Why we should rethink the term ‘safety schools’

For the longest time I hated Brussels sprouts. I had never tried them, seen them or smelled them but enough television tropes and cartoon clichés had convinced me, the discerning five-year-old viewer, that Brussels sprouts were inedible. Imagine my surprise when my mum served them for the first time with caramelised onions and crispy bacon bits. Suffice to say, my preconceived notions were dashed, and Brussels sprouts soon became a staple at dinner.

“OK,” you’re wondering, “That’s fine, but what does that have to do with university guidance?” Traditionally, university counsellors have guided students into creating lists of universities that we have, mostly out of habit and convenience, broken down into three categories: “reach”, “match” and “safety”.

Traditionally, a “reach” school is one that is somewhat above a student’s academic qualifications, a “match” school is one which mostly aligns with a student’s academic qualifications and a “safety” school has requirements that are somewhat below a student’s academic qualifications.

What we have learned over the past several years however, and especially through the catalysts that were the pandemic, modified standardised testing policies, and the introduction of hybrid learning, is that we need to reframe and rethink what we know about the university admissions process. 

For those unfamiliar with what these changes might look like, I’ll give you a glimpse into admissions in the US over the past decade or so. UCLA went from 80,522 applicants in 2013 to 173,400 in 2024; a trend seen at popular and competitive universities nationwide. 

From 2010-2021 the number of students enrolled in postgraduate programmes grew 9.1 per cent; in 2019, public universities offered 300+ more graduate programmes compared with the year prior, while private non-profits offered just under 200 new programmes; public in-state tuition inflation has averaged 12 per cent annually from 2010-2022. During the pandemic universities implemented sweeping test-optional policies and hybrid learning arrangements, some of which remain today and acceptance rates are, across the board, some of the lowest they have ever been.

These numbers and trends look scary but they also provide keen students and families with an opportunity to rethink how they create their university list to find opportunity in the “safety” and feel assured in the application process.

Students always (and for good reason) apply to “reach” and “match” schools, regardless of how difficult these schools may be to gain admission to. They can imagine their future at these universities with excitement and enthusiasm. On the other hand, and unfortunately, many students and families have looked at the “safety” portion of their university list as an afterthought, the worst-case scenario…the Brussels sprouts of the planning and application process.

But no longer, because now more than ever what we have traditionally thought of as “safety” schools have begun providing exciting outlets for students who are forward-looking, savvy thinkers, and opportunity-oriented – they’ve gone from “safety” schools to “opportunity” schools.

Student case study

Several years ago, I worked with a student who earned a 43 in the IBDP who was bright, had all the extracurricular workings you could think of, and was ready for an exciting future. She had been accepted to NYU, Boston University, Boston College, the University of Michigan and Duke, among others. Ecstatic, she thought long and hard about where she would attend before finally committing to the University of Minnesota. 

“Why?” asked many of her peers and her peers’ parents. 

Quite simply, she saw the opportunity. She reconceptualised a “safety” school as an “opportunity” school and it paid off. She chose to be a big fish in a small pond, rather than a small fish in a big pond, and just as she had forecasted, she earned stellar marks, conducted research with professors, got internship opportunities from her teachers, ended up leading several school communities and was employed before she graduated.

And after a year in the work force? Acceptance and enrolment in Harvard’s graduate programme. The best part of this story is that it isn’t the only time I’ve seen a student use their “opportunity” school as a stepping stone to a bright future.

With the increasing prevalence of postgraduate degrees, more global university graduates and tuition prices that continue to tick upwards, students are beginning to create six-year plans that focus more on postgraduate education and global employability than they do the undergraduate institution. 

In the given example, my student saved about US$250,000; had better and more research, internship and work opportunities than she probably would have had at a top-35 university; had a wonderful experience; made lifelong friends and was so academically successful that getting accepted to Harvard at postgraduate level was that much easier than it would have been at undergraduate level.

Am I saying students should only apply to these types of schools? Absolutely not! Students should (and will) always apply to “reach” and “match” schools, but it is imperative that in an era of unprecedented admissions processes students begin to rethink the section of their university list that has been for so long been an unenthusiastic afterthought – to start adding bacon and onion to their Brussels sprouts.

It’s time for students to forget “safety schools” and embrace the possibilities inherent in “opportunity schools.” As universities rethink their admissions processes, counsellors must help students and families rethink their approaches to applying to university by looking for the opportunities available in every school.