Safety schools for a high stats kid?

[Anonymous]

Probably one of the UC schools — The middle 50% ACT range for UC Irvine and UC Davis is 24-31

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The answer to this depends entirely on what your child wants to study and what kind of school is a good fit. You don't randomly pick schools off of a global ranking list. That makes zero sense.

Makes a lot of sense to me. The higher the ranking the more capable peer group of students. You can’t teach advanced classes to kids who struggle with math and writing

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What would be a safety for a high stats kid from DC (4.0 unweighted, 35 ACT)?

Reach for a top 15 national university (NU) or top 5 SLAC; aim/target 15-50 NU or 5-15 SLAC; safety 50-100 NU or 16-30 SLAC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What would be a safety for a high stats kid from DC (4.0 unweighted, 35 ACT)?

Reach for a top 15 national university (NU) or top 5 SLAC; aim/target 15-50 NU or 5-15 SLAC; safety 50-100 NU or 16-30 SLAC.

If safety means a greater than 75% chance of acceptance then it can easily be a t30-50 school for a kid with high stats from a strong HS with rigorous curriculum

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What would be a safety for a high stats kid from DC (4.0 unweighted, 35 ACT)?

Reach for a top 15 national university (NU) or top 5 SLAC; aim/target 15-50 NU or 5-15 SLAC; safety 50-100 NU or 16-30 SLAC.

If safety means a greater than 75% chance of acceptance then it can easily be a t30-50 school for a kid with high stats from a strong HS with rigorous curriculum

That's not what safety means and that's not the percent of high stats kids accepted at t30s+. If a quarter of high stats kids are being rejected, that misses the point of having a safety. A true safety would have an acceptance rate over 50%, without a reputation for yield protection. (Example, my high stats kid was rejected from a top 50 school that had an acceptance rate in the high 40s. Obviously it was not an actual safety.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What would be a safety for a high stats kid from DC (4.0 unweighted, 35 ACT)?

Reach for a top 15 national university (NU) or top 5 SLAC; aim/target 15-50 NU or 5-15 SLAC; safety 50-100 NU or 16-30 SLAC.

If safety means a greater than 75% chance of acceptance then it can easily be a t30-50 school for a kid with high stats from a strong HS with rigorous curriculum

That's not what safety means and that's not the percent of high stats kids accepted at t30s+. If a quarter of high stats kids are being rejected, that misses the point of having a safety. A true safety would have an acceptance rate over 50%, without a reputation for yield protection. (Example, my high stats kid was rejected from a top 50 school that had an acceptance rate in the high 40s. Obviously it was not an actual safety.)

Not every t30+ schools puts most weight on stats but some of them do, at least that is what naviance scattergrams tell us. Which t50 school rejected your kid?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What would be a safety for a high stats kid from DC (4.0 unweighted, 35 ACT)?

Reach for a top 15 national university (NU) or top 5 SLAC; aim/target 15-50 NU or 5-15 SLAC; safety 50-100 NU or 16-30 SLAC.

If safety means a greater than 75% chance of acceptance then it can easily be a t30-50 school for a kid with high stats from a strong HS with rigorous curriculum

The problem with this strategy is that any private school in the top 100 might be unpredictable about how it handles being treated as a safety.

I think one requirement for a safety for a high-stats kid is that it takes all reasonably well-behaved high-stats kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What would be a safety for a high stats kid from DC (4.0 unweighted, 35 ACT)?

If you mean DC proper, and you really mean a safety, UDC or arts and sciences at a place like JMU, the University of Delaware or the University of Kansas. UMD and UVa aren’t safeties for any out-of-state students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What would be a safety for a high stats kid from DC (4.0 unweighted, 35 ACT)?

Reach for a top 15 national university (NU) or top 5 SLAC; aim/target 15-50 NU or 5-15 SLAC; safety 50-100 NU or 16-30 SLAC.

If safety means a greater than 75% chance of acceptance then it can easily be a t30-50 school for a kid with high stats from a strong HS with rigorous curriculum

The problem with this strategy is that any private school in the top 100 might be unpredictable about how it handles being treated as a safety.

I think one requirement for a safety for a high-stats kid is that it takes all reasonably well-behaved high-stats kids.

True. Yield protection is a b*tch!

(I fear my kid’s second choice school will probably think it’s being used as a safety. Yikes!)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What would be a safety for a high stats kid from DC (4.0 unweighted, 35 ACT)?

Reach for a top 15 national university (NU) or top 5 SLAC; aim/target 15-50 NU or 5-15 SLAC; safety 50-100 NU or 16-30 SLAC.

If safety means a greater than 75% chance of acceptance then it can easily be a t30-50 school for a kid with high stats from a strong HS with rigorous curriculum

The problem with this strategy is that any private school in the top 100 might be unpredictable about how it handles being treated as a safety.

I think one requirement for a safety for a high-stats kid is that it takes all reasonably well-behaved high-stats kids.

So your high-stats kid would go to a national university rated lower than 100? If so, they should be getting a full-ride.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I get the idea of a safety, but if you compromise too much is a safety worth attending? It strike me that if you’re reaching for Cornell and end up at George Mason you’ve either messed up your application or were terribly unrealistic. In that scenario, I’d find something else to do for a year and reapply.

Why do you think reapplying would result in a "better" school? If they didn't want you the first time, applying again doesn't change your story, grades or scores.

Because, as I said, to get that result, the kid either messed up the application or their expectations. If they have high stats, they messed up the application or application strategy. If they don’t have high stats, their expectations were unaligned with reality. College results shouldn’t be feast or famine - Cornell or GMU. Again, the qualifications for those two schools are do different the student either had no business/chance applying to Cornell or they should have ended up at a 25-50 school. GMU is ranked 148.

And 30% of students transfer after first or second year. Know a number of kids who did not get into their ED, attended another school, and worked their butts off. For example, one went from Emory to Columbia after first year, one went from Wash U to Northwestern also after first year, and another went from Tufts to Brown after second year. Sh#t happens.

[Anonymous]

Op - What about Miami University in Ohio as a safety? It’s ranked 103 and they have formulaic merit aid that will get your student in-state or full-tuition.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I get the idea of a safety, but if you compromise too much is a safety worth attending? It strike me that if you’re reaching for Cornell and end up at George Mason you’ve either messed up your application or were terribly unrealistic. In that scenario, I’d find something else to do for a year and reapply.

Why do you think reapplying would result in a "better" school? If they didn't want you the first time, applying again doesn't change your story, grades or scores.

Because, as I said, to get that result, the kid either messed up the application or their expectations. If they have high stats, they messed up the application or application strategy. If they don’t have high stats, their expectations were unaligned with reality. College results shouldn’t be feast or famine - Cornell or GMU. Again, the qualifications for those two schools are do different the student either had no business/chance applying to Cornell or they should have ended up at a 25-50 school. GMU is ranked 148.

And 30% of students transfer after first or second year. Know a number of kids who did not get into their ED, attended another school, and worked their butts off. For example, one went from Emory to Columbia after first year, one went from Wash U to Northwestern also after first year, and another went from Tufts to Brown after second year. Sh#t happens.

Whoa! You’re not playing straight. Emory, WashU, and Tufts are not low-ranked safety schools. You’re saying the same thing I’m saying, which is that a high-stats kid should not find it necessary to apply to or attend a 100-150 ranked school. My argument is that those “safeties” aren’t worth having. You’re just saying that a high-stats kid may not get their REACH but attend a target school before transferring to a REACH. Totally different scenario.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Op - What about Miami University in Ohio as a safety? It’s ranked 103 and they have formulaic merit aid that will get your student in-state or full-tuition.

I highly doubt that's what OP is looking for

[Anonymous]

I'd look schools in the 60-100 range that may be safeties for a high stats kid.