I’d agree with the person that said that applying SCEA isn’t really a boost at Princeton or Stanford. Unless you have some slam-dunk quality it might not be worth it and limit your ability to apply EA to other great schools.
If she’s ‘possible walk on at Williams’ quality at a sport I’d look at MIT. Being Female engineering is a boost and the sport might be a surprising ticket. She can fill out their recruiting form and see if the coach bites. Of course that’s if she wants that kind of academic rigor. If not, she might want to reconsider Princeton.
Unfortunately near 800 Math and science subject tests are routine at these schools. In fact at HYPS the majority of unhooked students have near 800 if you look at the 75th percentile scores. The math average is like 780-790. At MIT the average is to be considered is basically 800. The coach at MIT has no where near the pull of the Williams coach but it might be enough if the applicant is put on the list. One can’t over emphasize just how much of a boost a student gets by being on a special admissions list. In most sports other than football/basket ball it’s the elite travel team that matters. To be recruited you almost always are a top player on a top travel team.
"menlomom where did you ever get the idea that non-recruited HS athletes get a boost in Stanford admission? This is simply not the case at Stanford "
From both Standford alumni [ including my hubby] who have been involved with the U for 50 years. From observing Stanford’s college acceptances from elite private schools in the areaovder the past 16 years [ from my DS’s class 13 students were accepted SCEA,- all played sports in HS, NONE were recruited, and ALL were at the top of their class]
and from the FACT that Stanford offers ATHLETIC scholarships [as it has for decades] which NO other tip top U does.
The CULTURE of Stanford has ALWAYS applauded its scholar athletes, and that does not just include those who are recruited for official athletic teams.
this quote is from one of Stanford’s web pages.
“Perhaps the most important aspect of Stanford’s athletics program is that its success serves to validate the “scholar-athlete” approach to intercollegiate athletics competition. The numerous accomplishments of Stanford scholar-athletes are a powerful example of how elite sports and serious scholarship can indeed be complementary endeavors. Stanford scholar-athletes are champions in many ways.”
as someone who has been on CC for 14 years, you might want to consider the possibility that some of us old timers know we are talking about, and have a better handle on the kind of kids that get in to some Us than others.
Well rounded isn’t any kiss of death. I don’t know why so many on CC fear this. The tippy tops are looking for depth, as well as breadth. So many think it’s just stats, some titles, any awards.
But for colleges that value openness, some willingness to try other things, the strengths to take on some responsibilities and have some impact outside your one interest area, the rounding can be what shows this. Not just anything, it matters what it’s in, what the kid actually did. But this idea kids in STEM need to be unilateral is so disproved, if you dig into what the colleges, themselves, say. (And that includes MIT, folks.)
Sports offer two nice little bits: the teamwork experience and presumably meeting adult (coach) expectations.Much different than just showing up to some club meetings, hanging. For the non-recruits, it’s no golden key. But it’s a good thing.
While getting slammed with 100% engineering courses is tough, saying it requires an MIT-level student is seriously overstating the case considering what I’ve known of several people who have done the 3-2 route from their respective LACs to Columbia SEAS.
Several Oberlin classmates successfully managed the 3-2 program and graduated successfully without being MIT-level*.
My uncle would ROTFLOL at being compared to an MIT/Caltech level student when he did his 3-2 program with a smaller lower profile respectable MIdwest LAC and Columbia SEAS back in the '50s. Especially considering one of his kids IS a Caltech graduate and he stated many times he’s nowhere near that son’s level academically or as an engineer.
And he has had a several decades long career as a PE-licensed engineer and despite having been retired for a decade and half, still gets flooded with calls to consult on engineering projects.
The MIT-level students at Oberlin tend to either do their 3-2 engineering program at Caltech which Oberlin did offer when I attended or head to MIT/Caltech or peers for a STEM graduate degree.
@cobrat: “My uncle would ROTFLOL at being compared to an MIT/Caltech level student when he did his 3-2 program with a smaller lower profile respectable MIdwest LAC and Columbia SEAS back in the '50s.”
The '50’s is a while ago. You don’t think SEAS has increased in rigor since then?
Probably not the best choice of words by me. What I was attempting to express was that sometimes that description serves as a euphemism for pretty good at several things, but not top 3-5% at any of them. Certainly someone who scores in the top several percentiles is helped by being good at a few things that are non-academic, even if its not all-state or national level. But if you’re %ile measurements are down in the mid to lower 90s area, that puts you in equivalence with so many other people that it’s going to take a big boost from personal characteristics or exracurriculars that are in the very elite category to get you over the hurdle ahead of them. Its doable, but not the way to bet.
No. If anything, he felt the rigor dropped a bit from his time there after comparing notes with a former engineering colleague who later taught at Columbia SEAS as adjunct engineering faculty during a period which overlapped between the tail end of my undergrad career until he retired sometime in the late '00s. This was in a period when my uncle himself was teaching part-time as an adjunct engineering instructor at a university in the urban NE.
Back to the OP’s question, I think your D will have more of a sense of what to do once she meets with her Williams admissions person and tours P’ton this summer. That being said, I tend to be a “value the bird in the hand” type of person so if it were my D, I would be keeping my fingers crossed that she chose Williams, assuming the curriculum options suited her.
I don’t see any need for her to apply to Williams ED. If she prefers bigger schools like Stanford and Princeton she should apply to them. Obviously her chances for S and P are low (just like everyone’s), but if she has the stats for them she almost certainly will be able to get into an excellent medium sized research university that would suit her better than a small LAC.
Actually, it is a plus. If being well-rounded means getting A’s in everything and taking APs in STEM and English and History. That’s pretty much par for the course.
Of course some students, will be particularly strong and advanced in one subject. (Often math and science where schools are much more apt to let students accelerate.)
Vonlost, we’re talking Stanford ad Princeton, maybe Williams, maybe other TTs. What makes you think having breadth, as well as depth, is a negative?
Yes, they’d “notice” not being well rounded. But why should they be “impressed”? They all talk about being more than unilateral. We all should know it’s not all about stats, rigor, limiting oneself.
OP doesn’t have to worry about the phrase “well rounded” He just needs to be sure he has an idea what adcoms look for. It may - or may not - be what his D offers.
“Well” rounded is not endless, indiscriminately chosen ECs.
All of these schools pride themselves on having student athletes.
@menloparkmom, Plenty of kids get in based on their academics whether of not they play sports. In my experience only the extremely strong players are recruited and the standard varsity player gets no more help in admissions than does the standard varsity debater or the kid in student government or the first chair bassoonist.
But saying they value sports isn’t saying it tips in a non-recruit in, all by itself, with no other considerations. Nor is it saying anyone has to play sports, to get into a TT. Or that given two equivalent kids they like, the sportier will get the nod.
It can be valued without implying either promises or necessity. In many respects, sports, whether big time or intramural, can be a (big) part of a college’s self image.
Not to throw a wrench in, but organized hs sports also usually require a great time commitment. Debate can. Jobs can.