<p>Absolutely, it is useful info. Naviance is useful too. Any additional info is useful. Just be aware of the pitfall and exceptions in the info.</p>
<p>We don’t have access to Naviance, unfortunately.</p>
<p>However, I think that AU’s data actually do the best job of pointing out that there are exceptions to ones expectations. For example, they did not accept 100% of the candidates with perfect SAT scores, or top GPAs.</p>
<p>It very clearly shows that there is no guarantee of admission for anyone.</p>
<p>Yes that information is informative – but it also can be misleading if you are trying to assess whether a school is a “safety” because it is based on a single data point. For example, a kid with 2100 SAT and 3.2 GPA may mistakenly assume a school is a “safety” because 90% of students with SAT’s at that level are admitted… but a closer look might show that the college rarely admits students with under a 3.6 high school GPA. </p>
<p>I still stick with the idea of a “safety” as being in the area of guaranteed admission for that student. (And being the cautious type, I wanted my kids to each have 2 safeties… just in case something went wrong in any case.). Very strong “likely” is also good to have as a backup – but if there is an 80% chance of being admitted, that means that 1 out of 5 students in that category will be turned down. If you were told there was a 20% chance of winning a raffle … you’d probably buy a ticket. Maybe you would buy 5 tickets, hoping that would assure a win. So, for me, a 10% or 20% chance, positive or negative, is significant.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Math pedantry: buying 5 tickets wouldn’t assure a win. With one ticket, you have an 80% chance of losing. With two tickets, a (.80 * .80) 64% chance of losing. With five tickets, a (.8^5) 33% chance of losing.</p>
<p>Another nice thing about two safeties is that it gives a student a choice if all other applications are rejections. A kid who is perfectly happy with their first EA or rolling acceptance can toss safety #2.</p>
<p>Agree that “safety” is relative to individual students. </p>
<p>Also agree that having two safety schools is a good idea.</p>
<p>A safety school should be one that you are happy to attend (even if not your ideal choice) and a lot of thought should go into picky such schools.</p>
<p>
Absolutely correct, but it is also correct that this strategy has resulted in the 3 last classes being the most academically talented in Tulane’s history and a rise in average SAT scores, for example, that has far outstripped the national average. So while numbers like acceptance rate, and on the other side of the coin yield (which has also gone way down for Tulane) may not be as indicative as they used to be because of the strategy being employed by the school, Tulane is in fact turning away students that just 3 years ago would have definitely been accepted. The only point being that in the end, it does make it a bit dicier as a choice for a “safety” school.</p>
<p>At the beginning of our search process with S2, we looked at UWisc/Madison’s website, and they had rough odds on acceptance with various bands of GPAs/scores. Don;t know if it’s still there or not.</p>
<p>While you’re talking about “what’s a safety?” – for the love of all that’s holy, please make sure there are financial safeties in the mix! I worked with someone who had seven great acceptances, several with significant merit $$, and only three were financially feasible.</p>
<p>Speaking of strange admission results: likely letter at Cornell engineering, rejected at McGill for engineering (and the student was <em>way</em> above the average stats for kids accepted from the HS).</p>
<p>Mythmom, thanks for your encouraging posts explaining fit and your kids’ experiences. My D is looking only at liberal arts colleges that look at more than just stats, and it’s comforting to think that all the hard work we’ve put in to finding places that she really feels she belongs at might pay off. She’s ruled out reach schools that most kids would still apply to (i.e. Vassar, Boston College), because she doesn’t want the pressure, either in stressing about getting in or, if she did get in, stressing about keeping up. After visiting many schools, and rejecting most of them, she has a top-three list, and it’s clear to me that she would be a great fit at any of them. None are safeties, but neither are they big reaches. (They are Connecticut, Dickinson and American.)</p>
<p>Of course she’ll have to apply to more, unless she picks one and goes for EA, but I have to think she’ll get into at least one of the three “perfect fits,” because I would think these schools would also see that she’s the kind of girl for them. At least your kids’ experiences would point in that direction, Mythmom. A parent can hope…</p>
<p>Researching, my kids did not have their most selective school as their first choices. They were reaches in selectivity but that was not much of a factor in their lists. They just happened to make the list because of other offerings. A much healthier way to approach the college admissions process.</p>
<p>The unhappiest and most stressed kids and families are the ones who truly feel that they have to get into the most selective and well known schools. One of my doctors was just so tense in April just waiting for her daughter’s acceptances. Heart set on an ivy, and was already deferred early which made things even tougher. We KNEW that our kids would very likely get into their top choices because they were good matches on the selectivity scale. Really made things easier.</p>
<p>researching4emb: Definitely, and you can craft the applications so your kid is the poster child for that school, especially with only three. The supplemental essays really give kids a chance to do that.</p>
<p>D was accepted into a school whose admit rate was a little over 1/4; S was accepted into a school where the admit rate was a little under 1/5, but as I said, each was the poster child.</p>
<p>The importance of showing love: D1 was waitlisted at one of her 14 schools back in 2008. It was a LAC, she had visited campus and met with her sport’s coach, all was in order. However, not replying to the school’s honors program application request, and not returning the coach’s call later probably got her on the waitlist. (Her younger sister, aka D2, thought the waitlisting was hilarious!) This was after D1 had been admitted to Vanderbilt, CMU, PSU’s Schreyer Honor College, the honors program at Michigan, as well as several other LAC’s.</p>
<p>My kids’s “target” schools (where they focused all the love on the apps) were not their reachiest schools, either. They were the schools that were the best fits.</p>
<p>I’m an incoming Pomona student, and I know of quite a few in my class (including me) who were waitlisted or rejected at Pitzer. We all pretty much came to the conclusion that this is Pitzer’s effort to get out of the shadow of the other Claremonts, up its yield, and get the reputation it really deserves.</p>
<p>“A safety school should be one that you are happy to attend (even if not your ideal choice) and a lot of thought should go into picky such schools.”</p>
<p>Yes but what if the only schools that you are happy to attend don’t usually accept students with your stats?</p>
<p>I know very few kids who are happy attending their safety schools. I’m pretty sure they feel that they’re settling because they were rejected from schools that didn’t accept them.</p>
<p>They will eventually learn to like it, but I think it’s a stretch to say that they’re “happy” about going to a safety.</p>
<p>^I really think it’s a shame that kids get so invested in judging schools only by stats. Both my kids were able to find safety schools that they would be happy with. My younger son secretly liked his safety better than some of the more highly ranked schools on his list. I really think most kids don’t put enough thoughts into finding safeties that are also good fits for them.</p>
<p>konabean, sorry, but I don’t think kids should get fixated on reaches. Reaches are very chancy odds. If they come through, great, but don’t expect it. Matches are realistic but still may not come through. Therefore, it is essential to research safety schools that meet your college selection criteria. While they may not be adored as much as one’s first choice schools, they should be schools one is content to attend and not unhappy to attend. If your kid hasn’t found such schools, then keep looking. A realistic outlook is also essential. I never said kids would be happy if their reaches or matches did not come through as it would be disappointing. But it should not be an all or nothing kind of thing. Every school on the list should be carefully selected as ones that meet the student’s selection criteria and where he/she can see him/herself attending. The safety schools should not be consolation prizes and schools that the student doesn’t want to attend. Realistically speaking, there is a significant chance the student may land at their safety schools. That is why picking them carefully is so important. I hear way too many kids who tack on some safety school that they have no interest in. I see no point in that. The safety schools should be carefully selected as the student may attend them. While my D favored her reach and match schools over the safeties, she certainly liked her safeties enough to attend them. There is no point in adding safeties that you “don’t want to go to”. Every school on the list should be a school the student could see her/himself attending. </p>
<p>By the way, I don’t get the phrase about being only happy to attend colleges that don’t usually accept students with your stats. Well, if they don’t usually accept students with your stats, then the student shouldn’t be applying and should create a REALISTIC list. I do believe in reaches, don’t get me wrong. But reach schools should be remotely within grasp and not schools that do not accept students with your stats. Reach schools can be low odds, but should not be impossible odds. As a college counselor, I have come across families who insist on applying to schools where the student has ZERO chance of admission, where the college accepts NOBODY with their stats. And so it is. Many people are unrealistic.</p>
<p>Agreed, mathmom. My younger s’s safety school ultimately became his top choice, and in fact he didn’t complete some of the applications he had in process.</p>
<p>My youngest chose not to attend the highest ranked school he was accepted to. </p>
<p>It just so happened that all of his safeties were not schools he would have been happy to attend, he applied begrudgingly. He would have made the best of it, but to say he was disappointed before he got off three waitlists is an understatement.</p>
<p>He could barely come to terms with the fact that he wouldn’t be going to any of the schools he wanted to attend, he was in a complete funk. When he got off those WL’s he was like a new person.</p>
<p>we sweated to find safeties. I kept coming up with ones, including OOS publics, etc. Each and everyone DD said, no she didn’t like them. DW agreed with DD. I kept saying, 'look, its a safety, thats why its safety"</p>
<p>DD decided Tulane was a safety. We also had Temple in our back pocket, with a very late app due date. I thought Tulane as a safety was unrealistic. DW was leary of Temple. We all knew Temple was far from the ideal place, but it at least checked the boxes for several of her criteria. When she got the Tulane rejection, panic started. When she got the RPI acceptance, we decided not to bother with the Temple app. </p>
<p>If she had gone to Temple she would have found some positives, and could still have lived a good life. But I would have faced 4 years of discontent at home (should she have applied elsewhere? Should we have paid for SAT test prep? Should we have pulled her out of TJ? ) And not all of it would have been mistaken - some kids really do need to among a smart, intellectual, challenging group of peers. She might have found some of those at Temple, but it would not have been as good an environment as her match schools. </p>
<p>We were not judging schools only by stats either. We read the Temple material, looked at the videos, interviews with students, etc on their web site. As we did with other proposed safeties. And one of the proposed safeties (Syracuse) we visited. UMd she had been on campus for a youth group event. </p>
<p>Its good for you you found good safeties, but for some of us it was a really excruciating process, even with the most open minds we could manage.</p>
<p>jym, while my D did end up attending one of her reach schools (considered a reach due to very low acceptance rate - Ivy - and so is a reach for any applicant), when she was narrowing her final choices down as to where to attend, she removed an Ivy school from her list where she was accepted and preferred 2 match schools over the Ivy.</p>