Were you rejected or waitlisted at a safety?

<p>“Many people are unrealistic.”</p>

<p>My son was NOT unrealistic with his applications, with one exception.</p>

<p>We had every reason to believe that he would be accepted at all but one of the schools he applied to. His counselors were as surprised as we were that he was rejected or WL at all but his safeties.</p>

<p>In the end he got off every WL but it was very rough going for awhile. I would go so far as to say that he was really depressed and angry, and frankly, so were we. </p>

<p>It’s all good now, he actually ended up having a choice and is very happy where he’s going, but he definitely was not happy when he thought he was going to have to go to one of the safeties, and nothing we said or did seemed to help him.</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>Exactly, you said it much better than I. Easier said than done I’m afraid.</p>

<p>I agree that finding safeties is not always easy…in terms of ones that truly fit the student. If you have a very strong student, the safety school can still be a selective college. As I wrote, my D’s safeties were Conn College and Lehigh and so while they were easier for her to get into, I think she would not have been TOO compromised in attending, though they were not as good a fit as Brown where she ended up attending. But they were a better fit than our state U where she had a free ride but had no intentions of attending as it did not fit her selection criteria. So, I think there are safety schools one can find that match their selection criteria but are easier to get into. That is key. A safety shouldn’t just be easier to get into but also match up with what the student is looking for in a college. Tacking on State U, for example, just cause you can get in, but it doesn’t match your selection criteria (as was case with my D) doesn’t make sense to me.</p>

<p>“Well, if they don’t usually accept students with your stats, then the student shouldn’t be applying and should create a REALISTIC list.”</p>

<p>Our DD had stats that looked realistic, as in a 50-50 chance or better, to several schools that she wanted to attend. She applied to six, and ended up accepted at three, and WLed at two. I don’t think anyone could call that unrealistic.</p>

<p>The problem was, until that first acceptance came in, there was a chance she would be blanked. Toss a penny six times, you can hit tails 6 times. The problem was finding a school where she had a 90% plus chance of admission, that she could be happy with. As I said, we found ONE that at least met her basic criteria - academic programs she most wanted were at least offered, size was right, relatively serious campus, not too far from home.</p>

<p>konabean, I wasn’t referring to YOUR son when I mentioned being unrealistic!!! Not at all. I was referring first to a comment about students wanting to attend schools where the schools do not accept students with their stats. If the school doesn’t accept students with their stats, then it is unrealistic. A reach school is a school that DOES accept SOME students with their stats, but the odd are simply lower. That is not the same as a school that doesn’t accept students with their stats. I have had students who were unrealistic and insist on applying to colleges where they have NO chance of acceptance. The school is not a reach…it is OUT of reach. I’m very into reaches. Schools with NO chance, make no sense to be on the list. I am not speaking of your son AT ALL. I was speaking to that comment only. It appears your son’s reach schools were within reach as he got off waitlists. That is not the same as schools that don’t accept students with their stats.</p>

<p>Brooklynborndad, I cross posted with you. Hey, my kids, and many of my students, apply to schools where the chance of getting in is less than 10%. I see no problem with reaches. Everyone should have them. I was talking about schools that DO NOT accept students with the applicant’s stats. Those are not reaches within reach, in other words. A reach school should be one with low odds but where the student might possibly be accepted. A school where the student has NO chance, is an impossible out of reach school.</p>

<p>By the way, you mention schools with a 50-50 chance. Of course that is not unrealistic! Those are ballpark/match/realistic odds! I think a list can afford to have many reaches where the odds are much lower than 50-50. A balanced list is crucial. Reach high but balance the list with matches and safeties. I was referring to “out of reach” schools earlier based on a comment about schools that do not accept students with the applicant’s stats. Those are not reaches. Those are out of reach.</p>

<p>Well there you go Soozie…your daughters safety schools would be considered dream schools for most kids, so it would be difficult to find fault with or feel badly about having to attend schools that most kids would be thrilled to be accepted at.</p>

<p>Not everyone has the luxury of choosing such great schools as safeties. For most, those schools are a reach.</p>

<p>Some people have NO CHOICE but to tack on State U for a safety, and for some, State U is a reach…what schools do those students choose as safeties? Community college?</p>

<p>You have to see how unrealistic your suggestions are. Not everyone has the options your D had.</p>

<p>"If you have a very strong student, the safety school can still be a selective college. "</p>

<p>a conventionally stroing student.</p>

<p>What happens when you have a brilliant youngster, high SATs, NMSF (and later finalist), intellectual, serious, but who has ADHD-Inattentive, the meds helped but never like magic, and couldnt take them during homework time cause of sleep issues, who ends up with mediocre (by selective college standards) grades at a top HS? </p>

<p>Then it becomes a long, head scratching, frustrating exercise. It was hard enough finding a reasonable list of decent matches (Lehigh was on that list for us, BTW). Safeties was well nigh impossible. After researching-visiting-discussing Syracuse, PSU, Umd, Delaware, various VA publics, and Drexel, we finally settled on Temple. Like I said, I am glad we didn’t have to actually face the choice of enrolling her at Temple, or having her take a gap year and reapply.</p>

<p>“Hey, my kids, and many of my students, apply to schools where the chance of getting in is less than 10%. I see no problem with reaches. Everyone should have them.”</p>

<p>well of course. DD only applied to three schools we considered reaches. One, WUSTL, she was WLed. List college/columbia was impossible to get a good fix on, as there is so little data - theres lots of Columbia data, but its not altogether clear if its a tad easier to get into List or not. The schools official position and the grapevine strongly disagree. And Swarthmore, which was a complete swag, but looked like so good a match in so many respects, we figured worth the gamble of the app fee and the time to write the essay. </p>

<p>Again, with a kid like ours, its not easy to tell whats a reach, vs a zero chance. We ruled out HYPMS of course, but beyond that. I don’t think there was any way to know who would see beyond the GPA to the person. As it happens, WUSTL did, sort of. Would Brown have? Cornell? Duke? We won’t ever know.</p>

<p>konabean, a student where Lehigh or Conn Colleges are reaches, needs to be realistic about their own odds. Wanting schools that are beyond their own stats makes no sense. They have to be realistic and there are many schools out there where such students can be happy. It doesn’t help to fixate on schools that are out of reach (for example if Conn College and Lehigh are reaches, keep those on the list but don’t apply to Harvard which is out of reach). I have had students with very very very very very very (hope you get what I am saying here) stats who wanted colleges where NOBODY EVER is admitted with their stats. Fixating on IMPOSSIBLE reaches (not the same as reaches within grasp) makes no sense. There are many colleges, besides state U (nothing at all wrong with state U…I like ours!), that can fit such kids. I don’t think community college needs to be their safety (I haven’t suggested community college to any student ever so far). I have many students with VERY LOW academic profiles, and I have found many safeties for them that are not community college (and yes, their state U would be a reach).</p>

<p>Brooklynborndad, there are situations where one can ascertain if a school is zero chance. I have had students with stats say they want a certain college and upon looking up the stats for that college using the premium edition of USNews, one can see that zero percent of admitted students, for example, were admitted with SATs that low. That is what I mean by zero chance.</p>

<p>did any of them have CR+M scores over 1400, by any chance?</p>

<p>soozievt: lurking here with some interest; curious where you send the kids with very low academic profiles these days who are looking for “safeties”? (general, not specific question)…</p>

<p>it is still my impression that there is no such thing as a safety for a kid with a 2.8-3.0 GPA (even if SAT/ACT is well within the 50-75% posted on college board)…match, yes, but not safeties…</p>

<p>Soozie, we could go around in circles with this.</p>

<p>All I’m saying is that there are students for whom true safety schools are less than desirable options.</p>

<p>A student with a 2.8 doesn’t have a lot of choice when it comes to safety schools, and chances are, they aren’t going to be HAPPY with those choices.</p>

<p>Will they do okay and eventually like where they end up? Yes, but I think they will also regret that they didn’t make more of an effort sooner to end up at a school that would have made them “happy”.</p>

<p>This comes from someone who graduated from a college they were never happy attending because my parents really didn’t know better and I had zero guidance. To them, (they married as teenagers), college is college is college, it didn’t matter where I went.</p>

<p>I guarantee you that your low academic profile students are not happy about their safeties. Most will strive to transfer.</p>

<p>I’m not disputing your advice to select appropriate safety schools, I’m disputing the concept that average students or even B students can easily find safety schools they would be happy attending. It’s just not that easy, period.</p>

<p>Brooklynborndad, I know CR/M 1400 may sound like “low” on CC, ha ha, but I’m talking of kids who had VERY low stats…for example…CR 520, M 400, W 490 (CR/M 920, total 1410), GPA of 2.8, with the easiest HS courses possible…the most min. HS course selection to graduate HS…not by CC standards…I’m talking very minimal coursework in academics, bottom 50% of HS class…who will then say they want NYU or UMich. Those schools will not accept such a profile, particularly if not URM or recruited athlete, etc. If you look up the percentage of students accepted with a Math SAT of 400 (just that one stat alone), it is often 0%. That is what I mean by “out of reach” schools.</p>

<p>…thank you konabean for chiming in and reinforcing what I was asking…</p>

<p>konabean, I don’t think any kid is jumping for joy who gets rejected at all their reaches and matches and lands at their safety. I’m simply saying that a safety should be selected carefully and not as an afterthought. It shouldn’t just be a school you can get into but one that at least meets some things you want in a college. </p>

<p>I understand that a low stats kid may not be happy about their safety school if it comes to that. That is no different than some kid who is valedictorian, has 2400 SATS, numerous achievements, who would not be thrilled if he/she only got into his/her safety…say…Goucher. Nobody said a safety is the best fit or the most happiest outcome. But thought should go into picking ones that could satisfy the student in some respects. </p>

<p>My earlier points were simply about the remark that what if a student wants to only attend schools where their stats are not normally accepted. And in that view, the student needs to face reality. If they don’t want any schools where their own stats make them admissable, the time to deal with that was before senior year.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>On behalf of all of us who are under a 3.0, I have to diagree here. ALL OF THIS IS RELATIVE. There are safeties out there for these kids and yes, they can find a safety they love. We have several state schools that have to take everyone, and my daughter really liked one of them. And I can also tell you that there are hundreds are private schools that would love to get that 2.8 GPA kid! My D applied to three and was accepted by all three.</p>

<p>" but I’m talking of kids who had VERY low stats…for example…CR 520, M 400, W 490 (CR/M 920, total 1410), GPA of 2.8, with the easiest HS courses possible…"</p>

<p>thats what I thought you meant. </p>

<p>For a kid like my DD, there probably were NO absolute zero chance reaches (even one of the HYPMS was not, due to a legacy - okay, so lets make that four zero chance reaches) but about 20 or 30 schools where the probability was 1% or less. And another 40 or 50 with a percentage of below 5%. Not easy to pick reaches among those. Though still a more pleasant task than trying to decide on a good safety.</p>

<p>"Nobody said a safety is the best fit or the most happiest outcome. But thought should go into picking ones that could satisfy the student in some respects. "</p>

<p>I think several of us got the impression that you beleived that the principle reason for unhappiness with safeties was failure to seriously research them. Related to unrealism about reaches/matches.</p>

<p>As a parent whose child’s reach and match choices were realistic (as confirmed by outcomes) and who personally spent hours of my life researching, and agonizing over, possible safeties, before coming up with ONE that at least met several critieria, you just hit some hot buttons thats all.</p>

<p>To step back. when looking for match schools, we tell kids and parents, to visit, to learn, to see what their gut says (rather than rely on rankings and stats) Its hard to turn the gut off when it comes to looking at safeties.</p>