<p>I was wondering how Cal Tech deals with students applying as high school juniors?(that is, without a high school diploma and only after three years of high school). I was told that schools like Caltech and MIT, compared to other selective schools, tend to "not put applicants who apply one year early at a disadvantage." But I want to know, from someone who knows Caltech really well, how do they usually view applicants who are only high school juniors? does Caltech typically take any of them?
And, what if you haven't "exhausted the curriculum your high school and any local community college can offer", but need to apply one year early because of some special circumstances?</p>
<p>IDK about Caltech (I'm applying there myself this year, after 4 years of HS), but Matt McGann wrote an article about applying to MIT a year early:</p>
<p>flierdeke applied to both Caltech and MIT as a junior. She didn't seem to have problems getting in.</p>
<p>I think Matt's post linked above hits the nail on the head. Caltech treats such cases exactly the same way. When younger students apply, we ask whether they would be able to thrive here and whether they have exhausted high school and other local opportunities, and if the answer is yes on both counts and they are good enough to make the cut independent of age, we let them in.</p>
<p>I think going to a top college early is a momentous decision... for what it's worth, in my humble opinion, this tends to be the right decision only when the opportunities locally are truly very deficient. (I.e. no more good high school classes and no good classes available to take at any local college.) </p>
<p>In my observations to date, coming in young tends to lead to high expectations, some confusion, and often disappointment. One reason is that the playing field is inherently unequal. The environment at Caltech and MIT is filled with people just as smart as (or almost as smart as) the younger students, but the "normal age" students have had more time to mature intellectually and socially. It's not like anyone is competing with anyone explicitly, but the younger students have to do the same stuff with a year less of experience screwing up at things and then fixing them. That can be very hard.</p>
<p>I would go so far as to say there's a best way to deal with precocious ability. What I mean is that those who take the "best way" tend to achieve their goals much more decisively than those who don't. The way, basically, is to take classes at local colleges until you reach "normal" age (or close) and then come in as an unusually strong freshman. One advantage is that you get to adjust to college level work (presumably at a pretty high level) without having to adjust to college level social and personal issues at the same time. Most people don't get this privilege.</p>
<p>I was lucky in that I got to take classes at Princeton when I ran out of high school classes. The first upper level math classes I took were occasionally quite despiriting. I sometimes felt like I would never get past this page and that I had no hope of figuring out how to attack this problem. But at least my mom cooked dinner and my dad told me that I would figure it out. It sounds minor, but it was a big deal for me. If I had to deal with a froshly crush and my laundry at the same time, I probably wouldn't have done particularly well at any of these things.</p>
<p>Also, missteps and failures when you are a pretend college student count less than when you are a real one. When you start college, you can essentially start with a clean slate.</p>
<p>So the short story is that people who go to pretend college during the years freed up by their precociousness tend to have a big head start with real college and don't have to compensate for an age difference.</p>
<p>Despite all this, there are definitely cases in which coming to college early is overwhelmingly the right decision. I just want to emphasize how much is given up by doing that, and that giving up those things shouldn't be done without some care.</p>
<p>I'll second everything Ben said, despite wanting very much just to over-emphasize the "but sometimes it really is the right decision!"</p>
<p>Perhaps the key question is whether you can imagine yourself doing something productive with your senior year, while still living at home and nominally attending high school classes. Maybe that's attending mostly college classes, or maybe it's throwing yourself into a science project or painting or activism. (Just don't throw yourself directly into the paint.) It's a pretty cool opportunity!</p>
<p>In my case senior year just never felt like an option. I didn't belong at home with my parents anymore, and daydreaming about ways to spend senior year invariably led to ideas of joining AmeriCorps or getting a job in Germany or teaching math. I certainly hadn't exhausted the opportunities at the local college, but I was pretty certain that another year of "high school" would only make me more dead, not more mature. That I could be a senior right now really scares me. So I've never looked back--and I absolutely love it here--but there were admittedly a few unusual factors.</p>
<p>Ben points out that the younger students have "a year less of experience screwing up at things and then fixing them." This is of course true, but a bit hard to convince yourself of without knowing about a lot of cases. People probably won't notice you're younger than usual unless you tell them; there's no obvious social gap. But it's important not to get caught up in the difference between you and the average student. What's relevant to the choice is the difference between you and you-in-a-year, and this is (hopefully) a HUGE gap no matter how mature you are for your age, how well you fit in with older students, or how you plan to spend that year.</p>
<p>This is all pretty much irrelevant to your question, though, as a description of the <em>natural</em> disadvantage for younger applicants. Unlike most other schools, Caltech doesn't feel a need to add to this. So apply if it makes sense =)</p>
<p>flierdeke gracefully points out a glaring error in my above post. </p>
<p>
[quote]
What's relevant to the choice is the difference between you and you-in-a-year, and this is (hopefully) a HUGE gap no matter how mature you are for your age, how well you fit in with older students, or how you plan to spend that year.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That is DEFINITELY the relevant difference. Other people's experiences can (hopefully) be a proxy for estimating how much you can expect to grow in year, but what matters is how you will change. Usually, despite their expectations, people change for the better and not for the worse, especially in youth. But if (and only if) you seriously believe you will change only for the worse by staying, you should leave, assuming you can.</p>
<p>Anyway, along with marriage advice from your mom, everything flierdeke and I've said probably falls in the category of "good advice people will never take." If I had been good enough after junior year to get into a top school, I would have applied and gone in a heartbeat, and if somebody had shown me a video of my potential senior year it would have only confirmed my impression that it would be a way to spend another year in an environment I had outgrown intellectually. Now I'm glad I stayed. Every other stupid thing I don't do is driven by things I did that year. But that's just me, and it's important to contemplate your own situation.</p>
<p>First of all, thanks everyone! very detailed and insightful stuff. And I understand what you're talking about. But my last question is ignored by all of you:</p>
<p>And, what if you haven't "exhausted the curriculum your high school and any local college can offer", but need to apply one year early because of some special circumstances?</p>
<p>Like I said, I understand what you're talking about. In my complicated/unique/really messed up case(I'm international), I am almost 100% sure that I will benefit from staying for senior year, but there're a lot of other things that I must take into account, things that you may not even imagine, because it's a complicated/unique/really messed up situation! let's put it this way, I going to college a year early will be MUCH better for my family as a whole.
So I've only been in the states for 1.5 years, which, I know, is another even better reason for me to stay. I'm taking good courses but I haven't exhausted them(I don't think I can in 1.5 years), while exhausting all local resources does seem a really important criterion in dealing with underage!(And by the way, I'm not that much underage, 17) So is it that students like this, applying early not becuase of exhausting the curriculum but because of some other circumstance, are at a HUGE disadvantage, and practically have no chance? and will they put my application into the context of moving to U.S. at a relatively large age from a non-enlgish country?</p>
<p>A benefit I can think of about going to college one year early is taking college-level courses in college instead of in high school. Because there's no way the AP courses at my high school offers as much as actual college courses of the same level at top colleges, say, Caltech or MIT, so why not take them in college? Correct me if I'm wrong(The choice of taking classes at a local college doesn't apply to me)
And Ben Gloub, are you in Cal tech admission?</p>
<p>I'm a Caltech student, and served on the admissions committee for two years (04-05). </p>
<p>
[quote]
A benefit I can think of about going to college one year early is taking college-level courses in college instead of in high school. Because there's no way the AP courses at my high school offers as much as actual college courses of the same level at top colleges, say, Caltech or MIT, so why not take them in college? Correct me if I'm wrong(The choice of taking classes at a local college doesn't apply to me)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Just to address this first --- this is exactly the mistake that I was arguing against in my first post. To be honest, lots of high school kids could in principle take the first-level math/physics courses at Caltech/MIT after their sophomore year of high school. Does this mean that they should? No. Taking "pretend" college classes (AP, community college, local universities) ramps up the level slowly and gets you ready to truly excel at a high level. Plus, virtually every single person at Caltech has taken the highest level of AP math/science available at his or her school before coming, and quite a few took courses at local colleges. The core classes (at least at Caltech) function on the assumption that you have seen most of the stuff in an AP class and are now ready for a deeper approach. </p>
<p>So, in short, to try to skip AP and go directly to real Caltech classes would in many cases be a serious mistake, because the Caltech courses are taught assuming that many of the students have exhausted all the standard high school courses (including AP). </p>
<p>
[quote]
And, what if you haven't "exhausted the curriculum your high school and any local college can offer", but need to apply one year early because of some special circumstances?
[/quote]
While special circumstances are always taken into account, I think admissions would generally be very wary of having someone come to Caltech early because their hand is forced by family or financial circumstances if they were not superbly prepared. Coming to Caltech prematurely will definitely create many more problems than it fixes. So while there would probably be some consideration given to the extenuating circumstances, you would have to show a very convincing level of preparation to excel, and that is pretty hard to do in general without having made the most of your high school offerings.</p>
<p>
[quote]
and will they put my application into the context of moving to U.S. at a relatively large age from a non-enlgish country?
[/quote]
Yes.</p>
<p>In any case, good luck. Don't take my remarks as discouragement. Just realize the bar you have to jump and, if you decide to apply, think about ways to make your preparation to succeed at this level abundantly clear.</p>
<p>It's hard to say much about your particular situation since you seem unwilling to say much about your particular situation. If you can keep yourself genuinely busy and challenged over the next year, then (as others have already said) it would probably be in your best interest to do so.</p>
<p>Its all so individual. I know someone who was accepted in junior year and has adjusted just fine. It all comes down to your maturity and circumstances. You have nothing to lose by applying this year. Explain your reasons and circumstances. The worst that happens is that you reapply the following year.</p>
<p>It sounds as tho you have many classes still available to you in HS.If your motivation is to leave home, you could apply to honors program in state U. You could also find something interesting to do for a GAP year. I'm not recommending the latter. I think you can never be too prepared for caltech/mit</p>
<p>Hello I'm back. Now I'm aware that I don't have much chance at Caltech. One other question: if I don't get in this year and reapply next year, will my chance be hurt by the fact that I was once rejected?</p>
<p>If not, I'm going to apply anyway. I REALLY want to go to Caltech, and like some of you had said, I have nothing to lose but the application fee. </p>
<p>I have brought this up before, but I'm going to ask again. One of the most important academicwise things that happened in my academic career in US is that I placed first in the chemistry olympiad local section.it's not even state level, they go like local section(regional)-national exam-camp-international. but then I couldn't move on to the national level because of citizenship restriction. the guy who placed first in our region last year(his score was actually a bit lower than mine) went to national, made it to the camp, and placed sixth there, missing the international rep team by 2 spots.
So I could have gotten sometihng PRETTY big out of this, but I ended up with a regional level award. I asked how I should deal with this on my application and someone told me not to make a big deal of this, just state the fact that I couldn't move on. Is that the best way I can represent this achievement on my app? I mean, I'm real proud of it and want them to know that I have the potential to go farther than regional......
Thanks.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, hypotheticals are tricky. You should say that you placed first in the regional section with score X, and were not able to move on in the competition due to citizenship restrictions; however, for reference, the person receiving score Y last year went to the national training camp. You must strike a tone of utmost humility as you say this to avoid it looking like you're trying to take credit for something that hasn't actually happened.</p>
<p>As for reapplying in another year, I don't think it would hurt you substantially to have applied once before.</p>
<p>So just can I say "2006 placed first with score X in US National Chemistry Olympiad AA section but were not able to move on to national exam because of citizenship restriction; for reference, first place in 2005 in AA section with score Y attended the national training camp after competing in the national exam." exactly as it is on my application? Does it sound humble?
Sorry..I'm not very good with the wording...sigh, ESL.</p>
<p>replace "were" with "was" and I think it works ok</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I heard a story about a girl in my town who took this advice that Ben gives here. She was enrolled in our town's accelerated math program taught at the state flagship university, and then made use of our state's dual-enrollment program. By the end of her "high school" program, according to the story about her I heard last month, she had 162 quarter credits at the state university--back when it took 180 quarter credits to graduate with a four-year undergraduate degree. But she decided the most appropriate way to continue her education was as a freshman at Caltech, which is where she matriculated. According to the story, she eventually graduated from Caltech with an undergrad degree in just three years, even though she hadn't applied for transfer admission (this must be VERY unusual, right, Ben?) and she LOVED her time at Caltech. So, yes, if you are an advanced learner at high-school age, you need to find something constructive to do, but that may or may not imply early matriculation at college.</p>
<p>Yes, three years is quite unusual -- fewer than 5 people per entering class. Hats off to her.</p>
<p>I've heard a "legend" that someone actually managed to graduate in two years from Caltech (straight out of high school, not a transfer). I thought about it for a short while, and decided that it is theoretically possible. (Need over 100+ credited units before the beginning of one's freshman year, but still possible) </p>
<p>Does this sound reasonable to anyone else here, or is it simply a myth?</p>
<p>It may not be a myth, but it doesn't sound at all reasonable. ;)</p>
<p>I don't really believe it -- the main reason is that most people who would be smart enough to actually be able to do that would be smart enough that they wouldn't choose to.</p>
<p>why is graduating in two years not smart? if he's really that smart, if he can manage himself to graduate in two years without pushing too hard, why should he spend four years to do what should only take two years? In my opinion, someone who's smart enough to do so should do so, and then go to graduate school or travel. Just don't work. (I mean "work" as the things adults do to make a living).
Ben Gloub can you explain why you think it's not smart? I'm not challenging you, just wondering. cuz I can't think of a reason, and feel like I'm missing something.</p>