<p>Agree, with all of above, need to begin working through descriptions of schools, visits if none so far - this process can be a great clarifier, as Monydad says "whole other sets of criteria that you, or he, didn't even know about".</p>
<p>May I suggest Dartmouth - original home of Basic, yet not at all a techie is school - in case comp sci does not pan out.</p>
<p>Lots of good advice on from everyone. My suggestion would be for you to look for a good social match between your sons and the schools. He sounds like he would academically be a great fit for any school but to narrow him down to a specific major and stick him in a tech school at this point may not be doing him any favors because the top tech schools are full of those kids whose hearts and souls are into computer and math. He seems to me to be well rounded and half baked. Let the next step be more specialization when he is ready to make that commitment.</p>
<p>The schools you have listed are all good reach prospects. Though his stats will put him into match category with many top schools, bear in mind that a match does not an admit make. His class rank and grades with respect to others in his highschool could be a factor. Do ask the college counselors how kids with his grades generally fare at the top schools. A match should match the lowest part of the the kid's profile. At a top school with a rigorous grading scale, he would still be in running for the most selective colleges; otherwise it definitely puts them into lottery ticket range.</p>
<p>I know that ED gives legacies extra consideration for UPenn. MIT does not appear to give much if any leeway for EA. So it does depend on the school you pick as to how much an early app counts. In my opinion, for most schools it does help. However, if he is not ready to pick a school at that point and if you need financial aid and want to compare packages, early may not be the way to go. Though some schools do reward the early birds, such as BC, others like Hopkins limit the grants that the EDers can qualify for. If you end up with a package that you don't like, you have pretty much painted yourself in the corner with ED. You are taking a chance that way.</p>
<p>As to his sex and race, unless he is URM, there is no extra consideration for that. As a male, he is over represented at the tech schools ,though his high verbal scores might interest them as well. Swarthmore favors males in admissions as do a number of LACs who are beginning to be lopsided in the sex ratio. Geographics can play a role too. It becomes tougher when you apply within a 3 hour radius of where you live, particularly if you are coming from a competitive area such as NYC/ NE area. </p>
<p>I have a young son who fits your son's profile except that I don't think he will be as outstanding in the verbal/writing end of the tests. Though he seems to be "wired for math", he is not enthralled with it as I see some advanced math/science/computer kids are. He is young for his age as far as development of interests go and he is very much a generalist who happens to be very good in math and was fortunate enough to get advanced instruction. I hesitate to label him in that area yet, as he is still preparing to spread those wings, and I want to see him explore and grow in other areas of development. Though he is not a rising senior, and things may change in the next two years, but I can see that he is not as mature in interests an direction as the other kids were at the same age. </p>
<p>Do not neglect your safety schools either. It is fun to cherry pick among those familiar names that sound so nice rolling off your tongue, but the most important part of the college search is finding schools where he is most likely to gain admission and court them as well. Anyone can pick among the top colleges. Researching the lesser known schools is the true challenge in the college search. And he should have some schools where his weakest points still put him in the very likely admit range.</p>
<p>
You may find that a moment arrives when your S actually does narrow down the list; altho he may have continued to like EVERY place, our S suddenly emerged one October day to announce that he wanted to apply ED to ____school. That school has remained his favorite and he heads there next year with nice merit $. So don't worry too much about no favorite yet.</p>
<p>DO "worry" about finding "sure bet" and match schools, not just reaches, that he will be excited about. momrath has made some suggestions, as has monydad. But I'm not sure if there are "sure bets" on the list yet. Sure bet means your S has stats in about the top 25% of accepted students AND (critically important) the school accepts a VERY HIGH proportion of its applicants (at LEAST 50%). </p>
<p>Agree with others that a pure tech school may not be wise, altho (having spent quite a bit of time at MIT as a Wellesely cross-reg) I would make an exception for MIT. There's just something special about that culture.</p>
<p>Also, what geographic area does your S come FROM? For certain schools, if your S offers geographic diversity, that can make him a more appealing applicant, helping in admit chances or merit $ chances.</p>
<p>I hate to bash Amherst, as it is a wonderful school, but I would suggest that your son not consider it. I was considering matriculating to Amherst, then I realized that all of the math and science departments are small, too small; the computer science department squeaks by with only four professors. He will definitely not be exposed to everything he can at another school. The comp sci professor I talked to admitted that computer science is not particularly strong, yet the program gives students more or less a rough framework of most concepts.</p>
<p>So, instead of going to Amherst, I am going to Williams. I do not like sports, and I do not play any sport, and there is a significant minority of non-athletes at Williams. Sports are only one part of campus life, so I do not worry about it. Every department there has about twice as many professors as similiar departments at Amherst. All the professors I met are wonderful, and the tutorial program is amazing! I would definitely suggest that you look into tutorials.</p>
<p>Look into Harvey Mudd College. It is a fantastic school in california, and if your son decides on not majoring in computer science, it is easy to "minor" in it, and declare an off-campus major. Then, your son can major in that anything Scripps, Pfitzer, Pomona, or Claremont_McKenna colleges offer.</p>
<p>I-DAD</p>
<p>Why do you continue to spread mis-information about Williams??</p>
<p>Only 34% of the students are involved in varsity athletics!!</p>
<p>Perhaps I'm misunderstanding these percentages of students who are varsity athletes, but whether the percentage is 40% or 34%, doesn't that still mean that the majority of students are NOT varsity athletes? I worry that some of the misinformation or possibly just excessive emphasis on this board placed on the athletic culture may scare away some non-athletes whom Williams would be glad to have. I know they recruit athletes, but they also certainly admit musicians and theatre types and other non-(varsity)-athletes, and I would hate for those admitted non-athletes to turn down Williams because of a fear of the majority athlete culture. I don't think there's any denying that athletes have a significant place at Williams, but I think non-athletes shouldn't be made to feel as though they'd be in the minority there.</p>
<p>I also think the earlier poster was a little harsh re: MIT. If you visit the campus you'll find many engaged, outgoing students who are delighted with their school choice. There is also the opportunity to cross register at Harvard.</p>
<p>I would also like to defend MIT. As far as social life goes, the great joy of attending MIT--if it's the right school for you--is discovering that there are other people who like to stay up all night discussing geek/nerd things. (That's not a typo for greek, BTW.) As I said to my mother, and my son said to me (thirty years later): "Mom, MIT is full of people like me."</p>
<p>I-DAD</p>
<p>Why do you continue to spread mis-information about Williams??</p>
<p>Only 34% of the students are involved in varsity athletics!!</p>
<p><a href="http://www.williams.edu/home/about_fastfacts.php%5B/url%5D">http://www.williams.edu/home/about_fastfacts.php</a> </p>
<p>Funny - I just opened up your own cite and it says: </p>
<p>"Athletics
Approximately 40 percent of all students participate in intercollegiate sports (34 percent at the varsity level). There are 32 varsity intercollegiate teams (16 men's and 16 women's), 16 JV teams (8 men's and 8 women's), 8 club sport teams, and 11 intramural sports."</p>
<p>I guess your cavil is between "intercollegiate" and "varsity" (because there happen to be jv teams, right?) Add in the intramural and clubs and I would guess it is closer to 50%, which is what the newly released Williams Diversity Report says (for white students, it is well over 50%).</p>
<p>Anyhow, folks should go visit. Relative to other schools, my d. found the athletic feel at Williams to be unmistakeable, but some folks might see that as a plus.</p>
<p>You didn't specify what part of the country you're from, but I'd like to put in a vote for considering Harvey Mudd, which I think doesn't get as much notice outside CA as it should. It's a small school, and VERY strong in comp sci, math, and engineering, but as part of the Claremont Colleges consortium (Pomona, Scripps, Claremont McKenna, Harvey Mudd, Pitzer, and some graduate schools), there are these other colleges <em>RIGHT THERE</em> (and I do mean right there: Mudders go eat at the cafeterias at the other schools, they are all adjacent to each other) where courses are available in just about every discipline. If you think the culture at MIT "sounds like" your son, you may hear something familiar at Mudd. My son felt right at home there when we visited, and I really liked the quirky yet laid back and aware attitude of the students. Being an undergraduate-only institution, students get lots of attention and opportunities from the faculty. It's not too far from LA, and it's near the mountains for winter skiing and snowball throwing. :) It's not a shoe-in for anyone, but his scores and ECs would put him well in range.</p>
<p>(Oh yeah, full disclosure: my son will attend MIT this fall, but Harvey Mudd was one of the final 2 other choices for him. Olin was the other, but if he's not sure about wanting an engineering focus, Olin is not for him. All 3 schools felt comfortable for him, and he craves that intellectual stay-up-late-geeking-out culture.)</p>
<p>Nope Mini..... Club sports are intercollegiate!!!! These include rugby, frisbee etc.</p>
<p>Many many people participate in intercollegiate athletics</p>
<p>According to Williams Diversity Study, April 2005, 49% of white students participate in "varsity" athletics". Add in jv, club sports, and intramurals, and the percentage is well over 60%. Percentages of sports participation by African-Americans, Asians, and Hispanics is lower. For white males, it is actually higher than 60%.</p>
<p>It is also worth noting, I think, that, again according to the Williams 2005 Diversity study, only 27% of white students at Williams received need-based grants in financial aid. I think if you put the athletic numbers and the financial aid numbers for white students together (they being by far the dominant culture), you get a pretty good feel for what it is about. But I urge prospective students to go visit, and come to their own conclusion.</p>
<p>(And the academics are fabulous!)</p>
<p>NCeph:</p>
<p>We struggled to understand percentages, too. For example, I remember family visits to some schools where the frat/sorority membership was around 40% and intially thinking, "that's not so bad, more than half of the campus is not greek". Then, we'd start reading about the campus culture and find that the school was known as being dominated by the frat scene. It was then that we started looking at comparative stats. </p>
<p>Sure enough, 40% of nearly anything will dominate the campus culture. For example, if you had 40% gay students, it would be a visible, widely-recognized defining characteristic of the school. Same for 40% Asian. Or, 40% Jewish. Or, 40% Catholic. Or, 40% musicians. Or 40% nerds.</p>
<p>There is no question in my mind that, for an academically-qualified recruited athlete, Williams is the Div III liberal arts college to consider. The institutional priority for athletics is clear. Just look at the annual athletic expenditures from the government OPE website for seven of the country's top-ranked co-ed LACs:</p>
<p>Williams: $3.9 million
Bowdoin: $2.9 million
Amherst: $2.8 million
Pomona: $1.6 million
Carleton: $1.3 million
Haverford: $0.5 million (no football)
Swarthmore: $0.5 million (no football)</p>
<p>To put these numbers in perspective, Williams, Bowdoin, and Amherst spend more on their athletic programs than Emory University (with over 6000 undergrads).</p>
<p>The Williams coaches are the best; the highest-paid in Div III. The faculty is responsive to athletes' needs both in terms of scheduling priorities and academic accomodation. The teams are successful on a national championship level. And, the athletes are the dominant group in the social scene. What more could you ask for?</p>
<p>Of course, nobody is in the same league as Davidson in terms of institutional priority on athletics -- competing in Div I football with a student body of only 1700. Their athletic expenditures are $7.8 million, a full 10% of the school's entire operating budget.</p>
<p>Mickey:</p>
<p>According to the data Williams provided to US News, 39% of the male students participate on a varsity athletic team. This does not include the JV teams or the many club-sport teams.</p>
<p>27% of the female students are on a varsity athletic team.</p>
<p>Safe school to apply to: Case. </p>
<p>Match: Brandeis, UChicago.</p>
<p>None of these will dock your kid for not being an athlete, all are medium-sized.</p>
<p>Mikey, I think the point IDad was making was that Williams has a stronger athletic "feel" than its peer group. I don't think the difference between 34% and 40% is that significant. If 34% (or 40%) of the entire student body is involved in any given activity (varsity athletics, drama, Greek, music, tiddleywinks) then that particular activity is going to have a high profile on campus. Dominant? No -- that would be the 75%+ range. But 34-40% is certainly an indicator of a high profile IMO.</p>
<p>I suppose that my contention is that many of the varsity athletes are academically qualified. I was a varsity athlete, and I hate the insinuation that I was not as well qualified as non-athletes at Williams.</p>
<p>I think that the "athlete culture" to which you refer is specific to the hockey and football teams.</p>
<p>The notion that a non-athlete cannot fit in at Williams is ludicrous. NCeph is correct in stating that your anti-Williams rants are no doubt discouraging potential applicants.</p>
<p>After all, what would you say if I claimed that an athlete could not fit into the Swarthmore culture or a heterosexual could not fit into the Smith culture?</p>
<p>By definition, I think that ALL the varsity athletes at Williams (and 300 other schools) are "academically qualified", or they wouldn't be accepted.</p>
<p>I also think it is true that hockey and football are responsible for much of the athletic culture at any school. Swarthmore has a very high proportion of the student body involved in intercollegiate athletics - higher even than Dartmouth. But you'd never mistake the two schools.</p>
<p>But when more than 60% of the dominant racial/ethnic group on any campus is involved in a specific set of activities, wouldn't you think it odd if it didn't highly impact the campus culture? Personally, I think it is great that students have good (and different) choices out there, and a a school with an athletic culture AND superb academics (and terrific music, and sensational art history) should be one of them. And I also believe that a non-athlete, non-musician student could fit in there if she chose to. But she should be aware that it would require a choice.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I suppose that my contention is that many of the varsity athletes are academically qualified. I was a varsity athlete, and I hate the insinuation that I was not as well qualified as non-athletes at Williams.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Who said that the athletes weren't academically qualified?</p>
<p>Essentially all Williams athletes have SATs of at least 1200. I would call that "solidly qualified". At least half of the 140 to 170 identified varsity athletes in each incoming class have academic qualifications at or above the school's overall median range. The current recruiting rules only allow 66 recruited athletes in each class who are 1 or more "standard deviations" below the norm. </p>
<p>I would say that Williams has very high academic standards for its athletes, probably a little higher than the Ivy League schools.</p>
<p>Mini... Please re-examine graph 10 on the diversity report. </p>
<p>Of 1992 students, 648 are varsity athletes.</p>
<p>648/1992 = 32.5%... </p>
<p>32.5% of students at Williams are varsity athletes!!!</p>
<p>49% of males are NOT varsity athletes. 49% of the student body is comprised of men. 58% of the varsity athletes are men.</p>
<p>You are correct in claiming that whites are more likely to participate in varsity athletics</p>