<p>I appreciate your comment, JHS. I often feel that I have to defend the approach we took as if it was some ridiculous strategy. I hard time even convincing my sister in law whose kids attended exclusive prep schools in NYC and sits on the Board of Brown University (which to our surprise rejected our D despite some lobbying) that it was a viable plan. Her kids were admitted to Brown before they even applied. We didn’t have that luxury. We just had a talented kid who knew what she wanted and we tried to help her achieve her goals as best we could. We spent uncounted hours visiting schools, doing research on various programs at specific colleges, using Naviance, cc, counselors and even using mathematical models. We could easily have had even more schools on the list, but at some number you reach a point of decreasing returns. For some people, doing more than 6 apps is big hassle and not worth the effort. For us, 17 apps was just about the right number for the objective we had set.</p>
<p>lovetoquilt…my D went to Brown. Her internships were in NYC and Paris. It did not matter that Brown was in Providence, RI.</p>
<p>I agree with JHS that cellardweller’s D, if she had had just ten schools, would have still yielded positive results of the “reach/selective” kind. Same with Curm’s D. I support their decisions as it is an individual choice. Each should go about it as they feel is best for them. I simply don’t think one needs 17 to get very GOOD results (not just acceptances), particularly if a very good student as curm and cellard’s D’s both seem to be.</p>
<p>soozie, you’ll have to agree by yourself re cellardweller’s D. As indicated above, I have to accept that a kid who was only accepted at 2 out of the 8 most selective colleges to which she applied, and 3 out of the next 7, could not have cut her list substantially without risking being shut out of those tiers altogether. And if she cared about those tiers (a whole 'nother question – I shudder to think of the waste of human capital that would have resulted from her having to “settle” for Tufts or UCLA), she probably did the right thing.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Maybe, maybe not … that’s easy to say in hindsight. If a kid applies to all the Ivies (just saying) and only gets into one, it’s easy in hindsight to say that the other 7 apps were unnecessary. Well, yeah, but if he had narrowed down the list at the app stage, who’s to say he would have picked the eventual winning ticket?</p>
<p>JHS…OOPS, I apologize! I had read your post wrongly. I thought you wrote that she COULD have halved the list, not COULD NOT have. Very sorry! </p>
<p>That said, as much as a I value very challenging colleges, I cannot imagine Tufts or UCLA as “settling.” These are highly selective schools providing very challenging academics with very talented students! Disclaimer, I am a Tufts alum as is my husband. I also interview candidates for Tufts and the ones that get in (which are very few) are really top candidates. My own kid, a top student, loved Tufts, and while she did end up choosing Brown, she was strongly considering Tufts at the very end as much as Brown and in fact, took her acceptance at Penn out of the running in the end. So, I’m with you on the “settling” point. :D</p>
<p>soozviet:</p>
<p>I never disputed your personal attitude towards education. I actually assumed that as a counselor, you were probably highly motivated to get students to pursue academic interests if they have the potential.</p>
<p>I simply made a comment that I disagreed with the college selection strategy which you seemed to advocate or that 8 colleges will always be enough for any student, whatever their goals or financial needs. I met with some of the most reputed (and highest priced!) counselors to discuss our list (which was at 12 at the time). Not only could they not trim our list but considering our D’s goals, THEY ADDED 5 top LACs for balance. </p>
<p>Our D’s stats was well over the median of admits at HYPSM. All offered programs in her area of interest, as well as extremely generous need-based aid. We would have been plain stupid to cut one of them. Under the best of scenarios, as an unhooked applicant odds were still in the 60-70% range she would be admitted to none of them. </p>
<p>For the next 5 reaches, we went down the list of universities with strong academics and research in our D’s planned area of study. We did not consider any publics because of the OOS cost, with the sole exception of UCLA. That brought us to about the 15th ranked university on USNWR. Not because we blindly followed the rankings, but because it so happens that the schools with competitive programs in her field are also highly ranked. In addition, they generally also offered the best finaid packages. </p>
<p>With these ten schools combined we estimated our D now had an 80% chance or greater of being admitted to at least one of them. That still left 20% of getting in nowhere except a very expensive OOS public. We added Tufts after evaluating their Brain and Cognitive Science program. Our D’s stats were way above their 75% percentile, but we were worried they may reject her because of the supposed “Tufts Syndrome” (which ended being untrue as they admitted her). </p>
<p>In addition, we were not sure we would get a decent finaid offer. That is when we finally threw in the 5 LACs after meeting with the counselor. Why 5? They are all small, get plenty of applicants and therefore admission is unpredictable. They either had a neuroscience program or closely related one and generally some affiliation with research universities or labs. The counselor also believed the LACs would like the “sciency” bend of our D, standing out in a sea of humanities majors. This was largely confirmed with 2 admissions and 3 waitlists. Two of the LACs offered to take her of the wailist if she agreed to enroll, but at that time our D had already received an upgraded aid offer from one of her top choices.</p>
<p>PG (re: post 345)…that may be true, but I also don’t believe in having Ivy on the brain where one “must have Ivy” when there are a slew of highly selective and very challenging academic schools. As well, I still believe the strongest candidates who have a chance at an Ivy…were they to apply to 8 schools at that level, would not be shut out of all of them. Sorry, but if someone is shut out of 8 highly selective schools, one must examine if they were truly a contender. Rejections at that level ARE to be expected. My D expected them, not because she was not qualified to be admitted but due to the low admit rates, that is the reality that rejections will happen. But if truly in that ballpark and one applies to 8 in that ballpark, one should not be left empty handed. If someone is left empty handed (or as you say, only one of 17 comes through and wouldn’t have if they only applied to 16), one may wish to question if they were truly solid contenders for schools in that range. </p>
<p>We were confident our kids were not going to be shut out. They had 8 schools a piece. They got into more than we ever dreamed could happen but we never considered that they would be left empty handed. If you feel you need 17 schools to get a hit, then maybe those schools are not in your ballpark. Yes, the admit rates are very low and so it is unpredictable what will happen at a SINGLE school. What is NOT unpredictable is that a top student should get into one of these very selective schools on their list, and if not, the list was not appropriate in the first place.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I never said that. If you had read my posts, I wrote that approximately 12 or so should be enough for the majority of students with few exceptions. Never said 8! I did say my own kids had 8 but NONE of my clients have 8 for your information.</p>
<p>Actually, I just remembered, ONE of my current seniors has 8 (well she just cut it to 7 and took out Harvard as a bad fit). I think she should have more. I believe every student of mine has had at least ten but each circumstance differs greatly and so I don’t have a “one number” for all whatsoever. Eight worked for my kids. Thirteen has worked and made sense for some students of mine. I have not known anyone who really NEEDED 17, that’s all.</p>
<p>I guess we have different risk tolerance levels for coming up empty handed! I also think that for some people, they are of the “it only takes one acceptance and I’m good to go” while others like to have several to feel like they are making a choice as opposed to settling. Again, I think that’s personal / idiosyncratic.</p>
<p>BTW, neither of our D’s top 2 choices were Ivies, but rather MIT and Stanford which had arguably the best programs in her field. She did not really care about an Ivy label as long as it was a top program. She very much liked Tufts and would gladly have gone there had she not been admitted to one of her top choices.</p>
<p>PG…one thing that I care about for my students is not that they simply get into a college but that they have options in the spring and don’t have to pick one school by default. So, the aim is not to get into ONE. </p>
<p>I was just saying that if you truly have a very competitive candidate who is applying to very competitive colleges, at least one (if not more) SHOULD come through if they are truly contenders. I don’t think it takes 17 to be admitted to a top college IF a very competitive candidate.</p>
<p>And another reason to include matches or safeties is to ensure options in spring. But the list could be heavier on reaches.</p>
<p>soozievt, the last part of your message #352 reminds me of the debater’s mantra from my high school days “Should means ‘ought to’ and not necessarily ‘will’ or ‘must’!” I know a few counterexamples, if “should” is construed to mean “will.”</p>
<p>QuantMech…I’ll say I meant “ought to”. </p>
<p>Cellardwellar…I think your D is attending UG where my D is at grad school and so all’s well that ends well. 
I was just there about ten days ago and friend of my D’s from UG school is now a grad student in your D’s major, Neuroscience at her college.</p>
<p>I guess I’m naive, but I still don’t understand the level of concern about what other people choose to do nor the level of judgment expressed by some posters.</p>
<p>Further, I don’t understand judging others’ criteria.</p>
<p>One of S’s friends was desperate to attend Princeton. He just fell in love with it. No one called him a trophy hunter.</p>
<p>The most brilliant boy in his class attends Stony Brook, continuing research with the same physicist he worked with in HS. No one calls him an underachiever.</p>
<p>We are happy for both of them; they each are exactly where they want to be.</p>
<p>My S’s two top choices when the smoke cleared were U of Chicago and Williamstown. He’s a suburban kid who loves urban and rural experiences. He saw joys and benefits to both. He ultimately decided on Williams for reasons personal to him, but he’s definitely a kid whose criteria were personal and not easy to categorize.</p>
<p>I don’t agree with the safety-match-reach categories, although I know they are generally accepted. I just think college admissions are too unpredictable and colleges have many things in mind, class composition, money, yield to neatly know which school is a match or a reach. For instance my S was accepted at Brown but rejected at Tufts, certainly not an outcome one would predict. He was accepted at Williams by rejected at Bates. </p>
<p>My D was accepted at Barnard but wait listed at Sarah Lawrence. </p>
<p>I think two safeties are a must and then as many other schools as each student is comfortable.</p>
<p>I think the REAL question here is what if CC threads were limited to 6 pages…
;)</p>
<p>austinmtmom, you are so funny!</p>
<p>Some threads on CC go on and on…ever see the Duke LAX thread? :D</p>
<p>mythmom, I hope I did not come off as judging because I truly believe it is a personal decision. I was explaining what I advise or believe in myself, but that doesn’t mean someone else should not feel differently. </p>
<p>As far as someone getting into Brown but not Tufts or Williams but not Bates…this is very typical for schools that are selective. Such colleges are not predictable if they are in reach or match range or if they have very low admit rates. So, a very competitive candidate ought to get into some but not all. I also see this CONSTANTLY with the BFA in MT admissions where the admit rates are very low and a student gets into X but not Y and friend gets into Y but not X and sometimes the one they got into is considered more “top” than the one they got rejected to (happened to my kid). But what I do feel is that if one is a contender for those sorts of schools in the first place, SOME very selective schools ought to come through. It is unpredictable just which ones those will be. That is why they are not safeties. They are either reach odds or match odds and neither are sure bets. But one’s reaches and matches ought to be where one truly stands a solid chance even if the admit rates are low. If closed out of all schools on a list, I contend that that usually implies that the list was not appropriate for that candidate. If simply rejected at say, Yale, I would NOT conclude that the school was inappropriate to that highly qualified candidate because realistically, they do reject very qualified candidates and can’t take them all. But I think with the right list, nobody should be closed out of at least getting into college, let alone a match school on the list. And for a high end student like many being discussed here, their “match” schools are nothing to cry about but are truly quite selective and very challenging schools in the first place.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oh, I do think it’s a possible that a competitive candidate could be rejected by, say, 8 top schools that were reasonable reaches for him (by reasonable, I mean that he was in the ballpark, not that he was reaching with a 3.0 GPA and attending one session of the Spanish club). Honestly, look at all the super-kids on CC who get rejected by multiple places.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Right, which is why for some people, 1 or 2 of them are not enough!</p>
<p>I’m the opposite way, myself. I’ll probably wind up overloading my kids to the safety side because I’m more fearful. But I can see the merit of overloading to the reach side.</p>
<p>PG, yes there are a ton of super-kids as you called them on CC who get rejected at multiple schools. But I have rarely met a truly very competitive candidate who got closed out of every school on their list. If that happened, the list was too short (6 or 7 schools) or not appropriate to the candidate or they had NO range of schools on their list at all but only ones that accept fewer than 15%. </p>
<p>Nothing wrong with a top heavy list if qualified, but having a couple matches and a couple safeties makes sense to me for any sanity. Some skip the matches and tack on a safety but I am not as into that because if the reaches don’t come through, one doesn’t have to go down many steps to the safety when there are a slew of very selective schools in the match range for a very qualified kid.</p>