<p>How do they decide between a traditional (18-20) versus a non-traditional student (late 20's)?</p>
<p>The primary criterion seems to be... who will flourish the most in the campus' environment. But suppose both candidates are equal in potential to flourish. Does the distinct experiences of the non-traditional student beat out the ability of the traditional student to develop further for 5 more years under the influence of the campus' philosophy and experience?</p>
<p>i think for sophs. they take more traditional students and for juniors they take non-traditional. just makes more sense to me.</p>
<p>What schools/kind of schools are you targeting for transfer?</p>
<p>I was thinking along the lines of some tech schools - MIT, Caltech, Stanford, CMU.</p>
<p>Given the type of students they want to generate (science prodigies), intuitively wouldn't they want to shape the younger untapped potential that has more time to develop?</p>
<p>At least two of those schools (MIT and CalTech) have Admissions Reps who are active on CC, for the specific purpose of answering questions/sharing information about the admissions process and criteria at their respective schools.</p>
<p>So I think your question, pretty much just as you posted it here (but with a different title that will draw their attention to the key point), would be excellent on each of those schools' forums.</p>
<p>I might title it "Non Traditional Student transfer" or similar. And, if your screen name has any part of your real name in it, you might want to change that ;).</p>
<p>Best of luck; I don't happen to have any first-hand knowledge on the question, but it is a good one.</p>
<p>One thing I will say from the perspective of a Baby Boomer: a person in his or her late 20's still has plenty of untapped potential :). As well as some life experience/real world experience to contribute.</p>
<p>I know for a fact that Columbia prefers transfer applicants who are returning students. This was straight from an admissions counselor, so you can quote me.</p>