Forgot about Columbia, even though my niece applied there!
Most top schools say they don’t admit by intended major, but I think that’s true only up to a point. They don’t set aside a specific number of slots for each major. But by the same token, if they get 20 well qualified applicants who say they want to study Classics and 2,000 equally well qualified applicants who say they want to study Computer Science, the aspiring classicists probably have better odds than the 2,000 aspiring computer scientists, just because the school doesn’t want to become too heavily weighted toward computer science at the expense of the humanities. They want some students to fill the Classics classes, and they don’t want to have too many students trying to jam into Computer Science classes, forcing them to either close out some students from those classes or hire additional faculty to absorb the onslaught. They can and do adjust course offerings and faculty rosters over time, but that’s not a fast process. Once you’ve got tenured faculty, they’re very difficult to get rid of, and the school can’t simply reassign an Ancient Greek scholar to teach a Computer Science class.
Some schools may be more concerned about a balance than others. More Stanford students are majoring in CS than all of the humanities combined.
At least in my experience - having sat through a couple of department external reviews - colleges tend to be more concerned with course enrollments than the numbers of majors. You don’t need a lot of history majors as long as there’s a sufficient number of non-majors taking gen ed history courses.
That said, I agree that a declared interest in an unpopular major, especially with extracurricular or research activities to back it up, could be a minor tip factor (though not a hook like, say, applying from Wyoming).
I don’t know this for a fact, only an inkling, so I’ll have to say I “believe” that, as some others have already said, it really depends on the major, the school, and whether the EC’s pretty much support the major claim or not, and so on. In my son’s case, I think the fact that he discussed his desire to major in music while pursuing pre-med did definitely help – again, based on my inkling, not a fact. He’s been a serious musician at the level of top music conservatories with a long resume of accomplishments, so his declaration of what he wants to major, as well as his stated desire to contribute to the college orchestra and other ensemble groups, could only have been convincing. Many colleges do not have enough students who are music majors and the faculty in music departments are desperate to fill their classes to meet the minimum number of enrolled students to justify the course offering.
Having said all this, I’m very much opposed to those who want to “game” the admission system based on this. My son was very honest about his desire to major in music while pursuing pre-med, and he’s doing exactly that at his college. No BS’ing.
However, the opposite is the case for very popular majors and courses, like CS. In such cases, limiting the number of students in the major is done to ensure that the number of students will not exceed the department’s capacity to teach them, particularly for upper level courses. Whether this limiting is done at frosh/transfer admission (formally or informally) or by having another admission process to declare the major after enrolling (or both) depends on the college.
It can backfire, if the student is admitted to the less popular major, enrolls, and then finds out how competitive the admission process is to change into the major that s/he really wants.
My kid was not passionate about any area after freshman year in high school, but he wanted to emulate one person who he respected and felt had similar interests; and started pursuing similar ECs partly because he wanted to develop an area which would look strong and pointy to college adcom — call this “gaming” if you wish because I felt I knew how the top colleges played the admission game — and actually became interested in the area. In short, his passion was not naturally born but he developed his interest through participation. All I know is if he majors in languages, he can get 4.0 easily but will major in Econ which he may or may not be good in.
When applying, he wrote down IR which corresponded well with his being good in languages and ECs, but he already seems to have changed his mind.
"Any thoughts or opinions? Was specifically wondering for colleges such as University of Georgia, Florida State and University of Florida… "
Typically for public colleges/state flagships, major is a factor as you apply to a particular school. (engineering, arts and science, business, etc). You could apply undecided and not select any school but that may make it tougher. So yes major is a factor for the schools you’ve mentioned.
“More Stanford students are majoring in CS than all of the humanities combined.”
The OP is bringing up UG, UF and FSU, so not sure how Stanford fits, unless you’re name dropping or humble bragging.
https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2018/11/colleges-studying-humanities-promotion/574621/
Interesting read overall but this caught my eye:
Seems like a prospective Hum major would have some, perhaps small, edge at Stanford.
A former Princeton president, Shirley M. Tilghman, 2001–13, saw the institutional need to place greater emphasis on the arts to balance the wide spread perception that Princeton is primarily a STEM school. She’s the one who actually was able to secure the $300 funding to construct the Lewis Center for the Performing Arts on its campus while the current president, Christopher Eisgruber, saw to its completion. I don’t know this for a fact, but Tilghman’s initiatives to place greater emphasis on the arts extended beyond mere construction of new buildings but also well into programs AND unspoken recruitment of those students interested in the arts. Princeton sure seems to really love students who excel in music.
Likewise, it seems that’s what Stanford is trying to do, placing greater efforts to balance its wide spread perception that it’s primary institutional strength is tech oriented. Such perception is real. If my S had been interested in a tech field, Stanford would have been one of a very few top choices. Instead, our perceptions went more favorably toward other schools. We did salivate a bit when we saw Stanford’s Bing Concert Hall, but the perception that my S would be among a vast number of students pursuing tech fields dissuaded us from seriously considering Stanford. This will all change, though, for sure. Harvard is trying to emulate Stanford to make the institution more tech excellent, Stanford likewise is taking cues from other institutions to excel in the humanities.
Perhaps more than a small edge. However, I think the implication that courses in STEM subjects don’t train students to think critically, read carefully or listen empathetically is wrong. Take quantum physics, for example. A student in quantum physics has to think critically far beyond the level of any humanity course. Once you advance beyond elementary levels in science, the world is no longer simply black and white. Answers are no longer definitive. Solutions are no longer unique. You still need all the mathematics, logic and background knowledge, but you will also need imagination, intuitions, and abilities to connect the dots.
@1njparent I never took quantum physics but I’d guess there is a need for effective paper-writing, and the ability to explain to others what is being studied, at minimum. So these sorts of skills are taught as well?
Or not so much, they are gained in other courses?
@OHMomof2 The type of writing a typical STEM course requires is certainly different from a humanity course. It’s more technical with logic and mathematics. However, STEM students all need to learn how to communicate, both verbally and in writing. All top STEM schools have a set of these courses designed specifically for, and required of, their students, in addition to their humanity and social science requirements. Obviously, not all STEM students are able to communicate lucidly and effectively, just as not all humanity students can do basic arithmetic.
Our kid definitely felt that Stanford was looking for good non STEM kids. Our kid realized Stanford had all these great profs and resources in non STEM areas but not as many non STEM kids they wanted, so he thought he would be able to pursue Social Science areas (not purely Humanities) while learning about the Silicon Valley culture and learning something about tech. He thought he would also fit at Yale also, and in fact, the adcom who reviewed his application thought our kid had a great chance to get into Yale, but ultimately, the most important factors were weather and distance because the differences in strengths of Social Sciences such as Econ and IR were insignificant between Stanford and Yale.
I rarely think of those top colleges, eg, P and S, as being mostly stem. I do think of the other strengths and influences that come from other depts, regardless of the number of stem kids. Those other depts aren’t poor sisters, barely squeaking by.
It’s long been known top colleges want balance in majors. That doesn’t mean equal numbers. They hire what they need and provide the facilities they can. They look for the number of admits in a major (and related areas) that they can accommodate. But typically, classics is a small dept, in the first place.
Stanford definitely has a techie feel, but that is just fine to my non STEM kid. He sees that as a learning opportunity. Tech is going to play increasingly a greater part in human culture and development. Just look at how much FB, iPhone, Google and Netflix have changed human interactions. It’s not as if he didn’t know this before he came to the Farm.
I’ve definitely taken STEM courses 
The writing demands of a biology major will be quite different from what a CS major might need, or a math major. I was really wondering about QP specifically, since it is not well-understood by the general public.
My D is in a STEM discipline - not QP - and took an entire (elective) course that was basically about how to communicate her work to non-techy stakeholders, so they can make business and other decisions based on what she brings to them.
I thought that was interesting and wonder if Quantum Physicists get similar training in writing/presenting/speaking to non-physicists about what they do so results, knowledge, whatever can be applied wherever is appropriate in a particular setting.
What I’m hearing is that they learn to write technically but not necessarily persuasively? At least not in those major classes, perhaps elsewhere in the gen eds?
I used quantum physics as an example because it’s so diametrically counter-intuitive that it challenges all our previously conceived notions from our lives.and knowledges that learned prior. To fully grasp the ideas, one needs to understand far beyond the mathematics used to describe the phenomena. As a matter of fact, a measure of how one truly understands it is his/her ability to explain it in ways that are devoid of any mathematics.
In any science class (including quantum physics), you generally don’t write papers. You solve problems to demonstrate your understanding of the materials. However, if you’re doing a thesis or a project, you’ll typically write a lengthy paper in which you need to present your conclusions technically and persuasively. Top STEM colleges also generally require their graduates to take specially a designed writing course and an oral presentation course, in addition to other humanity and/or social science requirements (some even require certain number of specific writing-intensive courses in humanities/social sciences).