<p>I totally agree with that. I am just saying for students looking at the top schools, the effort put into applications is well worth it.</p>
<p>Also, fit is very important. Just don’t be TOO critical and rule out schools before you really know them.</p>
<p>Funny thing, this is totally regional. A little off topic, but where I am from people most often apply to just a couple of schools, UT and another state or private school in Texas like Tech, SMU, TCU or Baylor, or Tex A&M and another. People are either Longhorns or Aggies, never both, and to apply out of state (except maybe OU or LSU) is either un-heard of or considered pathetic. People almost want to console with me that my oldest ended up at UF, thinking he must have been denied admission at UT (no, he was accepted, just chose not to go). My junior S is really interested in Trinity University in San Antonio, a very well respected school nationally, but in my neighborhood, people think “San Antonio, oh poor thing, he must not be able to get into one of the better Texas schools.” He is currently tied for valedictorian. Go figure. They definitely do not know about CC!</p>
<p>My two cents: a lot of kids on CC seem to know what they want to do in life (I certainly did not in high school). So for these high-achieving, determined kids the desire to go to a school with a top-tier program in their major is very, very important. This is the sort of situation that lends itself to 12 applications. Also, I suspect that a lot of these kids ask themselves “if I don’t get into one of my top three, what then?” and no answer presents itself. For these kids, it could be very difficult to decide in advance, and hence more applications make sense to allow options in March.</p>
<p>It’s certainly not a necessity for ambitious kids to apply to 10+ schools. Sure it’s more difficult to gain acceptance into top schools but it certainly doesn’t mean that EVERY top school is right for you. In fact, when I was applying I found many non-top-20-schools much more suited to my interests and personality than the vast majority of the “Ivies”. The machine-gun method of applying to colleges makes sense if “fit” was inversely proportional to a college’s USNWR # rank- then sure, you’re giving yourself the best chance to get into the best schools for you. Somehow, though, I feel like that’s not really the case. </p>
<p>Most of my friends here (who obviously did just fine in the college app process) applied to fewer than 7 or 8 schools. I myself sent in 5 and I was financial-aid hunting. I never really understood the allure of being accepted into a million colleges. You can only attend one.</p>
<p>I have to weigh in on the dissenting side. In order to make my point I have to ask you to accept that there may be valid reasons for wanting to attend a school with an acceptance rate of 20% or less. If the only reason you can fathom is a desire for prestige, then read no farther. </p>
<p>If on the other hand you or your child is aiming for a highly selective school because of perceived academic excellence or intellectual environment, then I feel strongly that s/he should apply to 4 to 5 reaches. </p>
<p>By several reaches I dont mean all eight ivies + M & S. I dont even mean AWS+ W + P What I mean is if your dream school is Swarthmore, then you may as well include Pomona, Brown, Columbia and Yale. If your dream is Dartmouth then (just for example) you could add Princeton, Williams, Amherst, Penn. </p>
<p>So say that you end up with 5 super-selectives. On top of that you still need one no-error safety, sure bet. Two if you are a nervous type like me. You need 3 or so solid more-likely-than-not matches in case luck doesnt grace you with the super-selectives.</p>
<p>If you want to follow the prevailing and excellent sleep at night advice youll also add an EA or rolling application. If that school overlaps with your other reach/match/safeties fine; if not, its still a good idea, even as a throw-away.</p>
<p>And lastly, if you’re shopping for financial aid dollars especially merit based then you may well need a parallel universe of reach/match/safeties.</p>
<p>So after using up all my fingers, I come up with a comfortable 10-12 applications. I dont like it but looking at the increased number of applications to those super-selectives mentioned (and inevitable continued downslide in acceptance rates) I would accept the multi-pronged approach as the Way Things Are. You dont need to go to a super selective school. But if you want to youd better cast a wide net.</p>
<p>This is not the dissenting side, but the overwhelming majority since the op and a few yea-sayers started this thread.</p>
<p>Momrath: Carolyn is recommending a “well targeted” list. Well targeted means among other things that admission is likely: “A well-targeted list means you are more likely to end up at one of your top choices.” None of the schools you mention would fit the definition, except for maybe a URM applicant who has near perfect SATs and grades. Carolyn seems to be an expert in identifying really good schools with high admission rates and her strategy makes a lot of sense for the vast majority of applicants. The strategy may not fit for many of us on this forum. CC parents and kids tend to be those who are exceptional and looking for the best possible educational opportunities. The highest quality schools tend to attract many strong applicants and are highly selective. The vast majority of applicants for these selective schools are perfectly able to succeed and graduate but are rejected. It would be great if there were hidden gems - schools which are academically equivalent to the top selective schools, but where admission was likely. I don’t believe they exist. There are schools which are a lot better than the USNWR rankings would indicate but that does not mean they are any where near the level of the highest ranked schools.</p>
<p>Edad, Again, you missed my point. A well-targeted list applies for even the MOST selective schools and even for <em>exceptional</em> students (perhaps even more for them). </p>
<p>Re-read my original post: it is about figuring out what you have to offer and what potential colleges/universities want and need and then trying to match up the two as much as possible as you develop your list. That means you don’t shot gun every Ivy league school with the same application, nor do you take the top 20 of the US News and World Report rankings and apply to all of them just because they are supposedly “The best” because they are the most selective. And, you make sure to include solid safe bet schools that you would truly be happy to attend if all else fails – for someone who has a list made up mostly of schools with admissions rates of below 10% this is even more important. </p>
<p>Again, it is a mistake to equate “safe bet” with inferior — if you keep your mind open, there are many excellent choices out there, especially for top students. Unfortunately, I know that I might as well be spitting in the ocean as talking to many parents here, as there are many parents here who not only equate “safe bet” with inferior but “high acceptance rate” with inferior as well. Too bad. (By the way, I have one of those “exceptional” students you are talking about too — but when he starts looking at colleges, I will make sure he has just such a well-targeted list and that he understands that there are MANY places where he can get an exceptional education to match his exceptional intellect.) </p>
<p>Granted, this isn’t a perfect science, but the snobbery of thinking that <em>only</em> the most selective schools will do is because your child is “exceptional” and that a well-targeted list doesn’t matter as long as your child goes to a “most selective” school is exactly what leads to problems and disappointments. If Andi’s exceptional son had had a well-targeted list like I am describing, he would be in college today. I think Andi would agree.</p>
<p>Sadly, there are students who receive ill advised advice from folks like their HS guidance counselors. Some are very exceptional students who are told “you WILL get into an Ivy”. How about a student who is val, excellent ECs with leadership, community involvement as a volunteer, very strong SAT scores. Applied to Princeton, Brown, Cornell and an OOS flagship U. Guess what…he didn’t even get waitlisted at those Ivies…he got rejected. No where did anyone suggest that there were TONS…and I mean TONS of wonderful colleges that would have welcomed this student with very open arms and also decent merit aid too (Hamilton, Haverford, Lafayette, BC, etc). His family was counting on the full need based aid that the Ivies would have awarded him. Instead, they paid the FULL cost of attendance at the OOS flagship. It ended up being a great school for him…and a wonderful match. But it was not a happy month of April in their house when rejection after rejection came his way. If he had had a well balanced list of schools, adding some LAC types where he most definitely would have gotten aid, he would have been in great shape. He didn’t even LOOK at or consider schools of this type…he was advised that he didn’t need to. I say…your college net needs to be broad and well targeted…and don’t assume ANY safe bets with those very highly selective schools.</p>
<p>My S two years ago applied to 11 schools, and it felt like the right amount. In retrospect, his list wasn’t perhaps as <em>well targeted</em> as it could have been, but at the time it was a thoughtful list. At the time he wasn’t sure if he wanted to go into engineering or wanted a broader education. In hindsight, he decided he did not want engineering, so we could have dropped a couple off the list had he known that, And there was one school that ended up not being attractive at all to him, so could have dropped that one as well. </p>
<p>Still that would have left eight schools. Three of those were UC’s, and we felt it was necessary to apply to several of those, because it wasn’t clear his preferred UC would accept him because of his low grade/high SAT combo stats. Even though he really wasn’t gung ho about the UC’s, they were his financial safeties, so it was important to have them on the list at the time. In my mind applying to those three was sort of like applying to one school anyway-- all you have to do is check a couple more boxes and write a bigger check. So, perhaps his list wasn’t as well targeted as it could have been, and maybe he didn’t absolutely need to have the UC’s on the list, but but it seemed a very reasonable list given the info we had at the time. I wouldn’t change it. And the bonus is I learned a lot about the schools he applied to by going through the whole process from considering them, to applying, to seeing what happened after admittance, and since I have three more kids to go through this, that is all valuable info and may help in forming lists for my other kids. </p>
<p>In short, based on my experience going through this with this kid, I think you can have a very well targeted list and still end up with a minimum of seven or eight schools on it!</p>
<p>If we would have really whittled the list down it would have been MIT, Chicago, Tufts, Grinnell and St. Olaf. And I have to say that at the time it wasn’t clear to me that any of those were a safe bet! The actual results with those schools were one rejection, two waitlists and two admits, but that is in hindsight. At the time it seemed wise to have a few more on the list. I don’t regret it. </p>
<p>Actually, thinking about it again, I don’t think he could have whittled it down to that, because of the uncertainty about the engineering at the time, so he really needed some <em>engineering</em> schools other than MIT and Tufts on the list (too selective). Just can’t see how to have gotten the list for him down to less than minimum seven or eight, given what he/we knew at the time.</p>
<p>In my mind applying to those three was sort of like applying to one school anyway-- all you have to do is check a couple more boxes and write a bigger check>></p>
<p>I agree with this approach Mstee. In fact, one of the reasons why Californian students have larger lists than in some other parts of the country is that it is so easy to apply to all of the UC’s. No harm there.</p>
<p>And, again, I am not saying that everyone should have a set number of schools, just that each school on the list should be there for a clear reason. There are certainly cases where a few more well thought out choices are appropriate.</p>
<p>I agree with that–“each school should be there for a clear reason.” I guess I was overly focusing on the number four. A careful list can contain more than four. I realize now, though, that you didn’t really mean that there is something wrong with a list that is longer.</p>
<p>I still think, with regard to this CC crowd and their parents, the ONLY way you can truly say your list of only 4 or 5 was “well thought out” is in hindsight, after the letters come in, in April. Besides the difficulty of getting into top schools, what about the so-called Tufts syndrome? How can you predict if you’ll be a “victim” of that? In defense of andi’s son, he applied if I remember correctly to one school in particular where on paper he’d be a shoe-in…the WL never opened up for him.</p>
<p>Also I don’t think the typical, rather non-cc family, is able to put together a really well targeted list. I’ve heard enough of them to wonder what were they thinking?</p>
<p>Again, I don’t think that anyone here has said that the list should be limited to 4 or 5 or any particular number at all. The mention of “4” was because in a nationwide survey of 263,000 incoming freshmen, the majority said they had applied to four or less. </p>
<p>However, I do stand by my original comment that students who have a well-targeted list (no matter how selective the schools on it may be) probably will need to apply to fewer schools overall than those who have not made the effort to develop a well-targeted and well-thought-out list. But, that’s just my personal opinion so anyone and everyone is free to disagree. :)</p>
<p>I’ve heard enough of them to wonder what were they thinking>></p>
<p>You and me both 2331clk. In fact, my daughter has a friend who applied to 23 schools this year. Of the 23, only about 3 are realistic matches for her. She has already been rejected by 8 schools. Some might say there was no harm in her aiming high, but I have a different view: she is likely to end up at one of those realistic matches feeling that she had “lost out” on all those reaches, when in reality she had very little chance to begin with. But she, and her parents, wanted a “name” school for her, even though anyone on CC would have told her that with a 3.3 weighted GPA and test scores well below 1200 she wasn’t going to get into schools like Boston College, Tufts, and the University of Pennsylvania. Ironically, she probably would have had great chances at some terrific schools but because she and her parents considered them “lesser” schools, she never really looked at them or applied to them. The three match schools on her list only ended up there through much begging on the part of her GC and my daughter. </p>
<p>But, don’t make the mistake of thinking that this example doesn’t apply to you or your child because your child is “exceptional” and has much better grades or test scores. EVERY parent thinks their child is exceptional. The realistic ones just understand that the trick to success in college admissions means pinpointing which schools will be most likely to agree - no matter what their selectivity level - and making sure those colleges are the ones that become the core of the list. And, yes, it is possible to do that to a certain extent for even the most selective schools, although I would be the first to admit that there is no such thing as a “100% sure bet” at any level of selectivity. </p>
<p>Of course, this is just my opinion, based on several years of observation of hundreds of students and parents here and elsewhere. Obviously, everyone is free to disagree. :)</p>
<p>I applied to one school and was accepted - my first choice school.</p>
<p>he applied if I remember correctly to one school in particular where on paper he’d be a shoe-in…the WL never opened up for him.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>This is true. However, if you read back over that thread from last year you’ll see that he basically treated this school as a “they’re going to take me no matter what so why put in much effort” throw away application. Additionally, this school was one likely to get many applications from students with musical talent, which Andi and her son had expected would be his drawing card because he has such exceptional talent. </p>
<p>Let me give another example that I’ve mentioned time and time again. Yale has the rep of being “the” Ivy that kids with EC’s related to theater should apply to. After all, they have such a terrific drama program, wouldn’t Yale be thrilled to see my or my child’s exceptional talent and EC’s in this field? So, what happens? Yale gets truckloads of applications from kids with just this type of background. And, it rejects truckloads as well because it has a surplus to choose from. So, a kid applying to Yale expecting to get in because of stellar theater background better have something else to offer that Yale doesn’t have a surplus of. Now this doesn’t mean that a theater kid shouldn’t apply to Yale, but they better have some other options and keep their mind open about loving them just as much as Yale, including, perhaps, some other Ivy schools that don’t have a surplus of theater kids knocking down their doors. Same thing with want-to-be-doctors applying to Johns Hopkins or future financiers applying to Wharton. THAT’S where a well-targeted list begins. Sure, apply to “the” school you like best, but don’t make the mistake of believing it is the ONLY school for you, your child, or students like your child.</p>
<p>In college admissions, you have to think like a marketer, and decide which customers are going to want and need what you’re selling. Yep, you can still try to sell those customers who don’t really need what you’re selling because they can get it from other, perhaps better sources, but first, focus on the target customers who do want or need what you have and appreciate them. Some of them will even be highly selective schools suitable for exceptional students.</p>
<p>Again, my opinion only. No need to agree with me. :)</p>
<p>Congratulations Klf!</p>
<p>Although some students aiming for elite schools are pretty snobby when they look down at state schools, I think a lot of kids recognize that they could be very happy and get a wonderful education at that school. However, that doesn’t mean that they shouldn’t strive for a more competitive school - which usually does indicate at the very least a better quality of student. If a student wants to have a better chance at getting into a certain range of school, he should apply to more of them, even if he ultimately decides on the “lesser” school.</p>
<p>Had I not gotten in ED last year, there were schools on my list that I probably would have turned down for Rutgers, my state school. However, I also recognized how lousy I would feel if I went to RU only because I had been rejected everywhere else, rather than if I made the conscious decision to go there over a more competitive school. My philosophy is that you should give yourself a wealth of options.</p>
<p>Additionally, as I said before, kids with large lists are not ignoring the concept of “fit,” they are just acknowledging that being too choosy might leave them out in the cold. Also, although fit is important, students usually find their niche at any school. A girl in my HS was dying to go to Brown, and had the stereotypical personality for it. She did not get in, and her mother forced her to choose Tufts over Smith and Bard, two schools much closer to her personality. She was miserable at the prospect of going to a school full of “spoiled rich kids who don’t care about anything but what professional schools they get into.” Once she got there, however, she joined three different literary magazines, took classes that fit her interests, and is now very happy with a group of friends who share her interests.</p>
<p>My sons high school limited applications to eight. I thought this was 1) none of their business and 2) too few for kids who were attracted to highly selective schools. That was three years ago. I would now say that eight is way, way too few (and still none of their business). </p>
<p>I have no argument whatsoever with a well targeted list. I also have no dispute with a list that assures that the applicant WILL get into a least one school. I take to heart the advice build from the bottom up and thus recommend one or two safeties, three or four solid matches. </p>
<p>Its when we get to the reach category that I disagree. If for whatever reason you aspire to a super-selective, then youd best find 3 to 4 more with similar personalities to add to your list. If I throw in an EA or rolling for good measure I come up with 11. Add to that schools with merit opportunities, the list could easily expand to 14-15. A lot of work, yes, but to me, NOT a shot-gun, unfocused strategy.</p>
<p>You may end up going to a match or your safety and this may end up being a good thing. I have no argument there. What Im trying to say is that super-selectives are unpredictable so if Brown, for example, is your hearts desire and your profile is within reason, then go ahead and apply to Swarthmore, Columbia and Yale as well. You may ultimately choose Smith (again, just for example) and be happy as a clam, but at least youll know that you gave the reach category your best shot. The goal as I see it is to empower the applicant and as has been pointed out, if you dont apply you for sure wont get in.</p>