<p>According to the classic definition, a “reach” school is one where a given student’s credentials are lower than the class average. (I’m sticking to the world outside the top tier. As you know, there are special rules that only apply to the top tier of selective colleges.)</p>
<p>It’s not possible for everyone to attend a “reach”. Suppose everyone with an SAT of 1200 and a matching GPA and class rank applies to a school with a class average of 1300. Suppose all those 1200-scorers get accepted (because they all had great essays, had their applications read when the admissions officer was in a good mood, had great extracurriculars, etc.) and enroll there. They’d bring down the class average, and the school wouldn’t really be a “reach” for the 1200-scorers out there.</p>
<p>By definition, only so many people can be at the bottom of the class, which is what people who enroll at a classic “reach” school are (assuming that future performance will match past performance, of course).</p>
<p>I agree, and have asked the question a few times: Do you really want to go to a school where 75% or more of your fellow students are “smarter” than you, and/or have higher test scores than you? Everyone seems to agree on the importance of a “good fit” and finding a place where the student feels comfortable. This seems to argue against going to a super reach for the average student. The same question can also be asked of a heavily “hooked” student, whatever that hook may be, who gains acceptance to a highly selective “elite” school.</p>
<p>It does seem like a very common strategy is to rank the entire universe of schools from 1 to 15,356 (typically using someone else’s ranking) and proceed to try to get into the highest ranking school possible.</p>
<p>At the same time, I feel it’s a good time to add that “stats aren’t everything” and not every one of those students that score below the curve are going to be facing a class of kids “smarter” than them (but then, I’m sure that’s what NJres said by putting quotes around the term in the post!).</p>
<p>By the same token, “reach” is more than a matter of “scores above yours,” particularly for kids on CC: a “reach” is a school with a less than 25% acceptance rate (sometimes less than 10% acceptance), where the class isn’t necessarily any smarter than you (or even scoring better), just luckier.</p>
<p>Undecided, I think you’ve turned it around a little but it is interesting to look at it that way. To me, a “reach” school is one in which the applicant’s profile, at the time of application, falls below the average applicant profile in one or more of the typical criteria: scores, GPA, EC’s, demonstrated accomplishment, etc. “Reach” is different for each applicant. Some highly selective schools may have such low acceptance rates that they are a lottery for everyone, so they seem to be a “reach” for everyone, but in fact there are applicants for whom such schools are a match, stat-wise. What you describe, I think, is equating “reach” with “luck” at these highly selective schools.</p>
<p>Along with trying to find a good fit, it’s important to look at some very personal factors when considering reach schools. For instance, the ambitious and “lucky” lower-SAT student with excellent study habits will fare much better at a true reach than than the higher-scoring student with time management problems, for whom the school was a statistical match.</p>
<p>It is indeed a balancing act. Parents need to offer the insight of the pros and cons of attending a “reach” school (that being one where your child is in the lower end of the stats). Is your child the type who will be buried under the competition, or is your child the type who will rise to the occasion? Huge difference in outcome. I know, because when I was in college (a million years ago) I was the former type, and it lead to a most unfulfilling college experience.</p>
<p>In addition, many students have no desire to attend a college in which they enter at the bottom of the pile.</p>
<p>Frankly, probably most people enjoy best being surrounded by intellectual peers, not people who make them feel like intellectual midgets. Most students probably would prefer attending a college with enough intellectual challenges that they get the rewarding feeling of learn new things without having to spend all of their free time studying or shuddering with anxiety about their grades.</p>
<p>For most people, college encompasses more than just going to class. It also includes having a social life, joining extracurriculars, doing volunteer work, making friends, etc.</p>
<p>In addition, the idea that most students strive to go off to reach schools is a fallacy fueled by the fact that CC attracts mostly people who wish to attend colleges that are reaches for virtually everyone. Most students nationwide attend their first choice college. My guess is that that first choice college is likely to be a match college or a safety equivalent, not a reach college.</p>
<p>Most high schools are not like the supercompetitive public and private high schools in which most students are sending 10-20 college applications, and are trying to get to HPYS. Probably most high school students go off to the public university that is an hour or two from their home, and when they apply, they are virtually sure they’ll get in because such universities tend to be very stat-driven. I know plenty of high achieving students in S’s school who applied to only one or two in state colleges. The colleges’ admissions are so predictable that the students knew that as long as they got their applications in early, they’d be accepted.</p>
<p>Whenever the topic of college comes up in conversations with people of retirement age, I ask them what they think about college selection, college life, etc. Across the board, the responses have encouraged the enjoyment of the college years. Not one of these wise elders has counseled applying to the highest reach schools, living the college years in a fast-paced, pressure cooker environment, or seeking acceptance at a school in which one would be among the lowest 25th percentile. So many times, the exact same phrase is used: “Why?”, with a raising of the palms for emphasis. </p>
<p>In many cases, these individuals were high-achieving in their academic day and high-achieving in their profession. They maintained a fast-paced adult-oriented social life as well, throughout their lives, which puts my adult social life (and that of many of my child-centered peers) to shame. They express wonder and concern about the pressure under which their grandchildren and great-grandchildren operate. I know that “times have changed”, but I’m listening carefully to this very consistent lesson of balance.</p>
<p>Everyone does not attend a reach. My son did not get into his reach schools. He ended up at a school in the match/reach zone for him that offered money. I also believe that the school was more rigorous than most of the schools in his reach category and he probably should not have gone there. Sometimes the rigor of the school and its selectivity are not directly related.</p>
<p>Good point, jamimom, and one not often made. What are some things to look for in determining the relationship between a school’s rigor and its selectivity? Did you have an inkling about this before he matriculated?</p>
<p>Heck yeah, I did! I agree it’s not for everyone, but I was a thousand times happier being among the huddled masses rather than a big fish in a little pond. I thought being inspired/amazed/instructed by my classmates was super cool.</p>
<p>Oh, yes, I knew and warned him. But his main criteria was the sports team as he was an athlete and knew he would be spending a lot of time with the team. He also wanted the money, though we told him that we could pay his way. </p>
<p>You can get some ideas about the rigor by the grad rates and the years in generally takes to graduate, and by reading the narrative reports from PR and Fiske. Some schools just have the rep–JHU, Cornell, Case Western, CMU, Swarthmore, just to name a few. You can get selectivity numbers easily from USN&WR. It seems to me that those schools with a strong tech component tend to me the most rigorous. In my son’s case, his top choice was Brown, which may have been the most selective of his schools, but given Brown’s curriculum, it would not have been the most difficult for him. He did not get in there, however. And a number of his next level schools were more rigorous; he did get into all of those.</p>
<p>This is probably one of the best threads I’ve read in a while. My daughter only has match and safety schools on her list, no reaches. I doubt she will add any. </p>
<p>We’ve received some comments from people saying she should “aim higher.” But, I don’t think so, at least in my daughter’s case. She has gone to a very intense high school where she has been “middle of the pack” all along. I have seen what this has done to her confidence and stress level - yes, she has worked hard because she has been surrounded by more intelligent peers, but she will work hard no matter where she goes. The schools she has on her list are all schools where I feel comfortable that she will get a strong education, be challenged AND thrive. Why does she need to add some reaches just for the sake of doing so?</p>
<p>Another thing I have noticed is that there is an assumption that if you get into a “reach” that you would be foolish to pass it up for a less selective school, as if the matches and safeties you applied to are somehow second best because they are NOT “reaches.” If you pick your list wisely, that should not be an issue, and you should, in the end, pick the school that you like best, even if it is not your “reach” school.</p>
<p>And, while I’m venting, ,another beef of mine is the assumption that you can only be “among peers” and “be challenged” if you go to a highly selective school. I have been amazed at the educational quality of some schools that many here would turn their noses up at because they deemed prestigious or selective. There is a wide variety of educational experiences - and, yes, inspiring peers! - out there at every level of selectivity. Selectivity and prestige does not automatically translate into a better education. Period.</p>
<p>Nothing wrong with folks who want to aim high, but you really don’t HAVE to have reaches on your list or go to a reach school in order to have an excellent college experience.</p>
<p>You can get some ideas about the rigor by the grad rates and the years in generally takes to graduate, >></p>
<p>Jamimom, could you address this a little? Are you saying that a lower grad rate may sometimes mean a school is more rigorous, even if its admission rate is relatively high?</p>
<p>When you look at a school like CMU, you can see that the kids there are up there academically. However the admit rate, particularly in some of it schools is pretty generous. It is a great admission “deal” in fact for humanities and social science types as the admit rate is about 50%. But the school is rigorous, that is a fact. And the grad rate shows it. Many kids transfer out, or take longer to get out, given the type of kids who go there. This is not something I do as an exact analysis, but when looking at a kid who is not as interested in working too hard and wants more of a traditional college experience, such a school may not be a good match. Bucknell would perhaps be a better choice.</p>
<p>Jhsu - perhaps students should apply to a reach to give themselves an opportunity to be among a larger number of challenging peers, if the student chooses to go in a more intellectual direction OR perhaps he should apply to a reach because he is interested in a specific discipline or program (type of engineering for instance) and the reach is “better” in that discipline.
I agree with Carolyn, the real question is “why should you feel obligated to choose your reach school”? Reaches are great, all things being equal we all want our kids to go to the best school that they can - the problem is what is best? Best in what way? Will it stay “best” when the child is a junior, and now hopefully more adult than child?</p>
<p>Some kids will mature and become more interested in studies in college, some will get away from home, and, finally free, do little studying and lots of parties; some will have minds and eyes opened by classroom discussion, others will want more than anything to be anonymous - and most college students will just want to graduate with the least amount of debt possible.</p>
<p>Amen, Carolyn! I went to a school that I recently looked up and discovered is considered a 4th tier college; somehow that didn’t stop any of my classmates. Of those who immediately went on to grad school, every single one in my (very small) graduating class went to an Ivy or a [then] top 20 school. </p>
<p>I think that kids self-select to some degree, whether in high school or college. There were some in my class who I’m sure took the easiest possible route to graduation, but I just didn’t spend a lot of time with them. I sought out the kids who were as curious and in search of challenge as I was, and we were fortunate to have professors who gladly accomodated us. I see this with my daughter in high school too; she mixes with everyone but is closest to the kids who put themselves out there.</p>
<p>I’ve been a bit concerned lately, because my daughter now has two schools on her list that are not just academic reaches but also financial reaches. We’ve talked very clearly about the numbers, so she isn’t going in blind…but I’m redoubling my efforts to find schools that are considered “intellectually lively” but would be match/good bet schools in the $$$ category as well. Easier said than done! :)</p>
<p>Carolyn: Great post. That is exactly how I feel about my son’s college choice. It may not be the most selective school he got admitted to, but I believe it is by far the best match for him academically, socially and EC. He was under pressure from guidance counselor to apply to reach schools, but he didn’t, for both financial reasons and the reasons you have outlined here.</p>
Sure. There are lots of reasons that a school could have a lower 6-year graduation rate. One would be that the school is just plain “too hard” for “x” number of its freshmen. I don’t think you would want a school that has a 100% graduation rate. To me, that would be very suspect.</p>
<p>Here’s a passage on this issue from a letter written by the President of Stanford to USNEWS on the folly of their rankings methodology:</p>
<p>
</code></pre>
<p>Here’s a link to the full text of the letter:</p>
<p>Thanks jamimom. I also looked carefully at the freshman retention rate which can be the result of several factors, of which rigor is one. Also, it’s my understanding that graduation rate/#years it generally takes to graduate, can be influenced by factors such as larger school size, % of non-full time students, and affiliation with post-graduate programs (which promote a friendlier residential/academic environment for those over age 22). </p>
<p>Good for you, Carolyn! Parents of students at intense high schools need to pay extra attention to aspects of fit and match. The competition and reach factor permeate the air. The kids need help from their parents to understand themselves and create the most appropriate list of schools based on their personality, learning style, study habits, interests, etc. Academic stats are only part of the puzzle.</p>
,another beef of mine is the assumption that you can only be “among peers” and “be challenged” if you go to a highly selective school. I have been amazed at the educational quality of some schools that many here would turn their noses up at because they deemed prestigious or selective. There is a wide variety of educational experiences - and, yes, inspiring peers! - out there at every level of selectivity. Selectivity and prestige does not automatically translate into a better education. Period.</p>