<p>You’re not wrong if all of the schools have a 10% chance of getting in, but surely there are some great schools that favor your high school for some unexplained reason, and some where nobody gets in. </p>
<p>For our school, getting into Harvard was not that rare, and there was a certain neighborhood of Naviance that made it a match.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>However, you have to be careful. Some of the green dots may be students with unusual characteristics (recruited athlete, legacy, family of large donor, etc.) that you do not have. Also, for schools which admit by major or division, the overall scattergram may not reflect the difficulty of being admitted to the major or division you are interested in.</p>
<p>Of course, when the school considers a lot of more subjective factors like extracurriculars, recommendations, “level of applicant’s interest”, etc., assessment by grades and test scores can be less accurate.</p>
<p>I don’t see how you could expect to estimate chance of admission to highly selective colleges well by only looking at GPA and test scores since they consider far more than these factors. This doesn’t mean it’s random or impossible to estimate well. For example, among posters in the Stanford RD thread of this forum, the rejected posters have a higher median GPA, class rank, and test scores than the accepted posters. If you just look at GPA and scores of posters, the admission results look like a random mess. However, if you look at the whole app, then the admissions decisions make far more sense. Earlier I found a weighting that estimated acceptance/rejection result correctly about 90% of the time for posters in the Stanford RD thread, which required factoring in things like awards and ECs (not just hooks). If I had access to the full app and HS history, instead of the small portion of info listed in the posts, I expect I could have achieved even higher accuracy.</p>
<p>Note that it helps also to assess the percentage chance of being admitted with enough scholarships or financial aid.</p>
<p>For example, if a school has a 100% chance of admitting the student, but would only be affordable with a large merit scholarship that the student has only a 10% or lower chance of getting, then the school should be assessed as a reach, rather than a safety. An example of this would be a Texas student in the top 7% of his/her class who would be an automatic admit to UT Austin, but could only afford to attend if s/he got the full ride Forty Acres scholarship.</p>
<p>Yeah, scattergrams are very flawed. There is no enforcing who chooses to put their dot on the graph.</p>
<p>^ Some high schools have very very accurate scattergrams. This may not be the case for most public schools (like mine), but some of the elite private schools are different.</p>
<p>ClassicRockerDad makes a very good point for students who attend very strong high schools who do send kids to top schools on a regular basis. I don’t think his logic applies to most high schools (even semi-competitive), because, as he said, you need a large amount of data. For example, I couldn’t use his method because only two people have been accepted to Harvard in the last 5 years. </p>
<p>I think it’s important to assess probability of acceptance to determine what schools to apply to. There’s no point applying to Harvard as your 5th school. The time you spend writing the extra essays is not worth the extremely slim probability of getting denied by your top 4 schools, but accepted to Harvard. Looking back, I probably shouldn’t have applied to NYU-Stern. It was only my 4th or 5th favorite (largely due to price), and it was a high match/low reach for me. I had a couple matches/low matches ranked ahead of it on my list. Why did I waste hours writing the essays? </p>
<p>Generally, I would say -
Safety - 99-100% (If not guaranteed admission by stats, have two or three safeties)
Low match - 70-99%
Match - 50-69%
High match - 30-49%
Low reach - 10-29%
Reach - <10%</p>
<p>Naviance is pretty flawed for a bunch of reasons. Not only does it not account for athletes and other hooked applicants, but it also has no way of conveying what ACT/SAT scores were actually seen by colleges. At my school, tons of applicants take both the ACT and SAT. I know many people who studied for the SAT and scored 2200+ and then tried the ACT anyway just for the hell of it and got like a 29-31 because they were unprepared and unfamiliar with the test. So then it shows up that a student was accepted with a 29 ACT and that off-sets the entire average, when in reality, that person only sent in their 2200+, and the college never saw the 29. </p>
<p>Surely this works in reverse too. One of my siblings had a 1950 SAT (which was never sent in), but also a 32 ACT and was accepted to University of Michigan and other elite schools. However, now the high school’s naviance says all you need for UM is a 1950 OOS, but once again, good luck with that. </p>
<p>lol Naviance is VERY misleading…</p>
<p>90% Safety
60% Match
Reach is everything less.</p>
<p>I really don’t understand this thread…Or the use of “match” for places where your stats are average…I mean, your “match” should be the place closest to what you want in a college…</p>
<p>Universities that accept >60-70% are safeties
Universities that accept >35-50% are matches
Universities that accept >15-35% are low reaches
Universities that accept <15-5% are reaches</p>
<p>^ Disagree. Bama accepts around 40% of applicants, but it’s most definitely a safety for some.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not the case for any particular student. For example, University of Texas - Austin is a safety for Texas students in the top 7% of their high school class and not applying to a division or major that is capacity limited (e.g. engineering), but is generally a reach for those not in the top 7% of their Texas high school class. Its overall admission rate between 40% and 50% does not really give an accurate picture for an individual student.</p>
<p>Focusing just on admissions and not aid, in my view:</p>
<p>Safety = 90%+ (still some uncertainty as some safety schools will yield protect by waitlisting students with much higher SATs/GPAs; for example one of my sons got waitlisted at American despite being in top 2% of class, with 2290 SAT, and 12 AP classes). </p>
<p>Match = 50 to 90% (with high and low matchs at the opposite end of the spectrum)</p>
<p>Reach = less than 50% (wth same caveat as matches re high and low).</p>
<p>A related question is what do you base the percentages on. When my kids applied, I think I overvalued SAT scores and difficulty of curriculum (not very reliable proxies at least for my kids) and undervalued small variations in class rank (say val/sal v. top 1% v. top 2%) and activities. </p>
<p>If I had to do it over again, I would base the percentages on variation of kids from median SATs, class rank grades at a school (with matches being higher than the medians for admitted students due to kids with bumps) and then adjust up or down based on val/sal/very high rank, outstanding activities, SATs, public in-state, public OOS, etc.</p>
<p>“In general, if you have average stats (1900-2150 SAT/28-31 ACT)…”</p>
<p>I’m not sure what planet you’re living on, but 1900 is well above an average SAT score. Per the College Board’s web site, in 2012 the average combined SAT score is right at 1500.</p>
<p>Kohoutek, I made the same comment, but Gibby explained his reasoning. See 1st page of the thread.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Seems like those are the type of factors that mainly come into play at the super-selective schools that are “reach for everyone”.</p>
<p>This thread is ridiculous. I know people who have been overqualified for schools but don’t get in. Admit it, putting percentages on getting into schools is only so you can sleep better at night.</p>
<p>Putting percentages for getting into schools is helpful in calculating your posterior probability of attending a school. What your chances are of attending a school (vs getting admitted) is really what’s important in allocating your limited time and effort. </p>
<p>Scattergrams are as accurate as the data. They do not predict, they just give you a basis for estimating your chances. There is a random element, there are factors beyond your control, there are issues that you don’t know about. Nonetheless, the factors that are included (GPA and SAT) are listed as very important or important on almost every colleges CDS.</p>
<p>I guess I’m applying to 0 safeties then… because none of them are 100% for me… more like 95%.</p>
<p>95-100% would be a safety. If you round to the nearest 10%, it’s 100%. </p>
<p>FWIW, you should have two safeties and if you can apply rolling or EA to one, you can have one in the bag before application deadlines.</p>