^^ @CaucAsianDad, this is a very good discussion, and highlights some important points:
- Curricular rigor, including number of AP courses, needs to be defined in the context of each school.
- It may not be entirely clear what constitutes "most rigorous", so getting guidance from the GC is important. He/she is the one who is going to have to check off the box.
- "The number of APs alone do not make a schedule 'most rigorous.' " I think this is very important. It's key to demonstrate rigor, but that doesn't necessarily equate to number of AP courses. Showing a deliberate and thoughtful approach to course selection with increasing rigor may work well. As you note, "the AO is not looking for the number of APs, they are looking at the sequencing of courses and the implied motivation of the student to succeed."
- "A student does not need to take all AP Sciences, but once they move to AP, they should continue to take AP sciences." I think this is good advice, though at some schools there may be more advanced science courses that are not specifically AP. But the general idea of not going down in rigor is an important one - it could be a red flag.
- "If a student takes on more APs due to interest or desire for college credit, that's good, but not necessarily a boost. Also the expectation is mostly all As in APs, along with strong EC and test scores." More APs beyond a certain point is unlikely to be an admissions boost. There may be other valid reasons for such a course, but not to impress adcoms. And loading up with more at the expense of maintaining GPA and ECs is probably counter-productive.
Thanks for following up.