This is sort of a theoretical question and probably has been discussed here quite a bit, but I’m not finding a good thread searching the forums, so I thought I would toss this out here and see what kind of response I get. (If there is a extant thread that answers the question, feel free to berate me and please post the link.)
I have seen several comments scattered around the forum using the following definitions, based on mapping test scores to the published mid-range test scores:
Safety schools - Top quartile
Reach schools - Bottom quartile
Match schools - within the 50% mid range
I think I am onboard with the definition for safety schools, but I think the match definition is overly optimistic and I think the definition of reach is hopelessly naive. For the purposes of argument, I am assuming that the imaginary applicant in question is “average” for the test scores in terms of the other elements of their application (GPA/Activities/Achievements/Essays/Etc) and I am also assuming they are “unhooked” in terms of ethnicity / athletic recruitment / whatever.
My personal feeling is that if test scores fall into the bottom quartile for a particular school, that’s not a “reach school” for an truly unhooked applicant - that’s a “praying for a miracle” school, or however you might want to phrase it. Perhaps my definitions of match and reach are substantially different than the common usage, or maybe I am too pessimistic by nature, but I’d like to hear other people’s take on this, specifically on the reach schools definition and standards.
I have never heard those ‘definiations’ you mention from any credible source. I think most people will agree that a true safety if one you are assured of admission. And one you can afford otherwise you are left with potentially no where to go.
I think it honestly depends on the level of the applicant and the schools he/she is shooting for. For example, I had a 36 on my ACT (which is above the 75th percentile at every college in the nation), but by no means were Princeton, Stanford, MIT, etc. safeties for me (I actually got denied at all 3).
Reaches are kind of like “dream” schools where you are unlikely to get in but where there is still a (slim) possibility.
Match means that you have a reasonable chance of getting into the school, but there are no guarantees either way.
Safeties are schools where you are either guaranteed admission or will almost certainly get in.
I know these definitions are somewhat subjective, but they give a decent idea of what reach/match/safety means.
OP, that’s a start but you need to read more. Selectivity of the school plays into this. Schools that only offer admission to 20% of applicants are a reach for virtually all students.
Thanks for the responses, but none have really addressed the question I was trying to ask. Perhaps I wasn’t very clear in the original post.
Assuming an applicant doesn’t have a strong hook (URM, very low SES, recruited athlete, National recognition, invented a cure for cancer while a high school student, etc.) and his/her test scores are below the 25th percentile for the school, is that school still considered a “reach” school? (And for the purposes of this question, let’s stipulate that the school in questions is selective/highly selective.) A concrete example would be a applicant to Duke with SATs in the 1950 range.
My uninformed opinion/belief is that this is a “reach too far” rather than a “reach” - chances of admission are so low that this is not really a legitimate reach school, it is more of a lottery ticket purchase. Go ahead and give it shot if it is your absolute dream school, but it is kind of outside any sort of rational safety/match/reach strategy.
Your Duke example would be a very long reach - essentially a prayer shot. In that case, the school is very highly selective and the student has no hooks
Keep in mind what the stats mean: bottom quartile means that 25% of the enrolled students scored below that! That’s a pretty big chunk. Of course, percentage of admitted students is different from percentage of enrolled students, but it’s not out of the question, especially if your other stats/essays/recs/ecs/everything else are good!
@wayneandgarth It sounds like we are the same page, roughly.
@Dragonsgo In this case, the scores are somewhat below 25%, actually roughly 18% (calculated relative to the midpoint, using the 25-75 range as a scale), so we are talking less than 25%. My assumption, and I’m sure not everyone will agree, is that most of the bottom 25% at very selective schools are admitted because they are hooked in some significant way. A more typical applicant with test scores in this range are facing extremely long odds. That’s my perspective, at least, and the reason I posted the question in the first place was to hear what other people think about this.
Yes, an unhooked student should consider that the bottom 25% threshold is his/her “lowest possible stats”. The range considered should thus start at that level. A college with an admission rate of 20% and less is an automatic reach for everyone. Those with admission rates in the 20-30% range can be automatic reach depending on the applicant’s other qualifications. So, a college where the student is at or near the top 25% threshold for stats and where admission rates are above 30% can be considered a match.
I think I am onboard with the definition for safety schools,
[QUOTE=""]
[/QUOTE]
No, that’s not right. There are many schools where being in the top quartile does not mean assured admission…the ivies, MIT, Stanford, the UCs, UMich, Duke, UChicago, WashU, Vandy, USC, UVA, UNC, etc.
Also…when you do identify the schools that will surely admit you, those schools ALSO need to be affordable (meaning that you have to know (not guess) that you have all costs covered. You can’t just assume you’ll get aid, you need to know that either your family will pay all costs or you’ll get enough ASSURED aid.
I’m inclined to agree. If you’re talking about top ~20 schools like Duke, they are probably out of reach for someone with bottom quartile stats, no hooks, and no extraordinary extracurriculars. Some such students (more or fewer depending on the year and school) may be charming their way in on the strength of LORs, essays, and interviews. I wouldn’t count on that, though. Why not focus on the many other excellent colleges where you’d have a more realistic shot? Schools with higher admission rates must be going deeper into that bottom quartile. Some of them (e.g. some of the women’s colleges and other LACs) offer undergraduate academics just as good as some of the T20 schools. They just don’t get as many applications.
Ok, thanks for the responses, keep them coming please.
I would like to make one point however, since several people have commented on it…
I understand the full definition of “safety” school, and I understand the concept of how both affordability and selectivity are critical to identifying a real safety school. I realize that wasn’t especially clear in the original post where I said >75th percentile is “safety school range” or whatever - what I meant is that this is where you begin your search for safety schools, not a clean dividing line or a threshold value.
Students use the word “reach” because they are naturaly more optimistic than their parents. It behooves parents to explain that averages are used to simplify descriptions and not to suggest every student has the same chance of getting accepted to a particular college.
I consider schools a reach when stats are in the lower part of the middle 50%, especially at small schools.
At Bates where my older boy will be starting, the freshman class is about 500 students, of which 50% is filled in early decision with a yield of 100% and this year the acceptance rate in ED was about 24%. This is highly misleading because of the 250 entering the class through ED, about 100 were athletes pre-read over the summer and legacy students. So a full 20% of the class is predetermined.
Since many students can’t or don’t apply ED, using this year’s overall acceptance rate of 21% to plan an application strategy is a very bad idea. The acceptance rate was about 17% in RD, which is when the vast majority of students apply. Worse, it was a few points lower for women.
@NickFlynn There are material wrinkles to this process that with smaller schools you cannot mitigate well. In RD, what you thought was a match becomes a reach and a reach becomes a waste of the application fee.
@BatesParent2019 First of all, congrats to your son for getting into Bates!
Secondly, I pretty much agree with your post, except that I would add that many parents also get overly optimistic about their kid’s chances, and want to shoot for the moon. In my limited experience, neither side has a monopoly on this kind of wishful thinking. Good points about ED and acceptance rates, especially.
Not sure exactly what you are referring to in the last line of your post - the “material wrinkles…smaller schools” - if you don’t mind, could you elaborate?
The material wrinkles are largely a function of the small class size and the fact that these schools need skill sets in order to complete a functional class, compounded by the need to have geographic diversity and some equilibrium with males and females.
So they have a choice between two students, one from a highly represented state like NJ with a 34 ACT and a student from North Dakota with a 32 ACT. Guess who gets accepted.
Or you have two students with the same stats from North Dakota but one is a concert pianist. Guess who gets accepted.
OP, you’re saying you’d like to make a new category up - atmospheric reach or something similar. Have at it. Some students have enough trouble understanding safety, match, reach as it is.
@“Erin’s Dad” I am not looking to make up a new category, I’m interested in developing some reasonable guidelines for determining what is a true “reach school” and what is just an unrealistic attempt to catch lightning in a bottle. Lots of kids don’t have a specific “dream school” and yet want to include a reach school or two to round out their lists.
@BatesParent2019 Thanks for the clarification, and very good points.
@NickFlynn School to school there are too many variables to use a general approach. It is sort of like the definition of pornography, you know it when you see it. The top 25 schools in either the university rankings or liberal arts colleges rankings accept the top 3% - 4% of students. Once you get too far from that band instinctively you know you become the tail of the curve.
After an initial list is compiled, you have to drill down and look at the granules of data before you can decide what is a reach or not. Class size, specific major, gender, geography, race are all factors that need to be analyzed.
When AVERAGE acceptance rates drop below 30% you know that for many applicants it is a Hail Mary. You just know it.
Typically I distinguish between “reach” and “out of reach”. Students can apply to “out of reach” schools but only once they’re done with all other applications. They do so because they don’t want to wonder “what if”. The answer (denied) puts any lingering doubt to rest
