As a non-math person for my childhood- gotta say that geometry is often a different ballgame than the classes that led up to it.
There are math-phobes who love geometry (“it just makes sense- I can visualize the problem”) and math-phobes who are hopeless at geometry (the spatial piece is not helpful for me- at all!) and everything in between.
I agree with the general principle of colleges considering literature/composition/SAT EBRW for math/science kids, such that better EBRW/literature/composition is preferable to worse. However, listing EBRW scores for MIT or other colleges is not good evidence of this. It certainly does not show that you have to have 730+ EBRW to be admitted to MIT. The scores show correlation, not causation.
I expect most kids who score 800 on math SAT and the other criteria MIT values also score well on EBRW. As such even if MIT was EBRW blind (adcoms do not see score), they’d still have a class that was mostly composed of kids with very high EBRW scores, leading to a high middle 50% range. The more telling result would be what happens to the few applicants who have all the criteria that MIT values and would otherwise be an admit, but have an anomalous relatively weak EBRW score? Does the weak EBRW score cause the admit to change to a reject? You need a regression with controls to answer this type of question, rather than just note that EBRW middle 50% is high.
Back when I applied, I actually had the extremely rare 800 math / 500 CR spilt. I was admitted to MIT, but attended Stanford instead. While MIT is more selective today and my SAT score would differ after concordance tables, my point is that MIT and other colleges focused on the math/science background for a prospective math/science student. They appeared to place less emphasis (not no emphasis) on CR score and English/humanities background for prospective math/science student.
Anecdotally I did not struggle in humanities/social science classes, but I did find classes that graded based on objective problem sets to be more straightforward than colleges that graded on subjective papers. When I took GRE near start of junior year for coterm, my verbal score increased to 700 something (back when was graded out of 800). It’s possible HS CR score was fluke or skills improved while attending college.
If the MIT adcom’s were ignoring applicants skills on the verbal/composition side, why do they specifically recommend two letters from teachers- one STEM and one humanities?
Easy enough to ask for Math and (your choice) chem, bio, physics.
My post did not say they were “ignoring” verbal/composition side. My post instead used the word “considering” in reference to verbal/composition side. It doesn’t have to be a black and white choice as either need 730+ EBRW score with comparable verbal/composition strength to math/science strength, or ignore EBRW/verbal/composition such that it has no influence on admission. Instead a college can place a greater emphasis on the classes/fields/areas that are most relevant for the particular applicant based their prospective major and place a lesser emphasis on the classes/fields/areas that are less relevant for that applicant. This also relates to differences in how taking calculus AB vs BC influences admission for a prospective engineering major vs prospective humanities major.
I think the only good reason for acceleration is potential boredom. Sitting through classes where you have understood a concept quickly but have to wait until others understand, with many questions and discussions that don’t benefit you.
One thing worth knowing is that in recent decades there had observably been a growing math-verbal gap overall on the SAT (point being there is not a fixed relationship):
Anyway, I don’t know for sure the raw correlation between very high Math and EBRW subscores, but I do suspect it is not high enough on its own to explain the observed enrolled distributions at MIT. However, MIT of course also looks at transcripts.
So, if you are also imagining a candidate who not only has a high Math subscore but has ALSO taken the most rigorous classes in their HS in HASS areas and ALSO got top grades in those classes, then I think at that point that combination of top Math subscores and top grades in the most rigorous HASS classes could correlate enough with top EBRW subscores to explain the observation.
So if “all the criteria that MIT values” includes high school HASS class rigor and high school HASS grades (and they certainly suggest it does), then I would agree candidates who have all that, and are generally good with standardized tests as indicated by a high Math subscore, but submit relatively low EBRW scores, would be pretty rare cases.
To try to make this all relevant–getting those HASS class results is very likely important at almost all highly selective colleges, including but not limited to MIT, but that doesn’t likely require any extraordinary course acceleration efforts in middle school. Again, though, I would not be shy about encouraging kids that age to read for fun.
Just a thought, but the differences in math vs verbal may be merely an artifact of wherever College Board decides to set the difficulty and the scoring scales, particularly with each change of the test format.
College Board may be looking at the middle of the curve, which is its largest market. EBRW mean score is higher than mean math https://reports.collegeboard.org/media/pdf/2025-total-group-sat-suite-of-assessments-annual-report%20ADA-v0.2_0.pdf.
I was a little unclear anyway. I edited a bit to try to clarify my point was just that there is an observably variable relationship between Math and EBRW subscores. And absolutely some of that could be a matter of varying test methodologies over time.
At top schools, math scores tend to be higher than verbal, so what you are saying has validity. It’s just that average students aren’t applying there. Perhaps College Board may have made the math a little easier or less advanced for appearances, as one of their biggest markets involves state testing contracts, where average would be relevant. College Board has never really seemed to cater to the top tail applying to top colleges. This is all just supposition, of course.
Perhaps we can move off of what MIT wants, what disparity between M & EBRW scores is acceptable, and other tangents
On the thread topic, I am just a parent, but it seems to me that math level is just one part of the overall rigor review in college admissions. So much depends on everything else.
I don’t know what admissions discussions look like in reality, though. I think relying too much on the highest math level in high school is a bit misplaced, knowing what I do about middle school math placement. I did fight for some of my kids’ middle school math placements and it was not an easy task, so in my opinion, it would be a mistake to ding an applicant based on math level alone, as that is often outside of the applicant’s control. I would hope that’s evaluated more holistically, considering grades and test scores, perhaps.
And to answer the original thread question — IMO parents should NOT push kids for highest track math in middle school when that track leads to a +2 or higher. Algebra 1 in 8th grade is ok, but no more. I also think local school boards should not allow high schools to offer above calc BC and for the kids that are math geniuses and truly bored with algebra 2 and trig in 8th grade and really need to do calculus in 10th (which I would bet are not that many), the districts should have arrangements with local colleges for that. This Math Arms Race of multivariable or differential equations in high school needs to be disarmed. Normally, unilateral disarmament is problematic, but with this, unilateral disarmament at the school / school district level has almost no downside since colleges only expect kids to take the most rigor available. So don’t make it available. And unilateral Math disarmament isn’t about equity, it’s about preserving the mental health of young anxious ambitious top students.
I say all this as a math person myself who loved taking BC and Linear Algebra (taken through a local college) senior year in high school. I was valedictorian and was a stressed out mess, which caught up with me in college. I can’t even imagine if I had had to keep that pace up going back to 5th grade. With my kids, we went so extreme as to remove them from the middle school system and home school for two years while we traveled and then we found a school district that maxes out at Calculus BC. Not really on purpose, I wasn’t that focused on the Math Arms Race per se, but I knew I wanted something less competitive and more easy going for my kids high school experience. So far, so good.
Just my opinion, since thread questions asks “should.” Heck no is my answer, but I get the anxiety when everyone else in the school is pushing their kids. So to me, the answer is disarm the district (or if large and resourced enough, have a separate math magnet, but keep the normal high schools well..normal!)
I disagree with the fundamental argument that “I get the anxiety when everyone else in the school is pushing their kids” - as a parent of very mathy kids, I really resent the attitude that my kid shouldn’t have that chance because someone else might not be as good. We don’t allow that in any sport.
Just because a high school offers math “beyond BC” (I also have quibbles with the Calculus path as Gd-given) doesn’t mean that everyone is going to be able to succeed in it, just as not everyone succeeds in Varsity Football or any other area. Why on Earth would I want my school to cut down opportunities for other kids? I can only think it’s to make “my kid” artificially competitive.
“Pushing” and “offering” are different things. IME–a number of parents are pushing for something for their child because it’s perceived to be superior, not actually because it’s the right thing for their kid. It’s hard to know where to draw the line. Certainly there are students who are up to the challenge! But–most high schools can only offer a class if there’s enough kids to take it.
This might be an issue for a kid who wants to take post-BC calc in 11th and 12th, but it shouldn’t be a hindrance to the kid wishing to take precalc in 9th or BC in 10th.
If colleges value strictness in context, is there really a measurable admission advantage to be on the math track +3/+4 over track +1, assuming the highest grades and strong ECs? Or does excessive acceleration basically increase risk (burnout, weaker bases) without a clear payout?
It obviously totally depends on the kid. If this is the next Terrence Tao, then it’s a nonsense worry.
I wish that parents were able to think about this more as ‘best learning fit’ rather than ‘ways to get ahead for college’. I have a mathy homeschooled kid who was very ahead in middle school because we were able to work at his pace in elementary and easily completed both 2nd and 3rd grade math in kindergarten without much effort (less than 30 minutes of math per day). We used a challenging prealgebra and algebra program but worked through it slowly. I was concerned about a pathway that was too accelerated because…what if kiddo quit liking math and decided to go into a non-mathy field but was on track to get through calc 3, linear algebra, and discrete math in order to have 4 years of math during high school? That’s a lot of challenging math for a kid who doesn’t want it! So, we moved slowly and added interesting classes like number theory and probability in middle school. These were a change of pace and left our kid in a position to only need to go through calculus 1 or stats if that was his preference.
In the end, this kid chose to split the difference, self-studying for Calc BC AP in 11th, taking calc 3 DE in 12th, and then doing a second home-based probability class in his last semester at home. Getting through calc as a junior let him take physics with calc as a senior and set him on a path to graduate in 3 years (he could have double majored but is planning to start grad school instead). We had said that he could only skip Calc 1 and Calc 2 if he had a 5 on the AP, and with that he had no problem starting with CC Calc 3, and no problem with the past 2 years of additional math classes at his college. He has said that in his field of engineering the number theory and probability classes have both been very useful…and something that none of his classmates have had.
I wish that rather than just acceleration schools were able to offer breadth options for kids who are advanced early. For later bloomers or kids who think it would be useful, I wish that more had access to DE. My younger, who was less academically enthused in middle school, took a DE precalc class as a junior and decided to go ahead and do Calc 1 the next semester. If desired, she could get through Calc 3 her senior year. She is instead taking the DE Statistics class that she will need for her major. Neither of my kids were interested in highly competitive colleges although both have/had the stats to make it something that they might have pursued. But, they used their high school years to take classes that would give them options for college, whether early graduation followed by grad school or pursuing a double major (like my younger plans to do). I wish more students could focus on customizing their education - both their sequenced math classes and their electives - to explore majors, broaden their knowledge, or get a head start if they know what they want to do rather than feeling like they have to see who can take the most advanced classes.
Prior comments by @Mwfan1921 and @heavyweightcollege suggest yes.
If parent pushed (as opposed to student led), then yes, since the potential admission advantage at highly selective colleges is still years in the future when middle school placement decisions are made (the student might not want to go to, or may not have the rest of the credentials for admission to a highly selective college where super-advanced math level is advantageous).
In terms of actual advanced placement in college, +1 is commonly helpful, +2 may be helpful for math-heavy majors, and +3 or higher would helpful in very few majors (and only if the +3 or higher student had access to college junior level math while in high school).
We have to put this in context like both heavyweightcollege and I have done repeatedly. The context has been in the world of selective/highly selective admissions and for some majors/programs/schools more than others. There is institutional variability as well.
There is NOT a one-size-fits-all answer to this question posed in the OP, as much as some might want there to be.