is a little off-topic but I've been accused by my kids of being the over-researching, over-involved, over-engineering mom. The vast majority of us had a college search that consisted of a few college recommendations from a few different sources, take one SAT, throw a few apps out, get the replies, weigh the $$ issue, pick one and off we went. And look at us now: successful enough to own a computer and find our way to CC, where we can massage and knead the college admissions process to our heart's delight! We all adapted and wound up okay and sometimes I think we'd serve our kids better if we were a little more relaxed about the whole process.</p>
<p>I know it's a different world for our kids but I still think most of them are going to be ok and do well no matter where they end up. Because people generally can adapt to anything.</p>
<p>Just my two cents.</p>
<p>Fredo: your daughter sounds like a great kid. And the suggestion you read that particular schools (eg. Kenyon, or any other) were being labeled as safeties, was a distortion of what was previously posted, (by me) which was that highly selective schools can't be a safety for anyone.</p>
<p>fredo, </p>
<p>I am a 'researchermom' too. I think it is precisely in the identification of less selective versions of our kids' dream schools where we can be the most useful. (<em>adopting Yente tone</em> We can't make them fall in love, but we can at least introduce them!)</p>
<p>It is also a really important to "lead by example"-- to be consistently encouraging and exicted about the less famous schools on our kids' lists. I made it a point to talk up the surer-bet schools and evince my excitement that she had identified such high-quality schools. </p>
<p>I had been exposed to a few apocryphal andi-like stories among the kids one year ahead of my D, many of whom were bummed to only be admitted to one un-thought-out safety school (which had probably been denigrated throughout the process to boot) and also felt let down that they had not gotten to "choose." </p>
<p>So I was bound and determined to help her find-- and feel genuine excitement for-- several schools where she had a reasonably good shot at admission, as well as several likely schools. I wanted her to be excited in April and to have a choice-- so we over-did the safeties a bit.</p>
<p>(1) Parents have a lot of power to frame the discussion in a way that makes a 'safety' appealing, exciting, positive. </p>
<p>(2) Parents can also ask the right questions. For example, your kid may not want to consider a women's college. But if you ask a LAC devotee, "where could you see yourself being more happy, Big State U or Smith?" she may reconsider. Kids should reconsider their initital list of "non negotiables"-- plenty. They'll usually have to, to find a school that isn't on everyone else's list.</p>
<p>(3) Parents can know their kids and encourage them to stay open to options that knee-jerk teens may initially eschew. </p>
<p>Building the list from the "bottom up" is how we approached it. </p>
<p>She identified 3 reaches she really liked by early in the fall. I said, 'Great: these schools are your guideline schools for the sort of place you'd really enjoy. Of course, these three schools are very well known and beloved by many, many kids. Lets set them aside for the moment and see how many others we can find that have the same sort of feel, will give you the same sort of happiness, but are less likely to appear on everyone's list, and are therefore statistically more likely to admit YOU. If you luck out and get in to a reach, bully for you-- but let's not count on that any more than you'd count on winning the lotto rather than get a job.'</p>
<p>With my help at pointing her towards off-the-radar schools (BTW the assistance of CC was instrumental in doing this research) she ultimately found 3 "sure bets" that were all really fine schools that would have "fit." (All three were in odd locations that do not draw the immense numbers of applicants.) All three wanted her very much, offered merit aid, and all were places she could happily attend. All three were in the pocket by January. </p>
<p>She also found eight 50/50 match-type schools. In short, had she not been admitted to any reaches, she had plenty of places and would probably have had 6-8 acceptances to pick from.</p>
<p>We got lucky because though she was rejected by a reach ED1, she was admitted to a reach ED2. Had this not happened, however, I know we would have been in great shape with great schools anyhow.</p>
<p>Yes, she may have felt a little come-down that a reach did not work out. Yes, it is easier for a kid to be mega-excited about the schools that all your friends have heard of, or the ones where admission is a real coup, that are located in storybook college places. </p>
<p>But it is NOT difficult to get excited about the sure bets if you spend a little bit of time investigating them and discovering what makes them great. </p>
<p>For example, Beloit was one of our sure bets. The coach there was INCREDIBLE and I suspect that the quality of education you get at Beloit is toe-to-toe with any of my D's reaches. It is quirky, hip, and smart. But it is in Wisconsin-- if it was in New England it would be getting double or triple the number of apps and no longer be a sure bet for a kid like my D. In short, she'd rather not have been in Wisconsin, but once on campus it would have been a great college experience to cherish. </p>
<p>This is the best thing we can do for our kids, ask them to cast a little bit wider a net than we suspect they'll have to so they will wind up with choices.</p>
<p>Whoops-- incorrect edit: did not mean to imply andi's story was apocryphal. We heard both urban-legend-like unverifiable tales of admissions disasters, AND also true stories like andi's, too, albeit none quite so heart wrenching as hers.</p>
<p>SBMom and others make a really key point about safeties, I think--the importance of choosing them based on criteria similar to those that shape reach and match selections (size, urban versus small-town setting, prevailing campus culture, and so on). The important thing is whether it is the right kind of school, in ways that go beyond top-quarter SAT scores. Obviously one kid's safety may be another's match or reach, but that doesn't mean the designations aren't valid for a given student--after all, a student with 1500/2200 SATs, a 3.8 unweighted GPA in honors and AP courses, and good nonacademic credentials might apply to Williams as a reach and have a small shot at admission on a good or lucky day, but for that student Kenyon could reasonably be considered a safety or very comfortable match, assuming a well-prepared application--while Miami University of Ohio, safe as it might be from an admissions standpoint, might not be as happy a choice. And a student for whom Kenyon might be a match or reach might find a very happy place at Beloit, just to pick up on another school that's frequently favorably mentioned here. Finding comparable schools of similar style and personality will lead to a quite different safety portion of a college list than just tacking a large state university on as a safety in a list that contains mostly LAcs, or adding a small local college as a safety when a student wants to attend a school many times larger than his or her high school. </p>
<p>Having been through this process twice now over a seven-year period with quite different children, I realize that as competition gets stiffer, finding true safety school gets more challenging, and each year the bar is raised, so I'd strongly recommend applying to more than one carefully chosen safety. It's also important to remember that being happy at a safety or match school is quite another issue from being initially disappointed by not getting into a top choice--it's a step beyond that, and a step beyond reflecting on where all one's high school friends have gone. That is, you [your child] can love your safety when you apply to it, and love it when you get there, but it's perfectly possible you will not love it on the day you realize many of your friends are going to their first choices, for whatever reason, and you are not. But if you have chosen your safety/safeties well, that middle period will pass, and you will move on to very good things indeed.</p>
<p>Marite, BTW, it's beautiful in Palo Alto this weekend...highs in the low 80's, minimal humidity, ahh.</p>
<p>But the kids have all gone home from college so it wouldn't really done your S any good:).</p>
<p>There is another thing some applicants, including my son, need to consider in choosing safeties. If you have to attach a "rap sheet" describing any suspensions/expulsions, it changes which schools can be regarded as true safeties. Even if the offenses are relatively mild, it is possible that the "rap sheet" could be a deal-breaker at some schools, especially LACs. That means that the numbers-driven state universities are the "real" safeties in this instance.
Also-maybe I am being too much of a lawyer, but to me "likely admit" doesn't give me the "safety" comfort level. I want a safety to be a school where it would be almost unheard of for a student with those stats to be rejected.</p>
<p>Coming from a newer private school where the majority of the kids are middle class/upper middle class, my friend and I have thought of making some sort of document for the rising seniors to emphasize what we feel the GC doesn't, often enough: merit aid and the financial safety. </p>
<p>I had a three-tier application:
Reaches/Schools I thought were worth 40,000 a year (meaning tons of debt for me and the parents): Pomona, Swat
Merit aid schools: those that offered significant aid, but ones at which merit aid was far from certain, though in some cases likely: Scripps, Grinnell, Rochester, Occidental
Financial safeties: McGill & UMass-Amherst </p>
<p>I think if I could reconsider my list I'd have applied to flagship state unis acrosss the county that offer honors dorms and really terrific merit aid, like the full-tuition kind.
But I suppose I wasn't adventerous enough at the time, and learned more about them from CC after december had passed... </p>
<p>But definitely the financial/academic safety combination is an important one that a lot of people at my school overlooked.</p>
<p>cami215 - reply to Muhlenberg can a kid from texas fit in. I doubt it, it doesn't have much of a national feel.</p>
<p>[speedo - I respectfully disagree. Muhlenberg definitely draws primarily from the NJ/PA area, but it has a very nice friendly welcoming culture, and anyone from anywhere could fit in. I recommend a visit]</p>
<p>Our perspective is a bit different. Our S had no safeties, ie, his record made any 4 year college questionable. So we did a lot of research and came up with a list of about 14 "possibles" that we felt would be a good fit for him, all small LACs, +- 2000 students. Fortunately, his top 4 choices all had an early action (or rolling admissions) option and he was able to appy early to his top 4 choices. We had another 10 schools that we were prepared to apply to after Thanksgiving. Fortunately he was accepted at 3 of the 4 (waitlisted at #4) so that ended the application process. </p>
<p>So, my point obviously is that in addition to finding a school that you feel confident of gaining acceptance, it sure is nice if that school also has an EA or rolling admissions program so you can get some early feedback on your selection process! Better to learn these things in November than May. </p>
<p>I think Mattmom alluded to this: With some of these small LACs having a freshman class of 400 - 500 kids, if the school suddenly pops up on some kids' radar screens the selectivity can change from year to year. , so it is hard for me to recommend these colleges as "safeties" when I can't guarantee that just because my son was accepted this year someone with equal stats would be accepted next year. We are just extremely glad it has worked out so far for our son! :)</p>
<p>
[quote]
if the school suddenly pops up on some kids' radar screens the selectivity can change from year to year.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Exactly, NJ; furthermore your kid from NJ & my kid from CA could have different results at these schools with identical stats.</p>
<p>I suspect "this year's safeties"-- no matter what level we're talking about-- can be next year's matches just because the number of graduates is going to rise till HS class of 2009 or 2010.</p>
<p>The silver lining of this situation for my son (HS class of 2009) is that more really good regionally well regarded schools are going to be on the national radar by the time he's in college. </p>
<p>He is no shoo-in, and he's not an athlete; next time through is going to be a very different experience for me. But we'll approach it the same way. NJres, I may be PMing you for your list of 13!!</p>
<p>Thank you everyone, for (1) bringing this thread back on topic and (2) returning to civility and cordiality. As I approach the college search with s#2 (though still a little ways off, thank heavens), I've rethought what a "safety/likely" school is. My new perspective is that is is one, most likely a state college or U, where the admissions procedure may start with a "formula" or recipe. Throw the grades/GPA, SAT I and II's and perhaps a few other variables into a blender and see if they rise to the top. While there are no guarantees, as we've seen from the events a few yrs back at U Mich and my own state's big U which, thanks to better in-state scholarships, is becoming increasingly competitive. Students who thought they were a shoe-in were surprised to receive the "thin" envelopes, which was a particularly big problem the year after the school had many more freshmen enrolees than expected.</p>
<p>If you get the frequent phonecalls from admissions and current students asking (1) if you have any further questions about the school (2) what color you'd like your dorm room painted, or (3) a call from the coach asking what # you want on your jersey, that's a pretty good sign. Otherwise, I'd still recommend the pursuit of one rolling admissions school or a few that let you know if you are in by the end of the calendar year if you get your app. in early. I also wholeheartedly agree that you should, as has been said in previous threads, "love thy safety".</p>
<p>As for school size, I agree that we are each speaking from our own experiences and perspectives. None of us is "right" or "wrong". Our opinions and experiences may differ, but they are equally valid. My experience was very different from Calmom's. My undergraduate LAC was very small (2100 when I was there). Like her s., I did not know everyone there, and as I look back in my yearbook, I realize that there were a lot in my own class that I either did not know, or do not remember (perhaps more likely). However, I found that rules were more easily "bent" when I had a relationship with the faculty/staff. I was able to talk my way into upper-level classes as a sophomore, into classes where enrollment was "closed", etc. I found the fact that I was NOT a number very helpful. The reverse was also true. The fact that the staff in the housing office (where you'd go beg for a single dorm room- I lucked out as of soph. yr) were folks you might sit with at lunch, or whose kids you might be caring for in the laboratory/nursery school on campus (many developmental psych undergrads had lab requirements for their classes in the nursery school) made it more likely that they would be reasonable and understanding, because you had a relationship with these people. The "intimacy" that one can get as a major in a small department I felt at the school in general. Mind you, there were plenty of people I am sure I never crossed paths with. </p>
<p>I then went to a grad school of 30,000 at the time. Fortunately the dept I was in was small, so I still had that "small school within a big school" feel, and I got to enjoy the rah-rah football stuff we didn't have at the LAC. But I couldn't have imagined that environment for me as an undergrad. Purely a preference issue. I am sure I could have handled it; I am just glad I didn't have to. Just not my cup o' tea. I preferred to avoid big lecture classes. Wanted the small classes where discussion was encouraged. Didn't want to have to seek that out in the break-out study groups. </p>
<p>As for my kids, I knew my older s. would prefer a small to mid size school. He looked as school of 4000 or less, except for his "safety", which had 11,000 undergrad. that seemed "big", but it's local, and he'd know kids going into it, so that made it easier (he didn't go-- he went to a school of 2800 undergrad, 1800 grad). I expect my younger s. who seems to prefer the athletics, social scene, sleeping in the back of the class, getting the class notes from a friend, and being anonymous, will pick a larger school. If he doesn't apply ED, as my older one did, and has choices to make, even if they are "disappointing" choices, I will encourage him to visit again (as is feasible) after the acceptances come in. I expect that one will "rise to the top" and he'll be happy with the choice he makes.</p>
<p>Last thought-- hapy 4th of July to everyone. Lets keep the fireworks outside and not on CC. Thanks</p>
<p>Repeatedly folks mention the pluses of small class discussion format vs large, lecture. Has anyone's college students complained that when the class is quite small 10-20, let's say, that the same people take over the discussion and the benefits ending up to be not so great? Just a thought.</p>
<p>Bluejay-
Interesting question. I never found that to be an issue, in undergrad or grad school. If someone was dominating a discussion, the faculty was usually pretty adept at handling it, and studnetw were pretty comfortable addressing it in or out of class with the faculty member. However, have you taken a look at this interesting thread from a few months back? Now the faculty run the risk of being sued by their students if they try to control the discussion. What is this world coming to? <a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=43731%5B/url%5D">http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=43731</a></p>
<p>Bluejay:</p>
<p>Whether they are TFs or prospective instructors, those who will be in charge of leading discussions can often attend (or be required to attend) pedagogical training sessions. One of the first thing they will be taught is how to avoid having the small class/section/seminar be dominated by a few people and the second will be how to draw out shy students who hates being put on the spot. They don't always manage to apply these tips, and the situation you describe is not uncommon.</p>
<p>Bluejay, yesterday I asked a relative who is a law professor your question. He feels the ideal class size is not 10-20, but 25-35. You get a much larger variety of voices with the 25-35 size class, everyone still has opportunities to get their points across, and the class is still small enough so you get to know everyone well. </p>
<p>Marite is right that the professors know who is shy and who isn't and they have their ways to get everyone to participate.</p>
<p>Excellent advice Momrath. Thank you for saying this again. This should be a featured thread, in my opinion.</p>
<p>One other thing I'd recommend about looking for good safe bet schools (I prefer the term safe bet or likely admit to safety as safety implies inferior): Know thyself! Before you start rambling off a list of names of colleges, figure out what type of school would suit you and your personality best. Who are you and what type of atmosphere/campus culture/academic curriculum would make you happiest? Once you've identified a few schools that fit those needs, look for other schools with similar characteristics, including less competitive schools. The worst mistake someone can make is to tag on a safety school that doesn't match up with the "top choices" on their list.</p>