<p>
</p>
<p>In a sense though, they are both kind of arbitrary things. What is to say that an introductory analysis course really will be more useful? In practice, most of the results in such a course are taken for granted anyway. </p>
<p>However, I do agree that for quite a few people, the first option might appeal more, and in that case, it makes sense to pursue it. I think either of these two candidates will learn whatever it takes for them to succeed. Just because someone takes some college math classes doesn’t mean he/she will eventually even have much interest in mathematics, in which case it was just a way to develop sharp reasoning skills and pursue a challenge.</p>
<p>I hope cellardweller is making a distinction between superstar and star, having used both words. I’m thinking a superstar has like an IMO gold medal, and a star might have almost made USAMO. I would say there is bias if someone making the USAMO is considered a superstar, while someone who shows interest and ability in handling challenging mathematics in a somewhat more standard setting is considered academically ordinary. Bias towards competition math, that is.</p>