Anonymous
Post 07/28/2025 18:25     Subject: Is this a valid definition of safety, target, and reach?
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:NP. I would agree that individual stats are an important consideration, but disagree that acceptance rate should not also be considered.

Schools with acceptance rates under 20% or so are reaches for all applicants. That means a good chunk of the top 50 are reaches for all applicants. There is too much uncertainty.

Typical idiotic statement of dcum.


Agree it depends on the high school. Private non-top3 Dmv private has a double the acceptance rate for a few schools published ED acceptance rate for a few T20s making them targets for anyone in the top 10%. Our school announces T10% and also T20% with cum-laude honors. Kids share GPA and the counselors will verbally share deciles of the dots when reviewing SCOIR data with parents.
Anonymous
Post 07/28/2025 18:24     Subject: Is this a valid definition of safety, target, and reach?
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Collegevine has something similar but it is kind of crazy. For example, Penn RD is a target for my rising senior, but we have categorized it as a reach (and a high reach at that!)


A really high GPA like 4.37 could set Penn RD as a target. But collegevine does not consider school context.


Here is the problem: 4.37 Weighted is NOT at ALL high from TJ or Maggie Walker or many privates even. It can be close to average or borderline of top quartile or at some schools where honors/AP get 0.5 and there is no A+ 0.3 bump, a 4.37 W is close to the very top. No one gets into UVA in state with 4.37 W at DD's school, UVA cutoff is more like 4.45ish, ivy range is 4.9ish. DS who is at a private 4.37 is just outside T10% and makes UVA a target yet, but- Ivies RD? With 4.37?? No possible way in hell without a huge hook. Need 4.5+ ie top 2-3 students for ivies unhooked RD.


Honey, that 4.37 is uw.
Anonymous
Post 07/28/2025 18:20     Subject: Re:Is this a valid definition of safety, target, and reach?
Anonymous wrote: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.


100%
Anonymous
Post 07/28/2025 18:18     Subject: Is this a valid definition of safety, target, and reach?
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Collegevine has something similar but it is kind of crazy. For example, Penn RD is a target for my rising senior, but we have categorized it as a reach (and a high reach at that!)


A really high GPA like 4.37 could set Penn RD as a target. But collegevine does not consider school context.


Here is the problem: 4.37 Weighted is NOT at ALL high from TJ or Maggie Walker or many privates even. It can be close to average or borderline of top quartile or at some schools where honors/AP get 0.5 and there is no A+ 0.3 bump, a 4.37 W is close to the very top. No one gets into UVA in state with 4.37 W at DD's school, UVA cutoff is more like 4.45ish, ivy range is 4.9ish. DS who is at a private 4.37 is just outside T10% and makes UVA a target yet, but- Ivies RD? With 4.37?? No possible way in hell without a huge hook. Need 4.5+ ie top 2-3 students for ivies unhooked RD.
Anonymous
Post 07/28/2025 18:15     Subject: Is this a valid definition of safety, target, and reach?
Anonymous wrote:NP. I would agree that individual stats are an important consideration, but disagree that acceptance rate should not also be considered.

Schools with acceptance rates under 20% or so are reaches for all applicants. That means a good chunk of the top 50 are reaches for all applicants. There is too much uncertainty.


You cannot look at general acceptance rate. Have to look at the acceptance rate for your specific school.
If the acceptance rate for your specific school is 30%, it's a target regardless what the general acceptance rate it. The general acceptance rate could be as low as 10%, no matter, still a target.
Anonymous
Post 07/28/2025 18:10     Subject: Is this a valid definition of safety, target, and reach?
Anonymous wrote:NP. I would agree that individual stats are an important consideration, but disagree that acceptance rate should not also be considered.

Schools with acceptance rates under 20% or so are reaches for all applicants. That means a good chunk of the top 50 are reaches for all applicants. There is too much uncertainty.

Typical idiotic statement of dcum.
Anonymous
Post 07/28/2025 17:55     Subject: Is this a valid definition of safety, target, and reach?
Anonymous wrote:Rising sophomore DD came home at the end of last year and told me her school's counselors consider a school a safety, target, or reach based on the student's individual chances of getting in (mostly GPA and SAT/ACT-based). E.g., a target is where you have between a 25-75 chance of getting in. I've never heard anyone phrase it this, and it feels off to me, because, for example, MIT is a reach for everyone no matter how high their scores, yes? I feel like it it'll give her and her classmates a too-optimistic view of where they might be admitted?


yes that is how our CCO at private did it, based on the high school's data in recent 3 yrs. Her chancing estimates were spot on. and yes MIT and a handful of others are reach for everyone. some T15/ivy with ED are targets for the very top 1-2 students. RD for the same schools are reach for everyone even those same top 1-2 kids
Anonymous
Post 07/28/2025 17:49     Subject: Is this a valid definition of safety, target, and reach?
Anonymous wrote:Rising sophomore DD came home at the end of last year and told me her school's counselors consider a school a safety, target, or reach based on the student's individual chances of getting in (mostly GPA and SAT/ACT-based). E.g., a target is where you have between a 25-75 chance of getting in. I've never heard anyone phrase it this, and it feels off to me, because, for example, MIT is a reach for everyone no matter how high their scores, yes? I feel like it it'll give her and her classmates a too-optimistic view of where they might be admitted?


Schools aren’t admitting on stats alone. Each school has a culture and programmatic emphasis, and it is important to show that you have done the research to understand them and demonstrate that your DD is a good fit for them.

As a result, the reach, target and safety numbers should be considered general guidelines, where outcomes can vary significantly. She can get accepted at a Top50 school with a low admission rate and rejected at one with a lower one for this reason.

Demonstrated interest is essential at schools where it is considered, and, again, doesn’t show up in the acceptance rate probabilities,
Anonymous
Post 07/28/2025 17:46     Subject: Is this a valid definition of safety, target, and reach?
At DC's school we were not encouraged to use the word "safety" and were calling these schools "likely" instead. When schools WL applicants because they think the students probably won't come, these schools are no longer safe.
Anonymous
Post 07/28/2025 17:27     Subject: Is this a valid definition of safety, target, and reach?
NP. I would agree that individual stats are an important consideration, but disagree that acceptance rate should not also be considered.

Schools with acceptance rates under 20% or so are reaches for all applicants. That means a good chunk of the top 50 are reaches for all applicants. There is too much uncertainty.
Anonymous
Post 07/28/2025 16:33     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).


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.

Gaining admission to Ivy plus only matters to a very small proportion of students obviously. So yes, the comment is worthless to you if you’re not in the running.
Anonymous
Post 07/28/2025 16:25     Subject: Is this a valid definition of safety, target, and reach?
Just to spite this board, I may stay for 3 months after move-in.
Anonymous
Post 07/28/2025 16:21     Subject: Is this a valid definition of safety, target, and reach?
Anonymous wrote:
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.


Sounds awesome. What an experience.
Anonymous
Post 07/28/2025 16:16     Subject: Is this a valid definition of safety, target, and reach?
Anonymous wrote:
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.


It will.
Anonymous
Post 07/28/2025 16:15     Subject: Re:Is this a valid definition of safety, target, and reach?
Anonymous wrote:
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.


+1