@prezbucky@ucbalumnus@Dadto2NY Super interesting discussion about what constitutes a “reach” and how admissions offices are using ED these days. I’m still on the camp of being more “bearish” when it comes to predicting outcomes in this college admissions era, especially for kids like my daughter, who may technically have stats that will put her in line with kids that are accepted to some of the more competitive T30ish schools, but has no particular hooks.
I’m trying to give her a nuanced message as I don’t want to sound overly pessimistic or optimistic - I hope I’m walking that line appropriately.
That’s an interesting breakdown and shows you, with a 3.95 it would be a match, and a reach below 3.95.
I can’t speak to the breakdown at Ivies which have a higher yield rate than UCLA. But based on my experience, I’d bet that a school like Cornell does have over a 25% admit rate for uwGPA over 3.95.
You do have a more aggressive definition of “match” than most – an estimated 39% admit rate would have many calling it a “high match” at best, since many students seem to think that “match” means that they would probably get admitted, but it is not anywhere close to certain.
The way posters use these categories in terms of their expectations and my guess as to approximate chance of admission and affordability (if a merit scholarship is needed for affordability, the chance must be assessed on the scholarship, not admission):
Safety: assured = 100%.
Likely: almost assured ~= 90-99%.
Match: expect to get into most such colleges, but nowhere near assured ~= 60-89%.
High match: not quite a reach, but closer to a coin flip ~= 30-59%
Since each undergraduate school at Cornell has its own admissions, I would think that it’s hard to make generalizations unless you know which division a student is applying to. Do NY state residents get an edge in admissions to the public divisions (CALS, Hum Ec, and ILR)?
Maybe because Henry Ford’s " Whether you think you can or think you can’t, you’re right" has been so drilled into my head that I seem to have a minority view on the subject. If you are going into this process believing you will not get into the schools you are academically qualified for, you are probably right.
This website partners with College Lab. So the way College Lab does their ratings:
They do Likely/Target/Reach. They do likely as 70%+, target as 30%-70% and reach is under 30%.
That’s roughly how I view things. Safety – 90%+. Maybe not a guarantee, but if you apply to 3-4 safeties, you will definitely get into most of them. As long as you take the application seriously (don’t submit an essay filled with typos), you will get in.
Likely – 70-90%. Significantly better than a coin flip. Apply to 5 “likely” schools, you will probably get into at least 2-3 of them, probably most of them.
Target/Match – I agree with college lab. 30-70% is a match. Though yes, I can certainly call 30-50% as high match. But overall, target/match is a coin flip. 10 Target/Match schools, you will likely get into several of them.
Reach – even if you apply to 10 reach schools, there is a good chance you won’t get into any of them.
And that’s why it’s important to build a balanced list with multiple schools at each level.
The reason for “safety” being assured / 100% is that it is fairly common to see posts from students rejected by what they thought were their “safeties” but which did not assure admission (or affordability) for their stats.
Maybe because Henry Ford’s " Whether you think you can or think you can’t, you’re right" has been so drilled into my head that I seem to have a minority view on the subject. If you are going into this process believing you will not get into the schools you are academically qualified for, you are probably right.
I wouldn’t say it’s about “not believing” - but it’s being pragmatic that (nearly) everyone else who is applying to that school is also academically qualified, and there are simply not enough spots to accept every student who applies that is “academically qualified.”
Wishing harder, or believing harder that you’ll get in, won’t change the acceptance rate when you’re in a large pool of equally academically qualified applicants.
Our advisor recommends not even using the word safety. Honestly, in this environment, the only “safety” is a community college that doesn’t have competitive admissions.
Any school with competitive admissions, there is a chance of rejection.
And when a 4.0/1500 student gets rejected from a school with 90% acceptance, it’s not usually simple fluke – They may have had “safety” stats, but they submitted an essay with typos, their teacher actually submitted a negative letter of recommendation, they have disciplinary actions in their school record, etc.
So a school being safety doesn’t mean that they have a 100% acceptance rate, it just means that if you don’t mess up your application or have major skeletons, it would be shocking if you got rejected.
Some four year colleges list automatic admission (and/or scholarship) criteria on their web sites. Examples include public universities in Arizona, Mississippi, South Dakota, and Texas.
“Likely” is probably a better term for this type of college, since shocking results seem to be common enough (indicating that applicants misjudged what they are actually likely to get admitted to).
I love the discussion of what constitutes safeties/matches/reaches. I don’t think this thread is the right one for it, however. @Illinoisparent12 has asked for a discussion about her daughter’s college list, and the philosophical discussion on applicants’ chances and what safeties/matches/reaches means doesn’t really belong. It’d be great if a new thread was started to discuss it (where I’d be highly likely to join in ), or perhaps it can go on this thread Changing College List Categories from Reaches/Safeties to Unlikely/Extremely Likely which might not be the perfect thread title for the discussion, but far more relevant there than here. Or someone can create a new thread.
To me, if its automatic – then it’s not safety. It’s literally automatic.
That’s the whole point of a good list with good accurate definitions, to avoid such misjudgments.
What you’re basically saying is, “since some applicants may misjudge their chances, just use super conservative terms”
Likely, by definition, means probably. It doesn’t mean definitely or almost definitely.
As I said, my advisor recommends not even using the word safety. None of our state schools have automatic admission except for community college.
I’ll use an example of a school with lots of data on my local naviance – Syracuse – Dozens of data points. 50% overall acceptance… But the best student they have ever waitlisted was 3.8/1300 and the best student they ever flat rejected was 3.6/1360.
So take a student with 3.9/1450 – knowing Syracuse has never rejected a student with similar stats from this high school, am I really going to say it’s just a “match”, “just in case” they get rejected?
Maybe my counselor is correct and we should just banish the word “safety.”
I was told by an Admissions Officer at an Ivy that this is not the way it works.they use certain gpa and test scores as a threshold to eliminate everyone below the threshold, but after you’ve crossed the threshold the numbers no longer matter. So, a student with a 36 ACT doesn’t have a better chance than a student with a 35, for example. Once students have been screened and are now in the “to be considered” pile, students are evaluated based on their personal narrative, which would emerge through a combination of essays, recommendations, stats, EC’s, interview, leadership, special talents, etc. at that point, they’re looking holistically and not particularly at the numbers.
It may have been just that Admissions Office, but I suspect not. It really does seem to be very subjective.
What I was told by the Director of Admissions at Cornell is not quite that. Yes, definitely told that it is a holistic review – that’s their new favorite term. But there is no pile where they stop considering GPA and rigor (they consider rigor first and foremost). At no point do they stop looking at the GPA and rigor, it’s just part of the holistic measure. And they also don’t have a threshold of automatic rejection, at least not officially.
And this is backed up by Naviance at most of those top schools — There are some low stat applicants who get in, and higher stats absolutely does improve your chances. If they set a semi-threshold at 3.8/1400 as the threshold, they still aren’t treating the 3.8/1400 the same as they would treat a 4.0/1600. Those differences become part of the holistic review. Looking at Naviance, it’s very clear that as you move further to the top right in top schools, acceptances get more common. If your theory was right, then the density of acceptance would be the same for 4.0 as it would be for 3.8, if the threshold was 3.8.
Absolutely there is a lot of subjectivity. But they don’t enter a realm where they just narrow the pool and then toss out the grades and rigor. The grades and rigor continue to play heavily into the holistic review.
), or perhaps it can go on this thread 