Anonymous wrote:DS is a rising senior in FCPS. 1520 SAT, 4.5 has about a dozen schools in T125 he has identified. Unfortunately he wants to study CS. Not sure ANY CS programs in T125 could be considered safeties.
Anonymous wrote:You need to determine reaches, matches, and safeties on your own.
For grades, you can try to do some comparison by looking at your high school's Naviance scattergrams for particular colleges. Look at both weighted and unweighted GPAs. (Score info from these scattergrams is less useful now that most colleges are test optional, because you cannot tell whether the score for a particular data point was submitted or not.)
For scores, I would use the last year before test-optional policies became widespread. That would be college class of 2024, for which admission data is included in Common Data Set 2020-2021. You can usually find Common Data Sets for each year posted on the college's website, though not all colleges post their CDS.
Determining reaches, matches, and safeties is about more than matching the student's stats to the school; you also must consider acceptance rate. Find the most recent acceptance rate somewhere on the college's admission website, for college class of 2026, or see if it's listed here: https://www.collegekickstart.com/blog/item/class-of-2026-admission-results.
There is some disagreement on how to use acceptance rates for determining reaches, matches, and safeties. For a high-stats student: schools with acceptance rates <30% = reach, 30%-60% = match/target, >60% = safety. If the student does not have high stats (e.g. scores over the school's 75th percentile), then you need to adjust accordingly.
Honestly, under test optional policies, the uncertainty is simply greater than it was under the old test-required scenario, and this makes categorizing reaches, matches, and safeties that much more difficult. There is wisdom in a more conservative approach: have more targets and safeties than would have seemed necessary in the past.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:DS got into a school that we labeled a reach. Strategy played a big role in this I think.
So...what was the strategy?
I meant approaching college admissions like the game it is with a strategy suited to your kid and situation. For us, our DS22 was very high stats but otherwise unhooked. We were full pay. His top goal was admission to a top 20 school that was a good fit. Our strategy was studying the admissions data from a handful of colleges to see where a good ED candidate was. He chose one of those where the data (both Naviance and the school’s) showed that his school admitted kids like him, similar stats and unhooked-ness. The data isn’t perfect but by triangulating it and backing out known factors, the data isn’t that bad. The strategy worked, though I imagine it could easily could have failed too. We did our best educated guessing and he played his cards.
I meant to add that his admission was to a top 10 college. It’s a reach for anyone but we thought the strategy helped. He never would have gotten in RD.
Which top 10 colleges still do ED?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:DS got into a school that we labeled a reach. Strategy played a big role in this I think.
So...what was the strategy?
Maybe labeling it a reach, even though another person looking at exactly the same child might have labeled it a match
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:DS got into a school that we labeled a reach. Strategy played a big role in this I think.
So...what was the strategy?
I meant approaching college admissions like the game it is with a strategy suited to your kid and situation. For us, our DS22 was very high stats but otherwise unhooked. We were full pay. His top goal was admission to a top 20 school that was a good fit. Our strategy was studying the admissions data from a handful of colleges to see where a good ED candidate was. He chose one of those where the data (both Naviance and the school’s) showed that his school admitted kids like him, similar stats and unhooked-ness. The data isn’t perfect but by triangulating it and backing out known factors, the data isn’t that bad. The strategy worked, though I imagine it could easily could have failed too. We did our best educated guessing and he played his cards.
I meant to add that his admission was to a top 10 college. It’s a reach for anyone but we thought the strategy helped. He never would have gotten in RD.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:DS got into a school that we labeled a reach. Strategy played a big role in this I think.
So...what was the strategy?
I meant approaching college admissions like the game it is with a strategy suited to your kid and situation. For us, our DS22 was very high stats but otherwise unhooked. We were full pay. His top goal was admission to a top 20 school that was a good fit. Our strategy was studying the admissions data from a handful of colleges to see where a good ED candidate was. He chose one of those where the data (both Naviance and the school’s) showed that his school admitted kids like him, similar stats and unhooked-ness. The data isn’t perfect but by triangulating it and backing out known factors, the data isn’t that bad. The strategy worked, though I imagine it could easily could have failed too. We did our best educated guessing and he played his cards.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:DS got into a school that we labeled a reach. Strategy played a big role in this I think.
So...what was the strategy?
Maybe labeling it a reach, even though another person looking at exactly the same child might have labeled it a match
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:DS got into a school that we labeled a reach. Strategy played a big role in this I think.
So...what was the strategy?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:DS got into a school that we labeled a reach. Strategy played a big role in this I think.
So...what was the strategy?

Anonymous wrote:
Where do you find 50 percentile SAT number? I only see 25th and 75th.
Anonymous wrote:DS got into a school that we labeled a reach. Strategy played a big role in this I think.
Anonymous wrote:Nope, my high stats kid attended their safety school last year.
-waitlisted at a super-reach, rejected from one other reach
-rejected from 2 targets, accepted at in-state flagship/honors - was a target but they wanted out of state
-accepted at 2 out of state safetys, went to one of them
Turns out my kid is very happy there!