My student is a current sophomore. His very tentative list of schools includes a diverse selection of highly selective and selective schools. He is talented in math, physics and computer science and will almost certainly pursue a STEM field.
I thought it would be useful to try to capture what a 75th percentile admit looks like from a stats/rigor/EC perspective at each school. I fully understand that most of these schools practice holistic admissions and meeting these thresholds is far from an admission guarantee. This is more about helping him set an appropriate aimpoint if he wants to be competitive for these schools. I’d appreciate critiques/input to the below.
A coupe notes:
ECs are so broad that I tried to capture a couple that represent the achievement level (not nearly exhaustive).
We lived in the UK up until last summer so Cambridge isn’t as wild of an idea as it might seem.
I’m very confused - like under Ga Tech/Purdue you list National Merit? Is your student National Merit? Clearly the far majority at those schools are not.
I’m not sure what you are trying to accomplish here but it doesn’t seem time well spent.
In a year from now, is the time to see where your student fits - and they don’t need to be at the 75th percentile to apply or get in.
They should find the right schools for them - Purdue and Ga Tech, while often grouped together, are different in so many ways. My son loved Purdue but would never have considered Ga Tech because of its environment.
So I’m not sure what you are doing here but I think you are probably exerting unnecessary effort.
The process of building a list really isn’t as hard as you are making it.
So sit big, relax - and let your student take the next two semesters and enjoy themselves.
Not sure where you live now but you can certainly, on a weekend or spring break, visit a local campus or two (forget the rank) - and see - what does the student like - urban, suburban, rural. Large, medium, small. What type weather…so ultimately you can find the right schools.
But I think you can really slow down your analysis.
I would tweak this a bit. Cambridge needs five 5s, but duplicates (two math or two physics) don’t count. You are expected to have a broader range of 5s (and preferably nothing below a 5) if your school offers lots of APs including core subjects like English, history and a foreign language. Ideally you should have five or more 5s at the end of junior year. And the SAT should be single sitting (and pretty close to 1600), it’s a red flag if you retake multiple times.
ECs are not essential, and research is very far from typical, but participation in Olympiads (with national or international success) is seen as useful validation. And self-study/reading round your subject is assumed too (and critical for the interview).
But coming from the US, it is extremely important to have a gushing teacher reference, along the lines of “this is the best student I’ve taught in the last decade” because the assumption is that American references tend to be exaggerated compared to what British schools will write.
There is no expectation of this, but it certainly helps. Although having them by the beginning of senior year will make the difference of a conditional vs unconditional offer - if an offer comes.
BC and Stats count as 2. Depending on the course, BC may be required
Oh, and when the HS doesn’t offer BC (or any other needed AP), Cambridge doesn’t care. In that instance, the student is expected to take the exam anyway.
And the sports needs to include a varsity captaincy.
While it’s early, if your kid is compiling this list, be aware that Service Academies (and Oxbridge to an extent) are entirely different animals. The reasons for wanting to attend a SA are so much more than receiving a college education. And the time and effort in assembling a package is intense. It can’t simply be "Oh, I’ll add in USAFA for good measure "
My only advice to the OP is to realize that these numbers change. For example, I sort of doubt that either of my kids would even get accepted at the colleges from which they got their undergrad degrees…now. Actually, by the time they graduated, their colleges had become a LOT more competitive for admissions. Lower %age of students as missed overall, more students applying, and stronger students accepted.
In terms of an “aim point”…your student should be encouraged to do their personal best while in high school. That is what matters. Then look at colleges with what your student has accomplished.
The “aim point” should be creating a well balanced list of colleges that included sure thing safeties and match schools, in addition to the the selective schools.
IMO, being above the 75th percentile at selective schools tells you nothing. Any school with a sub 20% acceptance rate is a reach, no matter the stats, and should be treated as such.
And I 100% agree with this. I did alumni interviewing for over two decades for an Ivy and this was absolutely my experience:
So taking a step back, at a high level, holistic review basically involves three types of factors: academic qualifications, activities, and personal/fit factors. Of course some pieces of evidence might speak to more than one topic. Like, an activity might also be more academic in nature, or alternatively it might speak to your personal values. A teacher recommendation might discuss both academic talent and classroom interactions. And so on. But I think conceptually, holistic review colleges are generally thinking in these three ways.
OK, then my experience when discussing college admissions online over the last couple years is often a lot of the conversation is focused on academic qualifications, and maybe academic-related ECs, and maybe with extra focus on both academic qualifications and ECs related to possible intended majors.
Not so much a focus are non-academic ECs or personal/fit sorts of considerations, and maybe not so much non-major-related academic qualifications either.
This “model” (if you will) makes the most sense for, say, Cambridge, or really most UK “unis”, or indeed most “unis” in the world outside the US. Because those “unis” do not practice holistic review. In their models, what is sometimes called your general education is considered largely complete by the time you start uni, and you are applying just for some specific course (what in the US we call majors). They also don’t particularly care what you do outside of academics once you are in uni. In a way, it much more resembles what it looks like in the US when you are applying to a graduate program.
And I think at a high level again, a lot of why the online conversation looks the way it does it because a lot of the participants are either Internationals, or perhaps recent immigrants to the US, and so they have intuitions shaped by these systems in other countries. But those intuitions are maybe not so much serving them well when it comes to certain US colleges, to the extent they are overlooking the critical importance of the non-academic and personal/fit factors at those colleges.
And to be fair, that is really just limited to a subset of US colleges. At most US colleges, it is actually also true that if your HS transcript and test scores are suitable generally, or when relevant suitable specifically for a specialist school or major with first-year admissions, you may need little or indeed nothing in terms of other ECs and personal factors and so on.
The thing is, those are mostly not the very selective colleges often being discussed online. Like, Iowa and Iowa State are both excellent research universities and they actually have formulaic admissions. Which is good to know, but I don’t encounter a lot of people talking about what it takes to get admitted to those colleges. Which makes sense, because it is all laid out for you. But my point is while many more US colleges may in fact more or less function like that, it isn’t the type of college people tend to be interested in discussing.
OK, so with all that background in mind, here are some thoughts.
Cambridge, being a UK uni, does indeed fit the model I described above.
The service academies, like the Air Force Academy, are really, really good examples of where the non-academic and personal/fit stuff is incredibly important. You also have to be a very good student, but they will not compromise their standards for the other stuff just because you have a very strong academic record.
Publics like Colorado and Mines–realistically, with good enough transcripts and test scores, likely you don’t need too much in terms of ECs and your recommendations just need to be generically good, but they won’t require anything really special when you have good enough numbers.
And actually, for engineering, [edit: NOT Georgia Tech and] Purdue might be a little more interested in what else you have done related to engineering for activities, but I think it remains true that as long as you have very strong engineering-related credentials, eh, the rest can just be normally good.
Then Stanford is an example of a college that basically can have it all. It gets so many highly qualified applicants it can be incredibly picky. It can, for example, generally want you to take advanced courses and get As and AP 5s and such in every core subject, not just ones related to your intended major. It can also look for activities that are not just academicky but also some activities that indicate that you will participate meaningfully in other valued student activities once you are residing at Stanford. And even after asking for all that, it can also demand your essays and recommendations and such show you are a super great person that is highly valued in your school and local community. Of course on rare occasions it might like someone so much on a couple dimensions it compromises on the third dimension. But usually it doesn’t have to, it can demand it all.
Where things get really interesting is when you are talking about, say MIT. I think a lot of kids online think MIT SHOULD work like Cambridge, or maybe a particularly selective Purdue. They definitely do not. The basically work like Stanford.
And this is not hidden. Like, here are two important resources for MIT admissions–first what they are currently saying they are looking for, and then a classic article about how to prepare for all that:
So much of what you will see in those links is basically about personal/fit issues. And this is not a joke for MIT. They can afford to be as picky as Stanford about the sorts of people they admit, so they are. And for that matter, they can also afford to be picky about your qualifications for what they call HASS classes, the non-STEM classes you will be required to take regardless of your major, and which they teach at a very high level.
OK, so my two cents is if you want to set colleges like Cambridge, Colorado, Mines, and really even [edit snip] Purdue as “aim points”, then it is fine to largely focus on general academic qualifications and then other STEM-related qualifications. Of course don’t cheat, don’t be a jerk, and so on, but you can just be a normal good kid.
But MIT or Stanford? Or the Air Force Academy?
Then you need to take non-academic activities and being a person of exceptionally high character just as importantly as the academic stuff. Like, really incorporate it into your personal development goals. Devote a lot of time and energy to it. Spend years of deliberate effort on improving socially and ethically. Practice being a high character person in all your interactions, including classes, other interactions with your fellow students and teachers, and with others in your local communities. Actually seek out opportunities to meaningfully interact with others, to learn from established leaders, and so on. All that stuff.
Which is a lot! And so I think a lot of academicky kids kinda just don’t do it, or do it in a very superficial way. Like, they “create a non-profit”, become “founder” of a student club so they can appoint themselves president, or so on. From a certain perspective, these are sort of obvious ways of trying to “check the personal box” without having to do the real work of developing meaningfully as a person over many years.
And I am not saying every kid has to actually try to be someone they are not. Indeed, obviously lots of kids are going to have great careers in STEM and such launched out of Mines, Colorado, Purdue, [edit snip] or Cambridge.
But the blunt truth is if you are in fact interested in being the sort of person that Air Force, MIT, Stanford, or similar will want to admit, you have to actually do the work to become that sort of person. Not try to take a short cut.
Thanks so much for your response. I completely get the “sit back and relax and re-engage in a year” mentality. We are largely following that, but there are a few cases where decisions made in the next 12 months will affect what the student’s applicant profile will look like in two years. I just want to make sure those decisions are made while understanding the possible implications.
First Example: He is playing both club soccer and school rugby this spring. He will also be taking AP Calc AB, AP Physics I, and AP Comp Sci exams. Understanding that schools like Cambridge will look closely at AP results in these subjects may help inform how he spends his time in April and early May.
Second Example: Next fall, he’ll be playing a high school sport; taking 4 APs, a DC, and an Honors Capstone STEM class; taking the PSAT for National Merit consideration, and participating in the AMC 12. He also has a job tutoring math that is pretty flexible. Time dedicated to the sport is fairly fixed by practice and game schedules. Academic classes will take the time they take to do the work and prepare for the tests. He’ll need to decide how to allocate his remaining time to hanging out with friends (important), prepping for PSAT (he scored just above last years National Merit line this year), prepping for the AMC12 (likely close to AIME qualifying), and other activities.
Of course, he should follow his passions and much of this will shake out naturally. Where there is a tie, having an idea which achievements are more significant to the schools he is interested in may help inform his decisions.
Great post. I agree with most everything you shared.
However, specifically for Georgia Tech, the holistic review carries much more weight than many similar public universities. GT is clear about its emphasis on leadership, community involvement and service. In this aspect it may be more similar to “a MIT” than “a Purdue”. (Not making a negative statement toward any school.)
So for kids interested in GT they should be aware of this focus.
Without going too far off-topic, I have personal anecdotes as well as Rick Clark’s and GT blogs as resources for my opinion.
This is such a clear, comprehensive and thoughtful summary! If you are active on Reddit’s A2C sub, there are so many kids on there who would benefit from this info.
This is an excellent response. Thanks for all of the info on Cambridge. His current course plans has him taking 13 APs and 4 Dual Credits. 9 of those APs will be complete by the end of junior year. I listed the ones that I did, because I had understood that Cambridge didn’t care much about how a STEM student scored on AP English or AP Latin. It is good to know that these will also be looked at closely. For UK students applying, many of them will only have A-Level scores in subjects related to their intended major.
Good note on olympiad success vs research and the importance of a teacher reference. Thanks.
Great note and understood. I graduated from a service academy and we have been to USAFA several times. He is drawn to the challenge and understands the commitment to service. Definitely not looking at it as a “throw in” application.
This is a really thoughtful and useful response. If I can summarize a little bit, it may be useful to group Cambridge, Georgia Tech, Purdue, Mines, and CU together as schools where academic excellence may be enough to be competitive for admission.
Cambridge will likely have the highest standards and be more focused on test scores. The US schools will have GPA higher on the criteria list, with GT and Purdue requiring higher performance than the Colorado schools.
I have an idea what USAFA is looking for and I think my son stacks up pretty well right now. It will just be a matter of whether or not this looks like a good fit in 18 months.
For MIT/Stanford/CMU, it might be best to just keep these off to the side and see whether his interests naturally line up with some of the personal fit factors each school looks for. If he keeps his grades/test scores in the range Cambridge or Georgia Tech require, he should at least be close to what these schools would look for academically. Then it is a matter of the non-academic factors.
I agree with you and dramamama about GT. OOS is just so tough, many denied OOS students have better stats than some admitted in-state students (because of the preference for in-state students from a variety of counties/schools.)
And then let’s say he wins national merit - does that add on schools where these kids flood to like Alabama or Tulsa or UTD or U Houston where they can go for free ?
Maybe not you but that’s often what a student has to decide - so I go top 20 for $300k plus or do I go to a great school, get outstanding enrichment, and save my family hundreds of thousands of dollars.
So lots to think about - but I’d say when it happens.
