<p>
[quote]
probably one of the douchebag-iest questions i've seen on CC
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Fact: douchebag is one of the most benign (see: least effective) insults in the history of....insults.</p>
<p>And since I've already jacked this thread I might as well say my safeties were JHU, CMU, and NYU.</p>
<p>"^...yeah but for us NORMAL kids, that's not really good advice lol."</p>
<p>this isn't an advice thread, it's a 'boast where you considered you could easily get into' thread.</p>
<p>the small benefit of people at top schools saying that their safeties were schools like wash U or Berkeley, is that potential applicants from those top schools at these forums can know that they do not need to apply to much worse schools at safeties if they're doing well in their top high school.</p>
<p>Not all threads cater to the normal kid, and i again i don't think this is a 'lets help applicants' thread.</p>
<p>Is it weird to have one of one's top choices be a school you think you stand a reasonable chance of getting into? And schools you aren't as interested in be more like "reaches"? Cause that was that was the case with me and Chicago, but all my friends' top choices were reaches for them.</p>
<p>"probably one of the douchebag-iest questions i've seen on CC"</p>
<p>Shraf is extremely bitter and should be kicked of CC.</p>
<p>"This is insane, Georgetown, Brown and Penn as safeties. People really don't think about what they put it in writing."</p>
<p>If you have perfect test scores on everything, you are a world-class olympian, you cured cancer and your parent's wealth is comparable to Bill gates, then I see no reason why one shouldn't consider then as safeties....or so they say.</p>
<p>Bellisima- stop.</p>
<p>Safeties, just like reaches, vary for everyone. Yes admission is often a crapshoot at the top colleges but a 4.0 valedictorian with in-depth ECs, and national awards is going to have a different set of safeties than the 3.2 student. That's obvious. Just like he/she won't consider, Columbia as the same reach.</p>
<p>A safety school doesn't mean a low-ranked college that accepts 80% of all applicants for everyone. For some people GREAT colleges like Berkeley and Penn can be considered safeties.</p>
<p>Should they really not apply to any non-ivies or the likes? Maybe, maybe not. Its a risk they take. But those school are still those that they consider ''safeties'' and feel that they have a very strong chance of being admitted to. Often they're right.</p>
<p>undisclosed did you ever get into Columbia as a transfer? Just wondering</p>
<p>I'll tell you in 4 to 5 weeks. :)</p>
<p>
[quote]
This is insane, Georgetown, Brown and Penn as safeties. People really don't think about what they put it in writing.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You're the case in point.</p>
<p>Hehe, I saw that. But seriously.</p>
<p>
[quote]
At least for me, Berkeley and UCLA were safeties because they're very numbers-based admissions processes. If your scores and grades meet the formula, you're pretty much in. Soft factors don't matter much if at all (do you even need recs?), and you rarely hear of surprise rejections from people with the right numbers. This is different than the Ivies where even a 4.0/1600 could get you rejected from all them.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>When you go to a large feeder school to both UC Berkeley and UCLA (I heard that my school is the largest feeder to Berkeley), you notice many surprise rejections. Neither Berkeley nor LA uses a number-based formula; you are mistaking them for UC San Diego which has its formula online. Berkeley and UCLA use Comprehensive Review, which means that they take much more than your numbers into account. </p>
<p>No, UCs do not require recs. </p>
<p>My safeties were UC Davis, UCSD, and Mills.
Low matches include Berkeley, UCLA, and Pitzer.</p>
<p>Safeties: Dutch universities- would have gone to the university of amsterdam
Matches: university college London, King's College London</p>
<p>
[quote]
When you go to a large feeder school to both UC Berkeley and UCLA (I heard that my school is the largest feeder to Berkeley), you notice many surprise rejections. Neither Berkeley nor LA uses a number-based formula; you are mistaking them for UC San Diego which has its formula online. Berkeley and UCLA use Comprehensive Review, which means that they take much more than your numbers into account.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I went to such a school and keep tabs on acquaintances who currently do, and surprise rejections were unheard of in my day and are still rare now. The fact that formulas are not online does not mean that the process is not numbers-driven, and "comprehensive review" is a euphemism for -- and a circuitous way around -- the now-illegal practice of affirmative action.</p>
<p>If comprehensive review was to be exclusively used to practice affirmative action, then the URM population at both Berkeley and UCLA would be just slightly smaller than they were before Prop 209. In reality, they are so much smaller. </p>
<p>While I admit that they do look at numbers heavily, your leadership positions and other passions will play a relatively significant role in your admissions.</p>
<p>i feel really stupid now with these uber amazing "safeties"</p>
<p>my safeties were SUNY Binghamton, SUNY Stony Brook, CUNY City College and Boston University </p>
<p>i didnt have any matches b/c im a hopeless optimist </p>
<p>yay columbia, i guess...</p>
<p>This is crazy - you can't consider penn, brown, cornell, georgetown, etc. safeties. Columbia mayb be statistically harder to get into, but there are people who get into columbia and not those schools (so they can't really be safeties)</p>
<p>Columbia can never be a safety unless you're a top 10 athlete, STS finalist, olympiad medalist, or you have a dad who makes 7 figure donations.</p>