<p>Most college applicants are 17 or 18, but some are one or two years younger. Do admissions officers consider this as a disadvantage? Would an admissions officer chose a 15 year old over an 18 year old if the two have no other differences?</p>
<p>No advantage. Being young tends to be a disadvantage, because accelerated students usually have less impressive ECs.</p>
<p>In addition some schools are reluctant to take younger students since they tend not to be ready for college life and are less likely to fit in.</p>
<p>I think it is pretty rare for Harvard to accept kids who are much younger than the average applicant.</p>
<p>Why rush it?</p>
<p>I am a year younger but have been careful not to highlight it or
call attention to it. The MIT EC did notice and explicitly asked me
if I had skipped grades - none of my other interviewers asked
about the date of birth though.</p>
<p>Overall it is a big disadvantage to be younger. You are treated the
same as every other applicant and need to show you had a life
while doing all the things the older applicants would be doing.</p>
<p>The older applicants are going to have the opportunity to be well rounded.
Though I was lucky to get into HPMS, I am aware of a few other younger
applicants who fared badly due to accentuating a single dimension
in their ECs.</p>
<p>The one thing being younger actually helps with is that you can take
a gap year and be with people who are closer to your age. I find that
a number of my friends are amongst current rising seniors instead of
the class I graduated with.</p>
<p>The thing is, I didn't really skip any grades, I just started school around two years earlier than most people. I've been through the same number of years of school as most applicants (6 years elementary, 6 years secondary). Now I guess that eliminates any disadvantages, but would it give me any advantages at all.</p>
<p>No. (10 char)</p>