<p>This question is both for students and for parents writing about their children. It would depend on how "reach" is defined. If it's a school for which you are highly qualified that has a low admit rate, it seems attending a reach is the ideal situation should you be accepted. If it's a school at which you would be in the bottom 25% of the class based on grades and test scores, why would anyone want to attend a reach school and struggle? Wouldn't it make sense to choose the school where you have the highest probability of succeeding, either a match or a safety, where one knows in advance it's possible to excel?</p>
<p>I'm throwing this out for debate, since I don't yet have a clear position on this.</p>
<p>Schools have a good handle who can succeed at them and don't take students who they don't think can. Many top schools, although some are changing, have always given gentleman Bs, meaning it's always been really hard to get a C at Harvard. Yet it's really easy to get a C at the state schools in my state (CA) anyway.</p>
<p>I am in the middle of admitted students for my school (Rice). I considered it a reach because of my location and lack of spectacular ECs/awards. </p>
<p>I think I will do fine. There seems to be more grade inflation at Rice than at my high school (I have a 92 cum. avg and am in the top 3%).</p>
<p>MrsP, I think it's more complicated than that.</p>
<p>For example, when my brother applied to Yale, he was at the very top of the pool when you look at test scores and GPA. (240 PSAT, 36 ACT, 1590 SAT, 4.00 unweighted GPA, valedictorian.)</p>
<p>However, he was from a small Western high school without the academic pedigree that the eastern prep schools have. When he arrived on campus, he realized that he was by no means the biggest fish in the pond. He did well, but by no means was he in the top echelon of students there.</p>
<p>So what I'm trying to say, I suppose, is that it's actually fairly tough to judge, a priori, where you'll actually be relative to other students at your school.</p>
<p>MrsP, there appears to be a question there too about surviving or merely doing "well" or "fine" at the reach as opposed to being the named in neon certified center ring star at the match school . </p>
<p>Oh, I don't have an answer yet, Sorry. I'm just framing another question I saw in your post, whether it is there or not. ;)</p>
<p>And another one, from an earlier date. Note the last couple of sentences:
Are Students Getting Smarter?
Or are professors just pressured to give out more A's?</p>
<p>Students are getting smarter-or so it seems by the increasingly higher grades they're receiving. Last year, undergraduates earned 8 percent more A's than they did just seven years ago and more than twice as many as they did in 1969-70. In 1994-95, 41 percent of all grades awarded were A's and 42 percent were B's, according to the Office of the Registrar.
Princeton didn't invent grade inflation. According to Registrar C. Anthony Broh, it's a phenomena of private highly selective institutions. Yet at the same time as grades are creeping up at Princeton, undergraduate grades nationwide have been going down, according to a federal study released last October. The drop, said Clifford Adelman, a senior research analyst for the Department of Education, is due to a 37 percent increase in the number of people attending college.
Public colleges aren't experiencing grade inflation-a continual increase in the average grade, explained Broh-at the same rate as highly selective institutions, because their curricula are structured differently. Ohio State's curriculum, for example, is designed to weed out students, said Broh.</p>
<p>I think its a false issue to assume kids accepted by a "reach school" will struggle there.The schools aren't dumb.If they accept a student they are sure the kid will do fine.</p>
<p>Half of the students are going to finish in the bottom 50% of the class.</p>
<p>I also agree with Zagat, that the school really does not take students that they think will not succeed. In addition, from what I have seen, many schools have a number of systems in place (writing labs, tutoring, academic skills centers, class deans) to help keep kids from "falling through the cracks" if the student chooses to use the services.</p>
<p>Maybe I'm reading too much into mini's post, but I really agree with the sentiment. Is it better to be a big fish amongst smaller, or a big fish amongst bigger? It depends on what you're going for, but I think that, developmentally speaking, it's better to expose yourself to truly awesome people. </p>
<p>It does nobody any good to be 20 years old and think oneself to be peerless.</p>
<p>There are always a percentage of students who don't succeed in college. Some are unprepared and their stats are not representative of what they are capable of doing (not all high schools are the same). Stats don't tell the whole story. I just read an article referenced in another thread talking about what a poor predictor SAT scores are for predicting college performance.</p>
<p>My thinking in the above question was partly in reference to graduate school. One needs good grades to get into competitive grad programs. Some of them take only a handful of students every year. If you attend a very difficult university and get poor grades, wouldn't it be better to go to a school where you can get better grades while still learning what you need to learn?</p>
<p>yes if they pay substantial need based or merit based for poor kids tution :). If I have money I will send them as when I die I have no use of money. You meet people who have connections. Afterall how could a poor kid meet the influential people when parents are just getting by.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>If it's a school for which you are highly qualified that has a low admit rate, it seems attending a reach is the ideal situation should you be accepted. If it's a school at which you would be in the bottom 25% of the class based on grades and test scores, why would anyone want to attend a reach school and struggle? <<</p>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>Just because you have great grades from high school and fabulous test scores, that doesn't mean that you won't struggle at a super-selective reach school. The question is how well you deal with this adversity.</p>
<p>The bottom half of the class at HYP may very well be shut out from the competitive grad/prof programs. Maybe they could have gotten into those same programs if they had shone at another "lower tier" university. That's the downside of life at a super-selective...</p>
<p>To some degree it does depend on the kids. Some students will excell wherever they are. For others, they need to be around a cadre of very high achievers to "kick into high gear." My younger brother & I were more of the independent sort & would seek out challenges even if the environment we found ourselves in wasn't the most inspiring. Unfortunately, neither of my two kids are similarly independently motivated. They both do well when they're surrounded by very high achievers & tend to "slack" when not in such an environment. For example, son got the same 3.5ish GPA at his so-so middle school as his ubercompetitve HS taking the toughest courses including all APs senior year.
Do I wish my kids had more indpendent drive to get higher grades even when they aren't surrounded by highly motivated & bright peers? Of course. Am I going to ignore what we've learned about the environment my kids need to learn the most? Of course not. I guess the good thing is that both learn for the sake of learning, even when their grades don't necessarily reflect it. <sigh> They are NOT particularly motivated by grades as much as the material & teachers & peers.....a mixed blessing, to be sure.</sigh></p>
<p>MrsP: I think you make some very valid points and raise some interesting questions. Many kids - and/or their parents - hope for admission into their high reach schools. If they are indeed accepted and are in the bottom 25%, that may not be a desirable situation. Others have made the argument that schools know what they are doing and only accept students who are capable of succeeding. That may be true for the elite schools that have endless choices of exceptional students. That is probably not true for many other schools where plenty of students struggle and fail to graduate.</p>
<p>The risk of failure is only one consideration. Being at the bottom may not be comfortable or rewarding. I suspect the former A student who struggles to make B's and C's might not always be happy with that level of stress. The student without a great IQ, without broad academic experience and who also lacks some study skills may not have a chance to overcome deficiencies when they start at the bottom. Some kids need a more nurturing and encouraging environment. Others will thrive on stress and adversity. Some kids need to win; some need the carrot that they never reach. I believe these issues of fit are extremely important. Again, many kids and parents want admission to the reach school. Be careful of what you wish for and know what you are getting into. Next Fall we will hear from a new crop of lonely, stressed and unhappy kids. Many of them got into their reach schools only to realize they do not belong. There are lots of reasons they may not belong, including social immaturity, but academics can also be involved.</p>
<p>Himom, consider two possibilities for your kids. First choice: they are in a challenging environment where they can learn for the sake of learning. Second choice: they are in a very challenging environment where they need to work very hard to get the grades needed to get by. How much stress and challenge is enough?</p>
<p>Most kids in the bottom say 40% at highly selective schools are special admits. For most of these, athletes and such, there are support programs as Sybbie mentioned. </p>
<p>There is no doubt that there are certain groups of kids who enter a highly selective college and hit the ground running. When I was at Williams I was amazed at how easy everything seemed for the kids who went to strong private schools and the kids that were legacies. They had already been educated in an environment where every kid had passed through a rigorous admissions process. Many had gone to the best private schools almost from birth. They had excellent study skills and had gone way beyond what I had in high school. They had bigger frames of reference having travelled the world and done summer programs in Europe or at Harvard. </p>
<p>The reat of us were excited about a term in one country. They knew what to sign up for (that would fill up fast) because their parents, siblings and friends had gone before. It took some of us time to catch up, but many of us ordinary public and perochial school kids did.</p>
<p>The number of "preps" is lower at top schools now and I think the playing field is more even, though there are still about 35% of private school students at the ivies, AWS and the like.</p>
<p>Ditto. Went to same school as Zagat (off the waiting list), out of a public magnet school where I was 125th in my class. Completely dazed my first year. Finished 10th in my class (would have been first or second except for freshman year), and, as they say "highly decorated". I grew while I was there. I expect lots of other folks didn't - but they didn't need to! ;)</p>
<p>"The number of "preps" is lower at top schools now." I don't think you'd find that to be the case if you examined the data. Lower than 50-60 years ago, and there has been a spread in the number of preps.</p>
<p>Edad,
They don't WORK very hard at all, but are intrigued by ideas & the folks they're around. They don't really seem to feel much pressure, especially son (who took all AP classes by his own choice & still ended up playing as many video games as always when out of class). I am glad the kids love learning, but wish they had a bit more interest in getting the grades that matched. <grin></grin></p>
<p>edad, you understand exactly what I'm asking. Looking at my son's list of schools, he has very few reaches that were of interest to him. A majority of the schools on his list are matches because we were very careful to choose schools he has a good chance of getting into, based on grades, test scores, curriculum, and career choices. Some of those matches are probably safeties/likelies, but for his purposes, we felt it was better to not assume anything was a sure thing, with the exception of a few large state schools. If he were to get into a reach school, knowing what I do about them and him, I would be surprised if any of them ended up being his first choice. They aren't dream schools for him, but schools that have more stringent admission requirements and are still a reasonable fit. Some of the matches are better choices.</p>
<p>Reading CC, I came to the conclusion that some students put reach schools on their lists because of rankings and prestige over fit. When I helped him make a list, I put 25 schools on the initial list. He is now paring it down based on fit, major, and other factors he decided were important. Our goal is to have only schools that are a fit on the list so he's not disappointed later. </p>
<p>The only reason the reaches are still on the list is because the GC wants them to apply to reach schools. I'm trying to figure out why.</p>