Anonymous
07/28/2025 16:11
Subject: Is this a valid definition of safety, target, and reach?
Anonymous wrote:My bad. Just saw it. Imperial. nice alternative. What major?
Integrated 4-yr Masters in Mechanical and Nuclear Engineering. He is super excited about it. Crossing our fingers that everything works out for him.
Anonymous
07/28/2025 16:09
Subject: Re:Is this a valid definition of safety, target, and reach?
We’re working with a college counseling service that doesn’t even list T25 schools among reaches. No matter what stats you have, they consider your chances of being admitted so low that they’re not going to recommend applying. They don’t discourage you from doing so; they just aren’t going to suggest those specific schools to anyone.
Safeties are schools where your stats are better than at least 75% of admitted students. Targets are schools where your stats are better than at least 50% of admitted students. Everything else is considered a reach.
Safeties are schools where your stats are better than at least 75% of admitted students. Targets are schools where your stats are better than at least 50% of admitted students. Everything else is considered a reach.
Anonymous
07/28/2025 16:03
Subject: Re:Is this a valid definition of safety, target, and reach?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Yes, MIT is a reach for everyone.
My super high stats kid thought their super high stats (like perfect SAT score and almost a 5.0 weighted) would help them get into MIT, CMU, GATech etc.. Nope.
Not really. If you won IMO gold, MIT is actually a target (not safety).
Please stop with this. And stop saying Emory or U Mich are safeties. Even if statements like this are true, which is highly debatable, they might apply to 100 kids across the country. The Top 25 national universities, and yes, even the top 15-20 LACs are crazy tough admits in RD. Kids get their feelings hurt all the time when a school they thought they were locks for gives them the Heisman in RD. All
these schools are building their classes at that point and your 1550/4.5 weighted is not nearly as charming as you think it is. Do yourself a favor and find 1 or 2 schools with a 30+% acceptance rate that your kid could live with for targets. Lehigh or William and Mary, for example. (Nova people don’t kill me.) Same for a true, almost open enrollment school for a real safety. Indiana, for example has a super high acceptance rate but people love it and it has many respected programs. Build your list properly and then do all the prestige hunting you desire. It needn’t cost a ton more in app fees.
It’s not wrong for you to do what you’ve described there but only because you have never seen anyone who is truly outstanding.
You must not be that outstanding person because the point of my post is that if there are kids for whom MIT is a target, that approach is of absolutely no value to the overwhelming majority of kids, so your comment is worthless. Even on this board where everyone’s kid is 1550+ /4.5+weighted/10+ APs, which is almost an equally absurd baseline for discussion.
Anonymous
07/28/2025 16:02
Subject: Re:Is this a valid definition of safety, target, and reach?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Yes, MIT is a reach for everyone.
My super high stats kid thought their super high stats (like perfect SAT score and almost a 5.0 weighted) would help them get into MIT, CMU, GATech etc.. Nope.
Not really. If you won IMO gold, MIT is actually a target (not safety).
Yep. My kid was a 1600 SAT (one seating), maxed out GPA, valedictorian, private school in Texas. White, no hook, wealthy background, speaks 3 languages fluently. Was denied admission straight up to 5 of the 7 top 25 schools he applied to. 1 waitlist that never materialized.
So no, there are no targets in the Top25. He is going to the UK.
Stats alone won’t make it to the top schools. You also need major spikes. I found people on DCUM incredibly uninformed about top college admissions.
You have no idea what his ECs were….nobody was uninformed here. Kid had great ECs and an amazing set of essays. His private counselor (who used to be the director of admission at one of the ivies he applied to) couldnt believe he didnt get in. But in the end, he is going to Imperial College for an integrated Masters in Mechanical/Nuclear engineering.
Since you didn’t talk about his ECs, I assume there was nothing special because ECs are more important than stats for top college applications. Also, most of private counselors are out of touch.
Anonymous
07/28/2025 16:00
Subject: Re:Is this a valid definition of safety, target, and reach?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
Yep. My kid was a 1600 SAT (one seating), maxed out GPA, valedictorian, private school in Texas. White, no hook, wealthy background, speaks 3 languages fluently. Was denied admission straight up to 5 of the 7 top 25 schools he applied to. 1 waitlist that never materialized.
So no, there are no targets in the Top25. He is going to the UK.
UK?
He was accepted to Imperial College and that is where he is going.
Being from Texas and with your kid's stats, he was not interested in UT Austin? I assumed he would have had his choice of major?
No. He had zero interest in UT. He got in Rice, but after being denied at the other schools and getting in Imperial, he decided to take the risk and go to London for 4 years.
Anonymous
07/28/2025 15:59
Subject: Re:Is this a valid definition of safety, target, and reach?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Yes, MIT is a reach for everyone.
My super high stats kid thought their super high stats (like perfect SAT score and almost a 5.0 weighted) would help them get into MIT, CMU, GATech etc.. Nope.
Not really. If you won IMO gold, MIT is actually a target (not safety).
Yep. My kid was a 1600 SAT (one seating), maxed out GPA, valedictorian, private school in Texas. White, no hook, wealthy background, speaks 3 languages fluently. Was denied admission straight up to 5 of the 7 top 25 schools he applied to. 1 waitlist that never materialized.
So no, there are no targets in the Top25. He is going to the UK.
Stats alone won’t make it to the top schools. You also need major spikes. I found people on DCUM incredibly uninformed about top college admissions.
You have no idea what his ECs were….nobody was uninformed here. Kid had great ECs and an amazing set of essays. His private counselor (who used to be the director of admission at one of the ivies he applied to) couldnt believe he didnt get in. But in the end, he is going to Imperial College for an integrated Masters in Mechanical/Nuclear engineering.
Anonymous
07/28/2025 15:58
Subject: Re:Is this a valid definition of safety, target, and reach?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Yes, MIT is a reach for everyone.
My super high stats kid thought their super high stats (like perfect SAT score and almost a 5.0 weighted) would help them get into MIT, CMU, GATech etc.. Nope.
Not really. If you won IMO gold, MIT is actually a target (not safety).
Yep. My kid was a 1600 SAT (one seating), maxed out GPA, valedictorian, private school in Texas. White, no hook, wealthy background, speaks 3 languages fluently. Was denied admission straight up to 5 of the 7 top 25 schools he applied to. 1 waitlist that never materialized.
So no, there are no targets in the Top25. He is going to the UK.
What about EC's?
Anonymous
07/28/2025 15:53
Subject: Is this a valid definition of safety, target, and reach?
Anonymous wrote:It should be mostly personalized, as JMU could be a safety for one student and a reach for another.
The exception of the T10-T20, which are unlikely for all.
Exactly.
It's also not there's a concrete definition. There are differences per program, in-state vs. out-of-state, etc.
Anonymous
07/28/2025 15:53
Subject: Re:Is this a valid definition of safety, target, and reach?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
Yep. My kid was a 1600 SAT (one seating), maxed out GPA, valedictorian, private school in Texas. White, no hook, wealthy background, speaks 3 languages fluently. Was denied admission straight up to 5 of the 7 top 25 schools he applied to. 1 waitlist that never materialized.
So no, there are no targets in the Top25. He is going to the UK.
UK?
He was accepted to Imperial College and that is where he is going.
Being from Texas and with your kid's stats, he was not interested in UT Austin? I assumed he would have had his choice of major?
Anonymous
07/28/2025 15:52
Subject: Re:Is this a valid definition of safety, target, and reach?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Yes, MIT is a reach for everyone.
My super high stats kid thought their super high stats (like perfect SAT score and almost a 5.0 weighted) would help them get into MIT, CMU, GATech etc.. Nope.
Not really. If you won IMO gold, MIT is actually a target (not safety).
Please stop with this. And stop saying Emory or U Mich are safeties. Even if statements like this are true, which is highly debatable, they might apply to 100 kids across the country. The Top 25 national universities, and yes, even the top 15-20 LACs are crazy tough admits in RD. Kids get their feelings hurt all the time when a school they thought they were locks for gives them the Heisman in RD. All
these schools are building their classes at that point and your 1550/4.5 weighted is not nearly as charming as you think it is. Do yourself a favor and find 1 or 2 schools with a 30+% acceptance rate that your kid could live with for targets. Lehigh or William and Mary, for example. (Nova people don’t kill me.) Same for a true, almost open enrollment school for a real safety. Indiana, for example has a super high acceptance rate but people love it and it has many respected programs. Build your list properly and then do all the prestige hunting you desire. It needn’t cost a ton more in app fees.
It’s not wrong for you to do what you’ve described there but only because you have never seen anyone who is truly outstanding.
Anonymous
07/28/2025 15:49
Subject: Re:Is this a valid definition of safety, target, and reach?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Yes, MIT is a reach for everyone.
My super high stats kid thought their super high stats (like perfect SAT score and almost a 5.0 weighted) would help them get into MIT, CMU, GATech etc.. Nope.
Not really. If you won IMO gold, MIT is actually a target (not safety).
Yep. My kid was a 1600 SAT (one seating), maxed out GPA, valedictorian, private school in Texas. White, no hook, wealthy background, speaks 3 languages fluently. Was denied admission straight up to 5 of the 7 top 25 schools he applied to. 1 waitlist that never materialized.
So no, there are no targets in the Top25. He is going to the UK.
Stats alone won’t make it to the top schools. You also need major spikes. I found people on DCUM incredibly uninformed about top college admissions.
Anonymous
07/28/2025 15:48
Subject: Is this a valid definition of safety, target, and reach?
My bad. Just saw it. Imperial. nice alternative. What major?
Anonymous
07/28/2025 15:47
Subject: Re:Is this a valid definition of safety, target, and reach?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Yes, MIT is a reach for everyone.
My super high stats kid thought their super high stats (like perfect SAT score and almost a 5.0 weighted) would help them get into MIT, CMU, GATech etc.. Nope.
Not really. If you won IMO gold, MIT is actually a target (not safety).
Yep. My kid was a 1600 SAT (one seating), maxed out GPA, valedictorian, private school in Texas. White, no hook, wealthy background, speaks 3 languages fluently. Was denied admission straight up to 5 of the 7 top 25 schools he applied to. 1 waitlist that never materialized.
So no, there are no targets in the Top25. He is going to the UK.
This seems crazy. So where is your kid going?
Anonymous
07/28/2025 15:46
Subject: Re:Is this a valid definition of safety, target, and reach?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
Yep. My kid was a 1600 SAT (one seating), maxed out GPA, valedictorian, private school in Texas. White, no hook, wealthy background, speaks 3 languages fluently. Was denied admission straight up to 5 of the 7 top 25 schools he applied to. 1 waitlist that never materialized.
So no, there are no targets in the Top25. He is going to the UK.
UK?
He was accepted to Imperial College and that is where he is going.
Anonymous
07/28/2025 15:42
Subject: Re:Is this a valid definition of safety, target, and reach?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Yes, MIT is a reach for everyone.
My super high stats kid thought their super high stats (like perfect SAT score and almost a 5.0 weighted) would help them get into MIT, CMU, GATech etc.. Nope.
Not really. If you won IMO gold, MIT is actually a target (not safety).
Please stop with this. And stop saying Emory or U Mich are safeties. Even if statements like this are true, which is highly debatable, they might apply to 100 kids across the country. The Top 25 national universities, and yes, even the top 15-20 LACs are crazy tough admits in RD. Kids get their feelings hurt all the time when a school they thought they were locks for gives them the Heisman in RD. All
these schools are building their classes at that point and your 1550/4.5 weighted is not nearly as charming as you think it is. Do yourself a favor and find 1 or 2 schools with a 30+% acceptance rate that your kid could live with for targets. Lehigh or William and Mary, for example. (Nova people don’t kill me.) Same for a true, almost open enrollment school for a real safety. Indiana, for example has a super high acceptance rate but people love it and it has many respected programs. Build your list properly and then do all the prestige hunting you desire. It needn’t cost a ton more in app fees.