NY Times: The New Safeties

[asteriskea]

<p>Two Education section “Guidance counselor” articles on safeties aka likelies, worth perusing: </p>

<p>Tips include great advice heard often on CC - “pick colleges that you can live with”</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/29/education/edlife/guidance29.html?em&ex=1185854400&en=33fd58ba9c716af3&ei=5087 [/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/29/education/edlife/guidance29.html?em&ex=1185854400&en=33fd58ba9c716af3&ei=5087 &lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>and “Safety First” Counselors offer suggestions on new fall-back campuses.</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/29/education/edlife/guidance29-sidebar.html[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/29/education/edlife/guidance29-sidebar.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

[betterday55]

<p>the acceptance rates are way outdated</p>

[musictoad]

<p>delusions of safety. that’s what the article should have concentrated on.</p>

<p>get real NY Times. chicago? emory? they must be living in an ivory tower.</p>

[barrons]

<p>It was news to the NYT that schools were now charging more tuition for some majors. That was 20 year old “news”.</p>

[hawkette]

<p>According to collegeboard.com (which itself is one admissions cycle behind and thus the numbers are likely even lower), here are the acceptance rates for some of the schools mentioned in some of these articles:</p>

<p>21% Wash U</p>

<p>32% Emory</p>

<p>38% U Chicago</p>

<p>29% Boston College</p>

<p>68% U Washington</p>

<p>18% U Penn</p>

<p>47% U Michigan</p>

[Lejeune]

<p>I loved the second link where they describe Chicago as a fallback campus.</p>

<p>So these schools are safeties for… whom exactly?</p>

[ninja.of.love]

<p>Not me Lejeune, that’s for sure. Georgetown as a safety? That gave me a hearty laugh. 22% overall acceptance rate…</p>

[littlemage897]

<p>This has GOT to be a joke. Tell me when it’s over.</p>

[ramses_2]

<p>It sounds to me like Michele Hernandez may be trying to push Chicago as this year’s new flavor.(‘One of the top schools in the world’ sounds like something she may be saying to her top paying clients.)</p>

[JBVirtuoso]

<p>These articles must be talking about those select few who are strong enough applicants to get in anywhere they want. Chicago and Emory really can’t be considered safeties. Same for Georgetown. </p>

<p>I thought a safety (for a competitive student) was one that offered you a good chunk of merit money or an in-state public. Not Georgetown.</p>

<p>I think the folks at NYT are looking through rose-colored spectacles.</p>

[LesOs]

<p>Yeah… Georgetown a safety? How misinformed WAS the author of this article?!?</p>

[kk19131]

<p>“Forget Northwestern, which “is on everybody’s radar,” says Michele Hernandez, a private consultant. “Chicago is much easier to get into than Harvard but is one of the top-rated schools in the world.” Caveat: Mr. Dix credits the high admittance rate to applicant self-selection. “They have crazy essays you have to write, and that turns away some applicants,” he says.”</p>

<ul>
<li>:rolleyes:</li>
</ul>

[45_Percenter]

<p>This is yet another example of how looking at just one statistic (in this case, admit rate) can lead one to erroneous conclusions.</p>

[advantagious]

<p>^^It doesn’t even seem like they used acceptance rates, or they never would have touted Georgetown as a safety (unless an acceptance rate in the mid or lower 20’s is now “safe”). </p>

<p>Honestly, reading this article it seems like the writer(s) is still stuck 20, or 30, or more years in the past with their assessment of “safeties”. The NYT should have come over to CC…I could have given them a nice, well-written explanation of how to pick a safety!</p>

<p>Edit: I missed the second article…even dumber. Okay, yeah, UChicago is significantly easier to get into than Harvard (as are all but about 6 or 7 other schools in the country!), but I know from observation that it hardly accepts every student with a high test score and impressive academic record. Plus there is definitely the self-selection factor…look at the test scores. Idiotic articles.</p>

[k_amp_s]

<p>

If you want an intellectually rigorous, urban campus, the University of Chicago may be a fallback for the University of Pennsylvania.

</p>

<p>UoC a “fallback” for Penn? Nevermind they have different environments (a more apropos comparison would be NU and Penn and Columbia and UoC).</p>

<p>

To maintain a 19 percent acceptance rate, Wash U has been known to wait-list top students it suspects are using it as a safety, says Will Dix, a college counselor at the Lab Schools of the University of Chicago. “They’re part of a weird phenomenon of schools who know they’re a lot of kids’ second choice but don’t want to be,” he says. “They have mastered the art of manipulating numbers and of aggressive marketing.”

</p>

<p>Low admissions rate or not - this type of belief really can’t be good for WUSTL’s rep.</p>

[koolmaria139]

<p>“They have mastered the art of manipulating numbers and of aggressive marketing.”
^^This is one reason that I am no longer considering applying to WashU. </p>

<p>Yeah the article is misinformed. I can just see naive readers groping to apply to Georgetown because it is a “safety”</p>

[k_amp_s]

<p>Btw, I’m sure MomofWC would be distressed to see her beloved UoC be described as a fallback" for Penn.</p>

[cj3051]

<p>It is scandalous to say that UofC is a fallback for UPenn. In terms of academics, UofC is so much better!</p>

[Columbiahopeful_1]

<p>hmm…Penn is just so much more selective though and has a better business and medical school, a top notch dental, med, and vet school…</p>

[bigp9998]

<p>“Penn is just so much more selective though”</p>

<p>So that makes it a better school?</p>