<p>As i've stated previously, with 15,300 applications and a just under 26% admit rate, Tufts is no where near a safety. A safety is an almost assured in for a student. Tufts is in the exact same situation as other top universities; it's a reach for nearly everyone. If they are a safety, than JHU, CMU, Georgetown, etc are safeties as well (lol) as they share similar SAT and admit stats! This argument has been done to death -- they are many threads in the Tufts forum and elsewhere where this misconception of "safety" and "Tufts Syndrome" has been addressed. Even most college guides rave about the quality of the school and its selectivity. And vicissitudes, UMich accepts over 50% of applicants. I can't believe how these arguments just go on and on in petty little circles, even as Observers, alumni, prospectives, etc. pile on the evidence in support of Tufts.</p>
<p>To me, it's not that Tufts is anywhere near a safety school in its true sense, just that it is not a first choice school to a bunch of highly qualified applicants for any school. Hence, the 31% yield rate, which is probably the lowest of any school in the country with an acceptance rate of < 30%.</p>
<p>vicissitudes:</p>
<p>None of those schools classify as safeties unless one happens to be a double-legacy, athletic recruit, AND VIP/developmental case or something like that all at the same time.</p>
<p>I don't think anyone has a REALLY good chance at HYP unless they have the above (matched with at least average scores by elite college admissions standards)</p>
<p>But anyway, addressing the original question:</p>
<p>My safety was my state school...</p>
<p>It accepted 48% this year and my SAT (M/V scores) score was a comfortable 100 points above the higher end of the 50% range. Now THAT's a safety school :D</p>
<p>If you're a math science type some pretty good engineering schools make excellent safety schools. Rennsalaer for example accepts 75% of its applicants.</p>
<p>i got into ucsd/ucla. ive never considered or heard of them being considered safeties as they are two of the most competitive schools in the state. i guess because of sd's emphasis on numbers that extremely competitive applicants could consider it a safe match if they computed their numbers into the formula and they clearly have enough points to gain admission. ucsd's computation of points can differ from your own however. one poster said berkeley/ucla were never safeties but ucsd/ucd were. ucsd cannot be placed with uc davis. i considered davis a safety, but never ucsd/ucla/uc berkeley safeties. davis stats are well below those of ucsd or ucla. ive heard of davis being mentioned as a safety school quite often, but rarely ucsd or ucla.</p>
<p>gellino - brandeis DOES grant merit aid, and tons of it, that's how it draws in people that might not have/would not have gone otherwise (such as myself, i NEVER would have ended up there otherwise - though i'm leaving... so i guess that says something!). many people were either rejected from their top choices, often ivys, or couldn't afford their top choices and received lots of merit mioney from brandeis (the group i fell into).</p>
<p>If they are truly HYP competitive - their state schools plus some other top caliber schools just below the "CC top schools" (I know it's not completely accurate, just a frame of reference) would be their safeties.</p>
<p>My safeties are Rutgers, NYU, and Penn State.</p>
<p>
[quote]
vicissitudes:</p>
<p>None of those schools classify as safeties unless one happens to be a double-legacy, athletic recruit, AND VIP/developmental case or something like that all at the same time.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I disagree. I think that people make college admissions out to be TOO arbitrary. Look, we all hear about the one valedictorian with the 1500 and captain of [insert sport] who was rejected from Princeton ED or whatnot and all of a sudden people chastise the admissions process as "random" and "nonsensical." But from what I've personally seen, very rarily am I truly surprised by a college decision.</p>
<p>I'll give you two examples of two good friends of mine. Both were, in my opinion, qualified for HYPS. One was accepted EA to Harvard. Guess what her RD decisions were? Accepted at Stanford, Brown, UCLA, UC Berkeley, waitlisted at Yale, Columbia, Princeton. Not one rejection. I didn't find any of these decisions surprising. Honestly do you think she would have been rejected at UCLA (in-state)? Or Berkeley? Those two were, in fact, her safeties.</p>
<p>Another example: This other friend was actually rejected from Harvard, but got into Cornell, Brown, U Penn, and a few other schools which I can't remember right now. Now if even someone rejected from Harvard could get into ALL these schools I listed as "safeties" then someone who honestly had a very good chance (i.e. top grades/scores/essays/hooks), the schools I listed would be safeties.</p>
<p>Keep in mind that "safety" does not mean you are guaranteed admission, just that admission is very likely. In the case of top applicants applying to HYPS, I would say that they would have a very good chance of being accepted at the schools I listed.</p>
<p>The problem is, the vast majority of the students are not HYP-competitive. For them, HYP are just reaches. A "probably not, but let's try anyway" thing. That's why I said that for those who REALLY were HYP-competitive, these would be "safeties."</p>
<p>By the way, both people I mentioned did not have any legacies anywhere, were not athletes, and were not developmental cases.</p>
<p>Personally, I would call UC Berkeley and UCLA safeties. At my public school, approximately the top 30% make it into both. GPA wise I am in my schools top decile and test scores wise I am at least in the top 1%. My school's students usually do not have many significant extracurriculars. My extracurriculars are average at my school.</p>
<p>You do not have to be HYPMS competitive to consider UCLA and UC Berkeley safeties if you go to California. I doubt I am HYPMS competitive although I might have a chance at some of the lesser Ivies (which may be out of my price range since my parents are not so willing to pay).</p>
<p>..At my school it was UT-Austin. Every bloody person in the top 10% applied there....</p>
<p>How many were accepted? It wasn't safety for the top 10% unless all the applicants got in. Right?</p>
<p>[vicissitudes ...]"I disagree. I think that people make college admissions out to be TOO arbitrary. Look, we all hear about the one valedictorian with the 1500 and captain of [insert sport] who was rejected from Princeton ED or whatnot and all of a sudden people chastise the admissions process as "random" and "nonsensical." But from what I've personally seen, very rarily am I truly surprised by a college decision."</p>
<p>You gave two examples. I am sure if you consider the cases of, say, 25 HYPS-competitive applicants, you would likely have seen how "random" or "nonsensical" the admission decisions seem. Because there are only a fixed number of spots to fill at any given college from a pool of 10x applicants, and because the colleges want to maximize their yield (partly to look good), they go for safeties, too, and in the process have to be "random" to an extent in their decisions.</p>