I think that this might be an “it depends” moment. We often point to context such as how many APs relative to the number available. For the elite schools kids are also looked at relative to peer applicants from their HS. So taking 6 when the number is 8 among their peers could hurt.
And for MIT it is simple. They expect one to take the hardest classes available every semester of every year.
It sounds to me like these parents had internalized a fairly simple model of institutional priorities.
I think one of the truly key insights parents need (and maybe they got out of this exercise) is no matter how they think these institutions SHOULD behave in admissions, they are actually going to do whatever they feel is in their best interests, and that may be a rather complicated and variable sort of decision framework.
I personally found this is a relief because it meant any sort of formulaic approach being passed around by parents and such was obviously mistaken in the conception.
But of course other parents seem convinced that colleges must secretly be behaving the way they think these colleges should be behaving even though the colleges say and do things inconsistent with that expectation.
But no, really, these colleges are truly not doing admissions the way these parents think they should be doing admissions! As this exercise apparently showed, and hopefully some parents took away that understanding.
That even a parent consensus can’t get it right speaks to the level of uncertainty facing applicants trying to make a college list.
Yes. I think that the parents learned that lesson. Myself included.
The only downside is that they also learned that there is more unpredictability to the process than they ever imagined.
Indeed.
Although I do think what I would call the standard model (having at least a couple well-chosen Likelies, then a few well-chosen Targets, and a few well-chosen Reaches) generally “works” to manage that uncertainty for most kids.
But when you think about it, even that is already a lot. Like, you can only apply to 5 undergrad programs in the UK system, and it seems to mostly work out because most of the kids have a pretty good idea where is realistic for them. Kids applying to even 8-12 US colleges are therefore already doing like twice that, and it does speak to the inherently higher level of uncertainty in our system.
Although of course if you only applied to the public universities in your state, you maybe would not need 8-12 (except maybe in California, and they make it easy). Which is kinda what UK applicants are doing.
So to come full circle–one of the reasons there is so much relative uncertainty in the US is we are a really big and diverse country with so many different college options, and if you conduct a national or even just regional search, then where exactly you will end up “matching” can become rather uncertain.
But I again find that comforting, because ultimately this means you can have more diverse options in our system than just going to your favorite in-state college that admits you. You just don’t necessarily know which other ones will come through.
I went to one of these last year. I was surprised at the number of AO’s who liked the kinds of things that we (wise ones) on CC know are kind of overdone. Research and starting a non-profit, for example.
I was also surprised when the AO’s admitted to having favorite activities on applications. One woman spoke about her love of theater kids.
Test optional was a big conversation with some AO’s liking test scores (a big reputable but test optional public) and some not caring about them at all (very reputable LAC).
Recommendation letters were talked about more than I would have thought.
It just really illustrated that it’s a crap shoot a lot of the time.
Hey, we live in a country which gives participation trophies. Where people who can’t pay their rent buy lottery tickets by the bucket when the jackpot reaches a certain level.
Every application season most of us old folks learn about a rejection or an acceptance which is a surprise. And often we then learn “there’s more to the story” and it makes sense. But most of the time, the earnest striver who really really really wants to be at U Chicago but hates reading books (actual books) doesn’t get in- no surprise. Or the happy go lucky kid with a string of B’s who loves her job at the Acai bowl store because she gets to hang with her friends doesn’t get in to Princeton even though both parents and older sibling went there. Again, no surprise.
We tell our wonderful, fantastic kids that they can do anything they set their minds to, and then we collectively freak out that in fact- that’s not the case. Our clumsy kid is not destined to dance for the Bolshoi. Our kid with the tin ear but who loves to sing is not going to solo with the Metropolitan Opera. The performing arts are helpful because the weed-out generally takes place long before college admissions becomes a factor. But the academic weed out- we like to ignore that. Low SAT scores? Hey, she has test anxiety. Got a C in Spanish last year? He has a learning disability which makes languages difficult. Opted for “Business math” senior year instead of Calculus? Hey, business math is much more practical for a kid who wants to major in finance.
It is sad that admissions has to be the reality check for many families. I know parents now who are going through their own private game of “where did we go wrong?” when the college counselor meeting yields a list of CUNY, a few SUNY’s, Hofstra and Pace instead of the planned list of Columbia, NYU, Northwestern and Michigan as the safety. (out of state Michigan is NOT A safety folks!) Your own region and neighborhood has their own list of “My kid has to apply HERE?” colleges.
Yeah, probably one of the two most useful things I got out of this forum when I was first diving back into all this to support my S24 was just the very direct illustration of the fact there are so, so many amazing kids. Way too many to all attend the same twenty colleges or whatever.
And the OTHER really useful thing was learning about how many really interesting colleges and college programs there are. Like I kinda thought I knew more about colleges than many normal people, and I suppose I did for someone who had not recently had a kid applying to college. But I have learned so many really cool things about so many colleges that I had been completely unaware of (either the thing or sometimes the entire college). And like every day here I learn more.
So yeah, those pre-conceived lists may not survive contact with the sheer weight of the numbers involved. But if you can get past that part, there are so many OTHER ways to make use of a strong application–and forums like this with so many generous and knowledgeable people who can give you ideas.
I’ve seen the words “story” and “narrative” used before many times, but I still don’t understand what this means. Can someone give a few examples to illustrate what is a good story/narrative?
Probably a kid who has a consistent theme to their application. It doesn’t mean they don’t have “off-topic” activities or ideas in the app/essays. I think a story is more about showing consistency and true interest. I’ll give an example, changing a few details of a former student who graduated from a prestigious university.
Missy was a high achiever with great grades, high course rigor, many committed activities which were mostly interconnected, great recs, and a low (for that college) test score.
She applied ED to the college she eventually attended. MIssy was offered a conditional transfer to the university if she maintained a high GPA, which she did with no trouble. She transferred as soon as she could and was in the perfect environment for her.
IMO, she had two main “flaws” in her app. She had a low test score, which was problematic at that time. She was from a very overrepresented demographic in a very overrepresented region.
Her story was consistent; she is extremely involved in wildlife conservation. Her whole app and activities were mostly connected in some way to that and to the environment. She also had some other stand out activities such as committed involvement in veteran’s groups. Apart from the two flaws I mentioned, her app couldn’t have been better in terms of nailing her supplements, her personal statement, and her teacher recs. Any AO reading her app would have a very clear idea of who the student was.
At least for her story, it was consistency and genuine interest.
GPA would have an edge. Not taking 3 AP’s that were offered because a student wanted to do a conflicting club or other passion project is a conversation at the committee table. A 3.2 GPA might not get much time or discussion if at all.
As to what rigor means, it is averred by many here that academic rigor is solely and exclusively adjudged in the context of the four walls of your local high school. In the context of a current MIT director of admissions on this site stating that Calculus is a requirement for admission to MIT and considering that only 50% of schools in the USA teach calculus, it must be unfortunate for kids from half of our schools who essentially have zero chance of admission to MIT. I hope that is not actually the case. Or maybe someone, somewhere is self-studying some Calculus that isn’t offered in her school.
Really some of this discussion presupposes an upper middle class suburban school that allows this kind of choice. At our school, there is strong resistance to allowing freshmen and sophomores to take AP classes. So, many students face the dilemma of a relatively impossible schedule Junior / Senior year or to not take every “most rigorous” class offered by the school. Junior year is also about leadership, growing your extra-curricular activities and friends. There is only so much time…
MIT teaches introductory calculus. It moves quickly, but it is designed for students who have never taken calc before (not designed a a review class). The course does not have zero enrollment- ergo, MIT admits students who have not taken calculus yet.
My son had a friend at MIT who had not taken calculus. Military family- and between the moves and changes (sometimes during the school year) he wasn’t tracked into the “you take calculus in HS” track in the HS he ended up in senior year. I think MIT (and Cal Tech, and CMU and others) expect a kid who wants a math-heavy university to take Calc WHEN AVAILABLE at their HS (no, Business Math is not the right senior year math class for a kid in a HS which offers Calculus) but not having the option of taking calculus is not the same thing AT ALL.
The two are not correlated. Yes, MIT will admit exceptional applicants who had no calculus in HS. That’s exceedingly rare, but possible. But the MIT calc class is not populated only by those few who never took calc. The lowest course available is 18.01, which is the equivalent of AP Calculus BC. So those students taking may not have had calc, or “only” had AB calc, or didn’t get the 5 on BC, or are otherwise uncomfortable with being suitably prepared for the 18.02 MVC course
But the statement was made that students whose HS doesn’t teach calculus are automatically denied at MIT. Which is not true. MIT could easily design a specific class for kids who had “only” taken AB. But they don’t. It’s an introductory calculus course suitable for freshmen who have not yet taken calc. I was pushing back on the perceived “unfairness” that a kid from a HS which doesn’t teach calculus was an automatic rejection. Which is not the case.
Actually, they have such a course, 18.01A (followed by 18.02A).
https://math.mit.edu/academics/undergrad/first/calculus.php
The regular 18.01 is for students without calculus, or who did not get a high enough AP/whatever score to get a more advanced placement.
However, many of those that do not offer calculus are smaller schools, since a much higher percentage of US high school students attend a school that offers calculus. But not all such students can access calculus based on their middle school math placement.
The quote from the MIT Admissions Director was that he didn’t recall MIT admitting anyone without calculus in HS “since 2009” when he started at MIT admissions. To quote. “we effectively require some form of calculus in high school (or testing equivalent, e.g. those who self-study for AB or BC and take the tests without ever enrolling in the class, international students with olympiad performance demonstrating mastery, etc)“. Another quote “This is definitely something that has changed since (another commenter) was an undergrad; it’s not clear that 18.01 can really be taken these days by students who are coming in with zero calc.”
I suppose those arguing the exact opposite point have direct experience that should be compared with an MIT admissions officer for the past 15 years. MIT admissions also really does have to consider what a student with no HS calc’s experience would be like matched up against other MIT undergrads all graded under the same curve. Is the choice a “C” or to spend 3x more time on problem sets and studying than your peers? Academic mismatch is a real phenomenon that can lead to depression, feelings of not belonging and poorer than expected outcomes.
Tracking is another issue but not relevant to OP here nor as to the fact that roughly 50% of high schools in the USA do not, in fact, offer calculus. Generally the point is made that those schools are poor / underprivileged rather than that they are small. At least when that statistic is discussed outside of the “academic success is the only type of achievement colleges adjudge solely and exclusively in the four corners of what high school you attended” discussion.
(Post edited by moderator to comply with forum rules).
Please get back to the OP and not arguing calculus at MIT.
Thanks to all for this thread because this is on my mind a lot. I honestly don’t know if I’m in the category of “my kid should get a trophy cuz he’s amazing.” We can see stats of GPAs and test scores on sites like naviance, but we have no way of knowing the rigor of the students who were accepted. My son has a 4.79, 33 ACT and yet will only graduate with 5 AP courses from a prestigious public school district that offers a ton of APs. LORs are very high, ECs and essays above average but not amazing. We are well aware that MIT or ivy leagues would not be in the running, but not sure about the one bump down-level schools (ie Haverford, WashU, Wesleyan, or even URochester, Macalester and Case Western)
I know there’s no way to compare apples to ice cream, and that we have no way of knowing what AOs are looking for, but still, I don’t know if some of our reaches are pipe dreams. I welcome honest feedback since I’m a mom, I feel like all these schools would be better off if they admitted my darling child, but I’m well aware of how bias works. (and so is my son btw cuz he’s taking ap stat instead of calc!!!)
If Naviance is using weighted GPA, wouldn’t that roughly be indicative of rigor? The scattergrams should be somewhat instructive for categorizing schools, and having the HS counselor’s input should further refine said categorization. What you can’t see in Naviance is ACT/SAT superscore and whether a student was hooked…the HS counselor should be able to help there as well.
Any updates on his list since this thread Chance Me (My Son) Haverford and Case Western (Science Nerd/Theater Kid) [PA resident, 3.9 GPA, 32 ACT], which offered a lot of ideas and categorization opinions?