<p>Really enjoyed your post #45, SimpleLife. 
A lot of wisdom there.</p>
<p>
Absolutely! Very well articulated, and so true. I notice, in my own life, that many of the people who downplay the importance of fit are extremely adaptable people who just seem to have fewer preferences about surroundings, culture, climate, etc. And those who focus heavily on fit tend to be people whose happiness is directly connected to these same elements.</p>
<p>So it seems that fit is way more important to some than others, and should be considered that way.</p>
<p>^^Well, sure. If someone has no preferences to any of the kinds of factors I list, then they fit anywhere. That doesnât argue against fit being important, it just means some people are more flexible. I am having trouble seeing how this adds to the discussion. Clearly we are not talking about those people since they like everything. Nice for them in some ways I am sure, because they can indeed focus on academic competitiveness and finances when choosing a school. Warm or cold, big or small, urban or rural, who cares? Just bring it on, lol. Most people are not this flexible, just as most are not so rigid they cannot compromise when needed. Hence the discussion.</p>
<p>good point, momofsongbird. </p>
<p>I think this line is particularly poignant
When my sâs went to their first private school, many of the parents were golfing dads and ladies-who-lunch moms. I didnât find it a âfitâ for me, as a parent. These were not my âpeopleâ, as it were. I did find some who shared more of our core values, and we did socialize with them, but neither our kids nor we parents found lifelong friends amongst that group. It felt like trying to fit in with the frat/sorority, jock/cheerleader crowd all over again. Not a âfitâ. We ultimately moved the kids to a different school.</p>
<p>Simplelife, beautiful post! Lots of high-achievers in our house, too, and we would agree with you 100%. We believe in living life and making choices based on a very holistic view of what makes up a life well lived.</p>
<p>Oldfort, we chose my Dâs hs entirely based on fit (and I include academic rigor in that mix of fit). Itâs a small parochial college prep school over 20 miles from our home. Her experience at our local public would have been miserable, as it has been for a number of kids we know who attend there. Iâm not sure I agree that most hs kids thrive. Possibly true for CC kids, but the majority of kids we know? Unfortunately, not here.</p>
<p>jym636âŠ
</p>
<p>Well this may be true in your circle of reference. But where I am I canât envision too many 8th grade kids who on their own search out choices for HS to decide where to go. Any that donât go to local public HS have PARENTS who do the research and make the choice. For me, itâs not a decision Iâd leave up to a 13-year old.</p>
<p>Obviously the middle-schoolers are not doing this entirely on their own. Heck- many college-bound HSâers are not doing their college search on their own either, LOL. I think you took my post too literally-- my point is that many HSâers (and their parents) do have choices.</p>
<p>BTW, I will add, though, that when we were looking at changing schools in middle school, the kids visited several schools, sat in on classes, and had interviews, just like college.</p>
<p>Any reason you added 10 points to my sn?? LOL</p>
<p>Fallenchemist, the point I was making to add to the discussion is that some posters on this thread have argued against fit being important, with a sense that those who focus heavily on fit are somehow âsoft.â. My hunch is that those who feel that way may not be as affected, personally, by fit in their lives, and therefore underestimate its importance to others.</p>
<p>I think the best approach may depend on what type of program/major the student is looking for. My son had some general guidelines: school where it was normal to be âintellectual,â big league city (major league sports), not ultra-conservative atmosphere, not dominated by âGreeks.â His prospective major was rather general or generic â he was going to college to find out what he really wanted to do later, but he was inclined toward the social sciences. The process was really easy and rather low-key. He found a half-dozen schools that satisfied these criteria to differing degrees (plus large in-state financial safety), got into all of them, and chose UChicago. Never looked back.</p>
<p>My daughter wanted to obtain a BFA. And she wanted to get into the best possible program for her interests, preferably a stand-alone art school. She wanted to be challenged and to have highly talented classmates. Like her older brother, she preferred attending school in or near a âreal city.â However, for art programs, âstatsâ arenât a really good predictor of admission, since the portfolio matters a lot. She applied to schools that were at a range of selectivity in terms of acceptance rates, while compromising on the âreal cityâ criterion to make it âaccessible toâŠâ rather than âin.â She got into all 5 of the schools she applied to (no safety at large in-state). Got into RISD. Never looked back.</p>
<p>I do agree that applying to âreachesâ simply for the bragging rights is senseless. But applying because they may be the best possible outcome or location for the prospective field of study is sensible in some cases.</p>
<p>Iâm glad to have started such a thoughtful exchange! Although I donât agree with oldfort and CollegeDad, I think you shared your perspectives well and thoughtfully.</p>
<p>To answer a few posts since I started this:</p>
<p>â I was not saying our kids shouldnât have safeties. What bothers me is the concept that every kid should be pushed to apply to schools where their chances of getting in are small, and to focus on perceived âtop-tiernessâ over fit.</p>
<p>â By âfitâ I donât just mean weather and nice dorms. I mean intellectual fit, of course. If your kid truly is a top-tier student, in that 1/2 % at the tippy top of tests, class rigor, etc, then he/she may well be the right fit for the top-tier schools, even though âtop-tierâ is up for debate. My girls are what I call ânormal smart,â as I suspect most of your kids are. They donât want to be at drunken party schools, or schools where thereâs no interesting classroom discussion because the kids are just on Facebook. But thereâs a big world between that and Yale or Williams. The striving, status-conscious side of me (which I donât like) would no doubt be secretly pleased if D2 wasnât made so anxious by the thought of going for Vassar and Wesleyan. But Iâve visited a lot of schools, and know a lot of kids at a lot of difference colleges, and I know she will get an appropriately excellent education at the schools she likes âa notch belowâ those schools-- and I hate having to even write that theyâre âa notch below.â Theyâre all good.</p>
<p>â Most kids do not get to choose their high schools, true. But mine did, because we live in a city with poor public high schools and a huge variety of privates. They chose the same modestly priced private, which proved to be a wonderful fit for both of them. Yes, they would have done fine at any number of other schools, but I truly believe the school they attended brought out the best in them as human beings.</p>
<p>â SimpleLife and momofthreeboys, we are simpatico!</p>
<p>â I will agree to an extent that most kids can do well in a great variety of schools, but that does not contradict my point of letting go of the âreachâ thing. In fact, it supports it. My older D applied early to a relative safety school that actually didnât seem to us parents as the perfect fit for her-- it was preppier than she realized, and it has more intellectual slackers and party animals than she might have thought. But she didnât like those kids in high school and doesnât like them now, and has surrounded herself with like-minded smart kids, who are present at every decent college if you look for them. And it has served her well to have become a leader, and to be commended by professors for the quality of her work. Iâd rather have that than super-pressure just to keep up.</p>
<p>Success comes in many forms. My husband and I sent our kids to a progressive grade school that had no (I mean no) grades or standardized testing. And yet (or because of that) they excelled in high school, and now one in college. We never put grade expectations on them. Our parents didnât push us, and yet my husband and I are both successful in careers, family, friendships and real-life ECs. Thereâs more to life than top-tier schools, top-tier GPAs and top-tier salaries. For those for whom those things really matter, go for it. I just think it would be good to take this âreachâ pressure off the other 95% of college-bound kids.</p>
<p>momofsongbird - ah, OK. I didnât read it that way, and we totally agree.</p>
<p>Fallenchemist, I thought we agreed, based on your earlier post. I must not have expressed my thought well the first time. :)</p>
<p>OP-
What I think you are saying is not to apply to reach schools just for the sake of applying. Agree-- if a school isnât really an academic, social or financial fit, then its just, IMO, trophy hunting. No need for that.</p>
<p>(That said-- I am putting in a plug for Vassar )</p>
<p>I agree that some students feel they need to apply to reach schools just because they feel they should have a reach school on the list. Too many students fall in love with the idea of attending one of these said reach schools when the odds are very low of getting in. </p>
<p>That said, for some students the logical match schools are going to be those lottery schools that are reaches for everyone. It would be silly not to apply. </p>
<p>I also think some students (and parents) fear rejection and donât apply just because they donât want to get a âno thanksâ letter. I think learning to lose is an important skill thatâs getting lost in an age where everyone gets a trophy.</p>
<p>I also think some students (and parents) overestimate how hard the work will be once they get into those reach schools. IME, the differences between those lottery schools and the next step down is minuscule. Carnegie Mellon is full of kids who were good enough to get into MIT, but werenât accepted. </p>
<p>Both my kids who are quite different from each other - ended up applying to 5 or 6 reaches, 2 safeties and no real matches. It was the right thing for them to do. They both had good choices in the spring.</p>
<p>If you have the kind of application that clearly puts you in the running for othe most selective colleges, like maybe your kids did Mathmom, then in fact your kids applied to matches and safeties. In other words I think itâs abit of forum misnomer to call the really top tier colleges âreachesâ for the top couple percent of students nationally. They may be âlotteryâ schools but for that very small group of student they are, in fact, match schools.</p>
<p>^For my older son, there were no real match schools. Or as you say, the match schools are lottery schools. For my younger son there really were several good match schools which he felt he didnât like as much as his safety. Once he got into one of his reaches EA, he saw no point in applying to the matches that up until that point had still been on the list. Younger sonâs GPA made it much harder to predict what even was a match or safety. He did better than one might predict because heâs a smart kid who figured out how to put together a good application.</p>
<p>I had no problem with my daughter applying to some reach schools that interested her, even though our Naviance showed that her chances of getting accepted were quite slim. Her stats placed her around or above the 75% for these schools, and I am sure that had she been accepted, she would have done fine at any of them. </p>
<p>There were other schools among the T20 that showed 50/50 acceptance rates for students from our high school with her stats (again, around or above the 75%), even though overall acceptance rates were much lower.</p>
<p>HmmmâŠI wouldnât have considered S1âs list to be full of matches and safeties, and he had a pretty impressive resume even by CC standards. We had reason to hope he was very attractive to certain schools, but also knew there were other, similarly ranked/similarly selective schools that would not have taken him (and they didnât!).</p>
<p>Both of my kids are very smart, excellent grades and test scores (Hey, Iâm a mom, Iâm allowed to brag 
). My S applied to only match & safety schools, with no reach in sight. My Dâs list is mostly reaches with a couple of matches and safeties thrown in because I insisted. Depends on the kid, depends on what they want to major in, depends on a lot of things.</p>
<p>I do not think that anyone should apply to a college just because it falls into a particular category based on perceived difficulty of admission. But, I do think that after a list of potential colleges is decided upon, that the list should be looked to see if it makes sense when considered as a whole. I believe this is where the concept of safeties, matches, and reaches is useful. For example, if your list of colleges only consists of colleges which for you are ÂreachesÂ, then perhaps you should research further to see if you perhaps could find a few colleges that appeal to you where admission is more likely. In addition, if your list of colleges consists of 10 schools that for you are all safeties, perhaps you do not need to apply to all of them.
My daughter is currently an 11th grader and our problem is that because of limited financial resources we are concentrating our college search on colleges that are need blind and that meet 100% of demonstrated need. The result is that most of the schools we are looking at (other than certain UCâs) would be considered reaches, at least for most students. We are not looking at these schools just because they are reaches, it just appears that in todayÂs world the Âbest (at least according to US News) schools are also potentially the least expensive, depending on your income level.</p>