This is something of a spin off.
I feel as though I had heard and read that colleges don’t want kids who are well rounded anymore, it’s all about being pointy.
So, I was surprised that a number of people on my thread about choosing courses were telling me he wasn’t well rounded enough.
What does it seem like colleges want these days?
I’m not going to try to change my kid into something he’s not. I’m just curious.
My opinion…they want students who are themselves. Students who take courses and do ECs that are of interest to the student. Colleges don’t want students who are doing these things to capture the eyes of adcoms at colleges.
Having said that…if a student has very lopsided courses, in particular…like all STEM but really limited humanities, the student might want to balance this out. This is especially true, in my opinion, for students applying to LACs.
If a student is applying to all technical colleges for engineering, for example, I guess it’s fine to have a lean towards STEM courses. But even the UCs require a full year of an arts course.
But really…an authentic student is what colleges are looking for. And they are building a class. This can include very pointy students, and students who bring a lot of different things to the college.
I’ll give you a sample of one. My DD had ECs that were very pointed in music. BUT she applied as an undeclared arts and sciences student who then switched to engineering. And she works in a STEM field that requires tons of higher level STEM courses. Her high school courses did not scream “stem”. Neither did her ECs (none of which had anything to do with anything STEM related).
I think it is important to remember that colleges, at least top private colleges, are assembling an interesting class, so it is about how an applicant contributes to that mix, not about some hierarchy of individual value. This means , to oversimplify, there will be some well-rounded students and some pointy.
There is not a one size fits all answer. Most colleges accept most applicants, and if one has the required classes and grades that meet the admission hurdle they will be accepted.
If you are talking selective schools, there are those that value different things. Students need to pay attention to what the websites say, and what is verbalized in admissions sessions. For example, some tech schools might be more forgiving on humanities requirements. These schools are also trying to create a diverse class, one that will include well rounded and pointy students.
When I used to work with students, and they told me they don’t want to take a 4th year of language or physics, I would show them the Wesleyan admitted student data, see below. I also verbally share that in Wesleyan admission sessions they say if one doesn’t have at least 4 courses in each of the core subject areas, chances of admission are tougher. Obviously Wesleyan is just one highly rejective school, but the point stands, and I expect many similar schools behave the same.
In terms of the students’ academic backgrounds, 84% of the admitted students have completed math through calculus, 80% have taken biology, chemistry, and physics, and 75% have a four-year proficiency in a single foreign language.
There are students who are so pointy (and the line is not clear) with such great accomplishments that admissions may overlook a lack of language or only two years of social studies or whatever. Examples of these types of students might include those who have made an impact in science, for example, improving software so that a surgical robot takes a more efficient and precise path during surgery, or inventing a new medical device. Both these students were lead authors on peer reviewed papers, and their improvements widely accepted in the medical community quite quickly. I share this to show there are outliers and exceptions, not to make any one feel lesser about their or their kids accomplishments. 
The want a well-rounded class. And that will include a mix of well-rounded students and pointy students and everyone in between on the spectrum.
Colleges want students to take a balanced courseload across all academic subjects. Colleges want students to recognize that the recommended course preparation that they assembled was put together with thought. Colleges aren’t really interested in that a particular student would prefer to specialize in a subject in HS; that’s what college and grad school are for.
I’ll add the caveat that colleges also recognize that other countries might have a more specialized curriculum. And that’s fine. But for US applicants, refer to my earlier paragraph.
None of that means that HS students can’t have activities that are pointy; they absolutely can
If a student is heavily involved in music, as an example, with significant accomplishments, then the rigor of courses may not be a determining factor. This may be true for many other high achievers in the arts, sports, and other “pointy” endeavors that require time, effort, discipline and commitment that affect the rigor of course choices- as long as they meet benchmarks for grades and scores that is.
I think most of the responses on your other thread were not about being well rounded or pointy but making sure your child is meeting the recommendation of 4 years of all core courses. A student can do that and still be pointy or well rounded based on their ECs and electives.
My daughter’s guidance counselor told us she had taken the most STEM offerings of any student he ever had (he was in his 25th year) but sat us down to really understand her college list because he didn’t want to say that in his LOR unless it would help her. At some schools it clearly wouldn’t but that wasn’t where she was applying.
And that said, she still had 4 years of social studies , 4 years of English, 3 years of FL, all at the highest rigor (one missing because of a conflict with math that was also noted in the LOR), etc… And she was a theater/music kid and her only tech-y EC was sci oly, so more well rounded than pointy there.
I’m firmly in the camp that kids need to find colleges that fit their interests rather than trying to mold themselves into what a school wants. Because frankly, you’ll never know what they are looking for in shaping their class that year.
It seems that the most successful students (at least in our experience) are well rounded academically and pointy in addition. So taking all of the suggested courses including the highest rigor available plus something else.
Yes, that may be what the most selective colleges want to see – students who are well rounded to the expected levels in all academic areas but also show exceptional (pointy) achievement in one or more.
The OP’s student would actually qualify by these criteria, having a mostly well rounded course selection (the only minor question may be 3 versus 4 years of social studies) while being pointy in math, foreign languages, arts, and maybe science.
All colleges are different. Kid who plays violin - many will love.
All that was said on the other thread is what @momofboiler1 wrote. That’s it 100%
You note - but they require two years. That’s for their benefit so the could admit athletes or first gen or what not. For you, recommended means required. So if they recommend something take it as required.
Do that and based on what you’ve described about your student outside, his test and essays and LORs are great, he’s done all he can. You seem to be searching for a flaw where one may not exist.
It doesn’t mean he gets in everywhere but he’s certainly put himself in a position to do so. This is from the Princeton thread and we don’t know about essays or LORs but this parent is likely right - this student did it right. There’s a reason they didn’t get in but sadly will never know why.
“My son has a 36 ACT, 4.44 GPA (4 unweighted), took 14 AP classes, wrestler, rower, lots of extra curricular activities. He got rejected. There is truly nothing else he could have done.”
Agree.
Exactly to all of this. Even many of the students who have done all they can are denied at the highly rejective schools, which is where this thread, as so many, seems to be focused.
That means that plenty of kids who submitted apps with great grades and rigor, strong ECs, wrote compelling essays, and presented their ‘authentic’ selves in the application will be denied from these types schools.
I agree with others don’t do things that one might think will impress college AOs at highly rejective schools. Take classes and participate in ECs that make sense for the student, while still challenging themselves. Shoot your shot at the highly rejectives, but help students understand there are more schools out there than the highly rejectives. It’s so sad when a student (or their parent) says something like ‘I worked so hard in HS, and I’m only going to my state flagship.’ 
Consistent with sentiments already expressed by other posters, when it comes to activities, I think this is the best single discussion I have seen, courtesy of the Inside the Yale Admissions Office podcast:
[Mark] Yeah, and this relates to something that we actually got a listener email about, which is– it’s a good question, is about, do you need to have a spike in your application? And this is– what’s interesting is this is not a term that I had heard before. But it sounds like it’s pretty common out there among students who are talking to each other. So, Hannah, can you like– what’s the concept of a spike?
[Hannah] Yeah, so the idea is that you could either be well-rounded, or you could be pointy in your activities. So if you’re well-rounded, you do a lot of different varied things. And if you’re pointy or you have a spike, then you have one thing that you’re really, really, really good at.
[Mark] Yeah, and I, over the years, have gotten tons of questions from students, saying, do you prefer well-rounded students, or pointy students?
[Hannah] Right. Yeah.
[Mark] And my answer is, yes. All kinds.
[Hannah] Yes.
[Mark] And it’s interesting, because I know that this actually is a line that admissions officers have used over the years, where they explain that what they’re looking for is a well-rounded student body, not necessarily well-rounded students and I can understand where that’s coming from, but I think it’s much too dismissive of the well-rounded student, who maybe isn’t particularly spiky in one area. So I think people hear that and say, oh I’ve got to be spiky so that my spike is going to join all the other spikes and then together–
[Reed] Right.
[Mark] We’ll be this big spiky wheel or something, I don’t know.
[Hannah] Yeah, like whatever you do, that’s what you should do. I mean, if you happen to be the kind of person who wants to pursue a lot of varied things, if you’re a little bit of a jack of all trades, that’s great. Do that. And if you have this one clear passion, or spike, that you’re exceptionally good at, then do that. But one is not better than the other.
[Mark] And we see students go in the wrong direction both ways, right? We see students who are passionate with a capital P about something, but they think that they need to have a bunch of other stuff in their applications.
[Hannah] Right, yeah.
[Mark] So they’re just participants and involved, but it doesn’t mean much for us. And we also see students who really would love to be pursuing really disparate interests and contributing a lot different ways. They say, oh, I’ve got to have a spike. And so I need to abandon these things that I care about to double or triple down on this one thing. And no, you don’t need to do that at all.
[Hannah] Don’t– just don’t make these decisions based on how it’s going to look on your resume or on your college application. Make them based on how you actually want to be spending your time.
[Reed] Yes, there is a whole spectrum of activity, from the student who does it, all the student who does one thing. And when you get to college, we are not going to expect the student who does one thing to suddenly become a jack of all trades. And we’re not going to expect the student who loves doing it all to suddenly focus in on their extracurricular activities in college. You’re eventually going to have to select a major or majors. You’re not going to have to focus down your activities to one.
[Hannah] Yeah.
This is basically about activities, however.
Academically, different undergraduate programs have different expectations for their students.
Very broadly speaking, some are more on an exploratory/classical model, where you are expected to continue to take a broad range of classes that is deepening your understanding of the world, making you a better future citizen, and so on. Your major is eventually more specialized, but you don’t even have to pick your major until later.
Some institutions are then specialized/pre-professional by nature. Your “general education” may continue in some form, but it is expected you are there because you already know you want to be an engineer, or architect, or dancer, or nurse, or whatever. Potentially you can change your mind, but then you will have to switch to a different program.
And the same one institution can potentially have different programs. So, it might have an Arts and Sciences school along the first model, but also specialized schools.
OK, so that affects what sorts of applicant will be most competitive. If it is a fully exploratory/classical sort of program, they may want to see you do a lot in all the “core” areas so that you are not limited in what you can keep doing in their program. If it is a more specialized/pre-professional sort of program, they may still want to know you can satisfy your “gen eds” at their program without too much difficulty, but will otherwise be fine with you already pursuing specific interests in more depth. That sort of thing.
Yes, that’s the key! They want to see real commitment and real passion. Not something done merely to impress AOs.
Agreed, with that correction 
Schools like UMich, the UCs, GT, and several other top publics also build a class — which is why their admissions are just as unpredictable for top students.
My intention was not to exclude publics, hence the “at least.” But thanks for the correction. Our state U’s rely more on stats so maybe less focused on building an interesting mix. I wanted to stick to what I know.
UCs do not “build a class” the way people think of here (“we need an oboe player”, etc.) other than by division or major. Each application is holistically read by at least two readers and scored. They are then rank ordered within division or major with the best scores admitted.
The unpredictability is due to compression at the top of quantifiable measures (grades, and SAT/ACT before 2020). A 4.0 unweighted GPA student applying for CS does not know how the rest of their application compares to those of other 4.0 unweighted GPA applicants that they compete with.
When people talk about “well rounded” vs “pointy/spiky” students, they’re generally speaking about ECs, not academics.