<p>I think reach/match/safety are useful concepts in terms of assessing odds of admission but say little about “fit.” At the same time I think the concept of fit is over-emaphasized on CC. With a few exceptions, I think that colleges are diverse enough and a large majority of students are flexible and capable enough that they can fit and flourish at a fairly wide variety of schools.</p>
<p>Fit is not something person A can decide for person B. It could have nothing to do with what Tier a college is in or it could have everything to do. Fit is in intensely personal feeling that a student could be content, happy, fill in the blank at this particular college for four or more years. </p>
<p>The concept of fit is separate from the quantitative information that isolates what college/unis a student can be accepted into. It’s no diffeent from a job. A candidate may be highly qualified for a job, accept the job and then find out that the company is totally different from the perception the candidate had from the outside looking in.</p>
<p>Some people can thrive without considering or an awareness of a personal fit. They adapt and fit wherever they land. Others can end up miserable and frustrated because fit is intensely connected to their day to day life. And finally, someone who knows another very well but have some insight into what type of environment might fit like a parent for an offspring or a personal friend or a former boss, but ultimately only the individual can decide for themselves if it is important or not important.</p>
<p>Someone for whom fit is not important cannot determine that “fit” is not important for another person and vice versa. Fit will have different meaning for everyone and can be wrapped up in one or more variables such as intellectual, cultural, geographic, socioeconomic, and half dozen other descriptors.</p>
<p>Does fit have anything to do with reach, match safety? For some, yes. For others, no. Some will adapt and adjust. Others will leave and search for that thing which escaped them in the first place.</p>
<p>I will take the opposite view of this and say a kid should attend the best college possible. I won’t go into how we have gotten soft as a society and don’t want our kids to take the road that will offer any resistance at all. College is hard and should be hard. It should be stressful and somewhat like what life is. Good things come to those who go after it. Simply going to the college that will be the least stressful is the wrong choice by a mile. I don’t want my kid jumping off a bridge, but when I sat down with all three of my kids, they all chose the best college they got accepted to. I also believe all three of those colleges were reaches, not matches for my kids. I know all three are proud to be attending Skidmore, Swarthmore, and Ithaca College. In fact, my son bought a shirt that says, “Yale, for all those people who couldn’t get into Skidmore.” I know people will disagree with me, but that is just my opinion.</p>
<p>I like momofthreeboys perspective. Yes, many kids adapt and thrive at wherever they land, but many others are unhappy and transfer. While there are no guarantees, identifying the school(s) that “feel” right if/when the student visits (thought understand a 1 time snapshot doesnt tell the whole picture) helps to avoid disappointment, unhappiness and/or transfer. For our family, older s was, IMO, more likely to really need to find the “this is it- I have found my people” reaction to a school than younger s, who was more malliable. Fortunately, both found the right fit for them and thrived at their schools.</p>
<p>Interestingly, a relative attended the school my s # 2 currently attends. They chose it mostly for the financial benefits, but it wasn’t a good social fit for her. She almost convinced my s# 2 not to attend. She visited my s#1 at his school, LOVED it and transferred there! Don’t minimize “fit”. It is, IMO, an important piece of the puzzle to many, though agreed, not to all.</p>
<p>^louisaj,
In an attempt to address some of your points …</p>
<p>Fit, to my family, is more about matching personalities to a school than stats to a school. In my kids’ cases, they are definitely looking for top-notch programs and honors opportunities within their school choices, and they’re looking for other top-notch attendees, but they also want to feel like they “fit.”</p>
<p>My kids don’t feel a good fit with any huge schools. That rules out a lot of supposedly top-tier schools. In general, we don’t really believe an undergraduate education would be better at one of those schools anyway.</p>
<p>I would argue that your top student friends who went to 2nd and 3rd tier schools for the fit, only to complain that they’re surrounded by kids who don’t view academics the same way, have done a poor job of finding a good fit. They were mistaken, apparently.</p>
<p>In regards to finding a school that “offers the best education,” I can only say that “the best education” is very subjective. There are a lot of people who believe that the best education is aligned with the most prestige. And there are others who would disagree. There are a lot of books on the market right now, by educators and researchers alike, who think that there are a lot of myths surrounding “the best education” at the most prestigious schools. I tend to agree with those authors.</p>
<p>There are top students who are very laid back and easy-going. My second son is one of them. You ask “wouldn’t you want to go where the vast majority of kids are like you?” Some kids have the stats of a hard-charging, very driven over-achiever, but those stats belie their mellow nature. I think all kids want to go where there are a lot of kids like them. But there are more categories of “like them” than the one category: stats.</p>
<p>oldfort said “some people don’t have the stomach for it.” You wrote, “why settle for something less?” CollegeDadX3 says, “I won’t go into how we have gotten soft as a society and don’t want our kids to take the road that will offer any resistance at all.” But people who think like we do, in my family, think that we’re being "smarter,” in a way, by thinking for ourselves rather than choosing schools based on what other people tell us to think, and by choosing what we like about life and maximizing those opportunities, rather than the opportunities that people tell us we should maximize.</p>
<p>I would bet that any kid who scores in the top one-half to one-percent of kids in the nation on standardized tests and emerges in the top one-half to one-percent in class rank is in no way “soft” or unwilling to take any road that offers resistance. Any kid who qualifies at the All-State level within their extracurricular is likewise driven enough to be considered “adversity-worthy.” Kids like that have been tried and tested, and they’ve achieved. That’s why they’re sought after by colleges and often times granted abundant merit aid. It’s a rush to judgment to presume that kids who don’t choose the schools that society tells them to choose are “soft” or unwilling to face resistance.</p>
<p>People who think like we do, in my family, also think that there’s a ton of value in happiness. That life isn’t just about pushing, pushing, pushing, to achieve the next thing. We don’t think of it as not having the stomach for it. We just think it isn’t a smart way to live! It doesn’t match our values. We achieve. We have successes. There are no lazy people in this house. But we also like the idea of learning for the sake of learning, and thinking for ourselves, and enjoying all aspects of life. We place a lot of value in happiness and the many layers of a good life experience, versus “success” or “prestige.” Just a difference of ideology, I suppose.</p>
<p>Most kids do not have a choice where they go to high school, parents never ask them if they would be happy which high school to attend, and most high schoolers still thrived. </p>
<p>My niece really wanted to go to Tulane, but after arriving on campus for a visit she crossed it off her list because she didn’t want to have bad hair day everyday (she has big fuzzy hair). Her mother thought it was a legitimate reason. She also visited McGill, and thought it would be too cold (hat and hair, no).</p>
<p>^lol! Sounds like a good reason to me! :)</p>
<p>younger s said “no cold weather”. That scratched off many top schools. 
Wouldnt have been my choice, but it was a deal-breaker to him</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Exactly. This is point I was trying to make in post #41. Most kids can “fit” just fine at most colleges. College kids are young, smart, creative and very flexible and not so fragile that they can’t thrive at wide variety of colleges. I bet if colleges were chosen completely randomly, say in a national lottery, the vast majority of kids who were college-bound in the first place would do just fine at whichever school they were assigned to.</p>
<p>Top schools have top facilities, and be around top students also facilitate better discussions in class. </p>
<p>Both of our kids went to one of the best high school in the US. Their science lab could rival many of college’s lab. Now D2 is at an international school taking IB courses. It is a good school, but filled with expats and rich kids of the country. The level of education is not the same. D2 feels not as much effort is required of her. When there is a paper for English or history, she assumes it would be a min of 5 page paper, other kids barely turn in a 2 pager. In her math class, instead of kids coming up with different ways of solving a problem, kids are just grasping the concept. </p>
<p>I am worried that D2 is not going to be as challenged in the next 2 years. No different than I would be if my kid wouldn’t be challenged in college.</p>
<p>
I have to agree with the above. I expect my children to work hard at college. If the college admissions board (in it’s infinite wisdom) thinks my children are capable of the work, then I expect my children to apply and attend the biggest “reaches” that offer their major. I believe that most “kids” will be happy (eventually) at any school they attend. </p>
<p>Of course applying to some matches and safeties is just good sense in case none of your “reaches” accept you.</p>
<p>^But wait a minute, oldfort …
Then you DO care about fit! 
It sounds like your D2 is not in a place that “fits” her. And you and she both care. (And I would too.)</p>
<p>In terms of the argument that kids can’t choose where they go to high school and all still do fine … Are you implying that they should turn their noses up at making a CHOICE for themselves, simply because they didn’t have a choice for the first 12 years of their lives and still managed to survive. Silly. 
</p>
<p>I can’t disagree with you Coureur and I might even surmise that the same percentage of kids would be miserable as are under the current system. No, kids don’t get to pick their high school but they do get to “pick” their college, their career jobs, their spouses, etc. etc. In most adult decisions the individual works with whatever framework is available internal and external. Picking a college is sometimes the first “adult” decision kids make. Some kids don’t get to make that decision because of their individual family situation.
Some families do allow the decision but influence the decision.</p>
<p>I agree with SimpleLife’s philosophy (post #45). This whole subject is so subjective. While I would agree that a student in most cases should choose a tier 1 school over a tier 3, I don’t know how much difference in education there is between a #1 ranked school and a #25. I am still arguing with my husband over this issue.</p>
<p>S has such strong restrictions that we have yet to find a reach that meets his requirements. He is all about “fit” and match and safety schools are the only ones that seem to have the right mix at this time. We still have 12 schools on the list and will need to pare it down. As he said, “Why should I fall in love with a place only to get my heart broken”?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree with a germ of what oldfort, louiseaj and CollegeDadX3 are saying, but otherwise mostly diasgree. Certainly I think that most kids should assess where they stand academically compared to a variety of schools, and most students will do themselves the most good in life by going somewhere they will be challenged by their profs and, most especially, their peers. Competition and practice is the best way to sharpen ones skills in any area, including intellect and reasoning skills. In that case, practice = studying and debating/discussing, which will be even more needed and challenging if the student is competing with as smart/smarter peers. But there are a lot of schools that will fill this need for any given student.</p>
<p>Now this assumes affordability as well, so that is the next criteria. Obviously it does no good to get into a top 20 school that the student loves if the finances don’t work. Sometimes, that’s just life. It can be bitterly disappointing, but it happens.</p>
<p>Which gets me to the point of addressing louisaj’s comment. There are a wide variety of schools in the US in all tiers academically. Why pick a school with the best academics if it is very urban and the student hates that, or vice-versa it is rural and they hate that? Why pick a school with no major sports (assuming the student wants that) when there are academically great schools with them? Why freeze one’s rear off when that student finds cold weather depressing, since there are choices? I often present the following list for students to look at to help them narrow their search. This is all assumed to be within a certain academic range, not to include schools that are clearly too selective or too easy for the student.</p>
<p>1) Size of school, undergrads (0-2,500; 2,501-10,000; 10,001-20,000; 20,000+)
2) Location (Highly urban, suburban, rural)
3) Geography (are there parts of the country you prefer or some you will not consider)
4) Weather (prefer warm, snow…?)
5) Sports (looking for competitve Div. 1, don’t care…?)
6) Greek scene (thinking about joining, want to avoid even a whiff of it, or in between)
7) If female, are single sex schools an option?
8) Anything else that you might think is important to you personally (you ride horses, like rock climbing, active arts scene, whatever).
9) Not really about atmosphere, but very important. Will you need Finanacial Aid? Are you hoping for merit scholarships?</p>
<p>Nothing revolutionary there, but why live for 4 years in a place that doesn’t suit you as well as another, if there is indeed a choice? Of course it is unlikely that a student will find the “perfect” school, and they might have to compromise on a point or two. But given the amazing number of schools and their variety in all aspects, I think it is a bit foolish to limit things to “just go to the ‘best’ school you get into”, whatever that even means. The undergrad years are among the most remembered of our lives, and should be a little more holistic than just being about academics.</p>
<p>I see no need for reaches unless the student happens to want to try for an exceptionally competitive school.</p>
<p>Neither of my kids applied to reach schools. The earth didn’t open up and swallow them whole.</p>
<p>Not everyone wants to be near the bottom of the class at a school where most of the students are better qualified than you are (which is what is likely to happen if you end up attending a “reach” school). Many prefer to be well qualified for the college they attend and to be able to do well enough academically so that they will be candidates for undergraduate research, internships, honors programs, jobs with minimum GPA requirements, etc. </p>
<p>The “safety” concept remains important, however. Students need to apply to at least one school that is both an academic and financial safety for them.</p>
<p>
Not sure I agree with this. In this day and age many kids CAN choose their HS-- with magnet schools charter schools, IB programs, school voucher programs and all this is just within the public school setting. Then there are the private schools. And then again there are those students who cannot choose their HS and do NOT thrive in their environment. </p>
<p>We put our kids in private school even though our public HS is the best in the state for a variety of reasons. While both did fine academically, were well prepared, well educated and and went on to good colleges, I wouldn’t say in retrospect that the private HS was the best “fit” for older s. Unlike younger s, who made a tight group of friends and still visits with them when they are home from school, older s did not have that kind of social network. Older s looks back at HS with a “glad I got through that and never have to do that again” attitude, whereas younger s looks back with a “boy I miss those days and wish I could relive them” attitude. For them, the school was a better “fit” for younger s. Especially if one is paying a lot of $$ to educate their kids, fit is, IMO an important piece of the puzzle. In public schools systems, in many (not all, mind you) you may get what you pay for.</p>
<p>jym- there is one hs in our school district- so no choice. The only private HS in the county is a Catholic HS, so for many this is not a viable option. No charter schools. You can of course try to pay tuition to send your child to a neighboring school district if you want, but will be responsible for transportation. So while it may be true in more populous areas there are more choices, for many of us we have no choice other than our local school district’s HS.</p>
<p>Understood, holliesue, but lack of choice doesn’t IMO guarantee that the student will “thrive” in their HS. Yes, they will hopefully find a group of friends and they will get through their HS. I grew up in a city with only one HS. The HS was huge-- my HS graduating class was bigger than my undergraduate graduating class. Would I say the HS was a “fit”? Don’t know. Did I love my HS years? Not particularly. Did I “thrive” in HS? DK- but I think I thrived in college, b/c I chose one that had what I was looking for that best fit my personal and educational goals.</p>
<p>This thread is talking about choice in college. If a student had no choice, but had to attend only one college, fit would be a non-issue.</p>