The music department at Stanford did sent out an application invitation letter to my S last year who is an Asian American. I do not know whether other departments have done so and whether it has any implication on humanities vs. STEM.
The narrative arc, though, is just one point. What a student actually chose to do is very telling. Remember, “show, not just tell.” All the usual comforting things go out the window, when we speak of the very most competitive schools to get into. Yes, they can parse the transcript an wonder about some decisions. Same for ECs. It’s that fierce.
Don’t forget, also, that adcoms may know your hs, you local demographics, etc. And beyond the School Report, have other ways to learn this. They’ll likely know the strong stem-focused high schools and their record with recent applicants and matriculants.
OP, what else, besides writing and debate, to back up a humanities interest and show your energies, how you’re activated, in school or the broader community? What will show them how you think?
Where is this kind of advice coming from? Most universities, including Stanford, don’t admit by college major. And most admissions officers have talked to enough 17-year-olds to know that they don’t have their lives all planned out even if they think they do. Few people are going to expect you to have known exactly what you wanted to major in from age 14 and followed that plan through 4 years of high school. It’s possible to have a science & math heavy courseload and then go major in English or history or something.
I think part of the problem is students (and others) thinking of “STEM” and “humanities” (and “social sciences”) as discrete fields with little overlap or interface. Far more impressive is the student who can think of and realize the connections between fields - like science writing (writing about science, often creatively, for the general public to understand) or science policy and law (which could be an area of discussion and critical thinking, skills that debate encourages). There’s also simply casting yourself as the student who likes to learn about everything, and wants to give herself a well-rounded education so she’s prepared to widely explore a lot of different areas. Liberal arts universities like Stanford appreciate that - that’s why they have so many joint/combined majors with CS, for example.
As long as you are taking rigorous, challenging courses in your field and getting involved in extracurriculars YOU have a clear passion for and interest in, you are doing the “right” thing.
It doesn’t matter if they officially admit by major. If they ask your possible interests, they will consider whether your response makes sense, given the actual record, what you did choose, academically and in activities, as a key to your thinking, energies, ideas and follow-through. Your record as a glimpse. Of course, kids can change majors. The tippy tops still can look for signs of the right, activated nature, some willingness to stretch outside the easy comfort zone. Attributes that show, not just claims. And not just about “passions.”
So sure, in college, the convinced math major, with lots of math ECs, may discover, say, social sciences and catch fire. But this thinking and activation they seek are attributes that will follow, characteristics
Again, remember, we’ve been talking Stanford.
But what kind of evidence do we have that this is true? And about what constitutes a record that shows “follow-through” and “makes sense”?
To me it makes total sense that a 17-year-old young woman might be interested in majoring in a science-related field with a heavy science-related courseload and would also be interested in creative writing and debate club as hobbies. It would make sense to me if a 40-year-old person worked a job in science and technology and also wrote creatively or participated in debate as a weekend or hobby activity. One, because people aren’t monoliths with interests in only one area, and I don’t think college admissions officers expect that, particularly of teenagers. And two, because the humanities aren’t mutually exclusive with the sciences.
Are we trying to say that a school like Stanford would not value a student who could articulate how their science-heavy curriculum interfaces with interest in the humanities in nuanced ways that shows the connectedness of the liberal arts? Are we saying that admissions officers expect high schoolers to have some cohesive story about how they planned out all of their activities from age 13 to “prove” that they’ve been interested in the same career for the last 4-5 years? Employers don’t even expect that out of adults.
I’m genuinely baffled. I’m asking because I’ve seen this mentioned a lot around CC and I don’t know what the parameters are, or what college hopefuls are expected to do in order to ‘show’ or ‘back up’ their interests other than try to concentrate all of their ECs and classes into one particular area, which seems a bit extreme.
I’m involved, I see this, though not an adcom. My post was in response to the oft repeated statement that, unless a college admits by major, none of this matters.
And you may know, I do advocate breadth, as well as depth, in experiences (while most advice here settles on “passion,” without qualifying what’s relevant.). Not monoliths, not unilateral.
The issue is, after stats, lots of kids talk the talk, without walking the walk. For a single digit school, it may simply not be enough to “articulate” your view, if you never got off your chair and got involved in experiences relevant to what you say your interests are. Thousands of other kids with your stats will have. In and out of school. Why wouldn’t you do something related to these supposed interests? That doesn’t preclude variety, not at all.
I think the issue for super selective schools is that some kids try to game the system by claiming they want to major in the Humanities hoping it’ll give them an advantage over the many future STEM majors (right now, there are/were a couple threads on this topic). And a passionate student of the Classics who designed an online dictionary or won a translation competition and who wants to major in Classics WILL stand out more than another future CS major or simply because being accomplished in the Humanities is difficult (there aren’t many Humanities competitions, for starters). But someone whose sole academic and extracurricular interest involved building microfighters, robotics, and science, who claims they want to be a Classics major, that’s not going to be treated the same. There’s no shortcut. If you love the Humanities, show it.
It’s not about knowing what you want to major in at 14. It is however about showing during junior and especially senior year when you have more academic choices, what you do with these choices. You may change your mind later, but if senior year you have an interest for an academic field, it should be reflected in your academic choices.
Like everyone else has said, if they think you are applying as a certain major just because it is easier to get in and your classes/ECs don’t line up, you’ll get rejected.
Most schools really don’t care- they want a balance of different majors, but they also have so many qualified applicants that they can take plenty of humanities and STEM kids, and both are equally qualified.
That being said, at schools with specific engineering programs, being a woman is definitely a huge boost. At Cornell Engineering, women get a big bump, and the school even sends out diversity likely letters for women in engineering. At MIT, the acceptance rate for woman is significantly higher (13% vs 6%), so there are times being a woman in STEM helps.
I know that I should be myself and pursue whatever I’m genuinely passionate about, but I’m honestly interested in both fields. I’d consider myself well-rounded right now - my course load and current ECs are split 50/50 between the two. For this upcoming summer/ final stretch before apps, though, I have opportunities lined up for both lab work and prestigious humanities programs, so I was just curious as to whether or not leaning towards one area would help my case at all. I’ll probably continue on the track I’m currently on regardless, but I was just wondering if anything would make a difference.
I was thinking the humanities track might be a slight booster. I may be wrong, but I just feel that more and more people are going into tech and it’s considered to be “the future,” while the humanities are slowly dying. I also know far more people interested in STEM than the humanities, though I may have just not been exposed to a large enough portion of the population.
I’m not trying to play the system. I know that when colleges are as selective as HYPSM etc., the applicant pool is so outstanding that not much makes a difference at all. I just thought Asians in the humanities are relatively rare, while women in technology are relatively rare. I was simply curious as I identify with both those categories.
Also, sorry if this was unclear, but I’m not sure about applying to Stanford, considering how incredibly difficult it is to get in. I was just using it as an example of a school where I’d heard that applying with a focus on humanities may be beneficial to the application and was wondering if this was true in general. @douggy91 I now know this is not true in general, considering MIT and Cornell.
@collegemom3717 Those links were very reassuring. Thank you 
@lookingforward I’ll keep in mind continuity/ narrative arc. Thank you!
@juillet It does make sense to find an intersection between the two that personally appeals strongly to me. Thank you!
It’s impossible/ would take an exceedingly long amount of time to reply to everyone, but I appreciate all the commentary/ advice. Thanks to everyone for the replies!
//The rational side of me tells me that wherever I’ll go, I’ll end up doing well enough in life. Yet, the other half of me screams at me daily to get into an Ivy/ Williams+other highly selective LACs. 
@Poptartlover000, collegekid 2 is at a US LAC for the same reason- she didn’t want to have to choose between science and humanities. Now she is happily completing a physics major and choosing from 10 great PhD offers - but along the way she has taken Art History, History, English, French Lit, etc. It has made for a wonderful college experience.
It sounds as if an LAC would suit you very well, and (as is so often the case), you may find that staying with the true story- that you are genuinely drawn to both and that’s why you want the LAC experience - makes you stand out better than trying to target one subject area or the other b/c of gender and/or ethnicity.
And, b/c it can be said too many times: build your list from the bottom up! make yourself ID a safety or two first: places that you are certain to be admitted to and can definitely afford, and if it was your only choice, there are things about it that would make you happy (even if you plan to apply for transfer asap). Then go for some matches. Save the reaches for last- they are the easiest to id.
@collegemom3717 Congrats to your daughter on finding and following her passions! It does seem like I’d really enjoy a liberal arts college. I went on tours at some LACs a few days ago, and they were amazing.
I currently have 35 colleges on my list, including target, likely, and reach schools, that I’m trying to narrow down to around 10-12. A little lost right now, but I’ll talk to my college counselor and hopefully he’ll be able to shed some light on the process.
Thank you very much for you input!
Even tech companies hire lots of people who have degrees in humanities. The people who run HR/benefits and hire/manage people, who work on usability-design, people who market and sell the tech products. To name just a few. And of course entire industries aren’t “tech” and even if they utilize tech, need people who can read-write-communicate-analyze, etc.
A couple of articles on humanities majors at tech companies:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/georgeanders/2015/07/29/liberal-arts-degree-tech/#55026f80745d
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christine-henseler/a-surprising-success-stor_b_5669505.html