@privatebanker Agreed. My son got into Emory and not into CHP. He had a friend with the same major who got into CHP and not Emory. Definitely tough to say who will get in. A good friend had a 36 ACT and didn’t get in. They told us in the info session that they are looking for a well rounded group. They don’t just want a bunch of kids with high stats.
Basically, you could have a shot about anywhere but you must find actual safeties (affordable and sharing some key characteristics with the universities you like best) and actual matches (universities that have an acceptance rate about 30-40%, keeping in mind that CS is always more competitive.)
Depending on your budget you may want to apply to UEdinburgh, which has what may be the best AI program in Europe. No financial aid though so costs would likely be 35-40k. (There are some scholarships but they’d only cut a few thousand dollars from this.)
1 Like
“They don’t just want a bunch of kids with high stats.”
Well if we’re talking Emory, they definitely want a bunch of kids with high stats, depending on your definition of high stats. Latest CDS has Emory with over 88% of freshman with over a 30 ACT and 50% over 700 verbal, 70% over 700 math. Their 25/75 is 31/34, and 1350/1520. That’s pretty high stats to me. There are not a lot of low-stats kids walking around Emory.
Hi @theloniusmonk Really glad to see you are still here.
@MYOS1634 I totally agree with your points, ESPECIALLY about keeping in mind that CS is always more competitive. Do not be fooled be overall admissions stats when applying to CS programs.
AIME (or even USAxO) is not a hook. Not even a tip. OP’s nudge (not a tip, just a reason to keep reading, ) is the history. But the rest seems all about how he’s top at this or that, has some award. Not enough for a tippy top. They want to see more than the “Look at me!” aspects- i.e., the real kid who can get past that and show attributes they want. The kid who has humility (and it shows throughout,) isn’t all about “impressing.”
I often feel when any kid leads with stats, wins, and titles, he doesn’t understand enough about what tippy tops want.
Adding: Holistic. Not hierarchical. Think about it. Cuz it’s one thing that can block high stats accomplished kids from an admit.
@theloniusmonk I wasn’t referring to Emory I was referring to CHP at UMass.
And if we are talking about Emory, they want both also, the stats and the story. But this post isn’t about Emory.
“AIME (or even USAxO) is not a hook. Not even a tip. OP’s nudge (not a tip, just a reason to keep reading, ) is the history.”
You can use whatever word you want or don’t want, but all “tippy-tops” ask for AMC/AIME scores, MIT, Cal Tech directly on their app, and Stanford, ivies in the supplements. It is very important, because they cannot differentiate the 800s these kids get on the SAT and Math 2 subject tests.
“I often feel when any kid leads with stats, wins, and titles, he doesn’t understand enough about what tippy tops want.”
Interesting that when I visit any faculty home page of a “tippy-top”, they don’t lead with how they will with work the undergrads and look at them as a whole person. No, they lead with stats and tiles, nobel laureates, pulitzers etc.
“The kid who has humility (and it shows throughout,) isn’t all about “impressing.””
That’s a little overrated, they don’t want braggarts but they definitely want kids who are very confident in their math and science abilities. If you’re the humblest kid in the world and you have the opportunity to take the AMC 10/12, and you don’t, it won’t look good.
TM, it’s not an admission tip, per se, to win something. It adds to the picture, yes. But in holistic and for tippy tops, the whole matters. A kid absolutely has the chance to list those in the Awards or Activities section.
This is about an admit. Not how a college structures web info or what faculty choose to emphasize, to place them among peers, not get admitted to undergrad. For a kid, there’s a diff between showing those versus thinking awards or stats are the primary criteria.
Don’t underrate humility. We aren’t talking of hiding your light under a rock, but delivering in the right ways. If you don’t take some math contest, it doesn’t change you as an applicant. Lots of great kids don’t.
They want kids who think in the ways they like. Some of that usually includes how one choose to stretch. Sure. But more. Show, not just tell. If anything, more kids have “confidence” but still don’t know how to match themselves. That can be critical. It reflects in how you build your hs years and self present in the app and supps.
@lookingforward You write, "But the rest seems all about how he’s top at this or that, has some award. Not enough for a tippy top. They want to see more than the “Look at me!” aspects- i.e., the real kid who can get past that and show attributes they want. The kid who has humility (and it shows throughout,) isn’t all about “impressing.”
I would appreciate further feedback. How does one “show” other aspects on a Chance me thread? Plus I am confused. Doesn’t getting to a certain level in a competition naturally show attributes that a college would want - such as analytical ability and perseverence?
“If you don’t take some math contest,”
This may explain some of the differences, the USAMO is not “some math contest”, just like the 100M dash in the Olympics is not a random athletic event. I can say factually that MIT, Cal Tech, Stanford etc. do not look at Olympiads as some math contest.
“Not how a college structures web info or what faculty choose to emphasize”
You have been arguing that applicants should dig deep on what a college emphasizes and values. Isn’t figuring out what some faculty are working on one way to do that, rather than just say hey I’m intellectually curious, admit me! Matching faculty interests with your hs research is a pretty good tack to take in apps.
“Show, not just tell.”
Well isn’t placing at science fair or olympiad showing? I could tell colleges that I’m great at math or science because I have great grades but isn’t winning showing I have more than the typical science applicant? What are some examples of show, outside competitions?
The app is a lengthy self presentation. Many sections to consider and master. Of course one should dig deep. But that’s not about how a faculty member structures his/her own bio. You don’t get an admit because you pick a prof whose professional interests mirror your 17 yeal old ideas. Grad school needs that more. That’s where faculty admits you. We’re talking undergrad.
“Show, not tell” doesn’t mean “telling” colleges, “I’m great.” Nor is this hierarchical (Wow, he placed in USAMO, let’s admit him!!!")
And it doesn’t matter if one competiton is considered more pretigious than another. Adcoms at holistic top colleges look at the whole picture. USAxO shows some traits and skills, but the whole is larger than that. And many, many top contenders do not participate, but get their admits on their full merits.
“And many, many top contenders do not participate, but get their admits on their full merits.”
Olympiad and ISEF winners are denied on institutional, not holistic factors - athletes, legacies, wealth, urm, first-gen. 25% of ISEF winners in a recent four year span got into Harvard, that’s pretty good for unhooked, typically upper middle class Asian. The rest are at Stanford, MIT, CMU, Swarthmore, Harvey Mudd, Cal Tech, Berkeley etc.
As I said previously, the OP knows this as he/she is an AIME but not AMO, so did not ask about chances into MIT or Stanford. If he or she placed in AMO, this would be a totally different conversation.
Recall again, this thread where OP posted saying he won these:
USAJMO (2x)
USAMO (1x)
USACO Platinum
USAPhO Semifinalist
USABO Semifinalist
You: Plus, they look for more than the hierarchical bullets, top of this, winner at that.
Me: Honestly - when I saw your Olympiads, AIME, Intel semi-finalist (indicating one of the top 500 or 1000 STEM applicants in the country), I thought you’d get into most of your colleges outside of Stanford, MIT, Harvard, Yale, Princeton, where I figured you’d get into one or two,
Accepted into Princeton, Brown, UPenn, Yale, Harvard, Stanford (MIT waitlist)
This is not anecdotal but typical given the Olympiad and ISEF. The outlier is getting into all of them outside of MIT, I will grant, usually you get into 1 or 2 of MIT/Stanford/Harvard/Cal Tech.
These awards should not be denigrated, they’re nobel, fields-esque in their importance.
No one is denigrating those awards. But they are not a lock.
“Olympiad and ISEF winners are denied on institutional, not holistic factors” In my experience, they may very well be denied on holistic factors.
These are extraordinary achievements. The student should apply to many highly selective colleges.
But none of these incredible achievements is enough to guarantee one admission to these highly selective universities. While the core of the last will include these, OP really needs to figure out safeties and matches because any university with a sub 24% acceptance rate is unpredictable. Op could get into 8 our of 10 highly selective universities, or none. So, op needs more predictable universities he likes and can afford, universities with very strong honors colleges and/or special strength in his areas of interest, for instance.
Not too long ago, winners of USAMO, USAPhO, etc. were almost certain admits to the tippy-tops. They aren’t anymore. The admission criteria seemed to have changed. Some of these winners were deemed too “one-dimensional” by adcoms. This change also seemed to correspond to changes in the compositions of the winners in these competitions. They are now almost exclusively Asian Americans, or at least predominantly Asian Americans. Unconscious stereotyping?
That’s not it. There are just more impressive winners from all over the world and there can’t just be students with these profiles at some specific colleges. Students with these qualifications applying 'out of the bo are more likely to get in but still not guaranteed anything.
Highly selective colleges have become more competitive for ALL applicants.
@MWolf
SACRILEGE!!! 
Thing is, it’s not a brand new trend to consider more than “classroom” potential. Top colleges want a sense of community, for many reasons. And they can cherry pick kids with it all. They look at the 4 year potential, as part of the community.
That’s not putting down various achievements.
Nor is it all that high a bar, to ask kids for some breadth. It’s just not all about who has the more wins, perfect scores, ran every club or team, etc. And really, that’s true in life, too.
^Yes, it’s not a brand new trend, and that’s why its effect has already been felt. If we don’t reverse that trend, implications will be more severe. US lead in high technologies is not a given. We’re falling behind in 5G. Silicon Valley is sliding and no longer the most innovative place in the world. Here’re just two of the articles I read this morning:
https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3016606/could-china-be-ready-overtake-us-worlds-leading-scientific
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/01/business/dealbook/huawei-5g-national-security-trade.html
The second article didn’t make the connection to education, but the connection is there.