Hi. I am a junior (girl) in high school right now. I’m a three sport athlete. My recruiting process has started getting a lot more serious, and I’ve been finding myself struggling between whether or not I want to get a well rounded nescac experience, or whether I want to focus on math/science (my passions are math and science) at a school like MIT or at a highly ranked math/science school and have more opportunities job wise when I get out of college. I can see myself at both small and large colleges, so school size doesn’t really affect me in any way. I don’t want to get rocked with work every minute of my life in college, but I also want to set myself up for the best job I can get. My grades and scores are good enough to get into these colleges w/o sports, however at MIT I’d need a coach’s support (not an absurd amount though).
Things I’ve discovered about nescac schools:
I can play two or all of my sports
I like the relaxed environment
I might feel limited, course wise/resource wise
A lot of nescacs don’t have strong math/science
Things I’ve discovered about Ivies/MIT
I’d be able to play 1 sport at MIT (they don’t offer my other main sport) - campus is cool - people are nerdy, but cool at the same time - if that is even possible.
Ivies-some of them have top notch math/science programs, I might be able to walk onto a team, but it’s a gamble.
I am kind of a jock in a sense that my life doesn’t revolve around school- I like having fun. Not sure if students at tough math/science schools have a ton of fun or not.
But, I also have big dreams for the future.
Dilemma.
All opinions are welcome. Thank you.
As far as “well rounded” goes, note that MIT’s general education requirements are relatively heavy, including in the humanities, arts, and social studies (minimum of about 1/4 of the total course work, with some in each of humanities, arts, and social studies, and a concentration including advanced course work – see http://web.mit.edu/hassreq/ ).
Why not look carefully into all of the schools where the math and science (which science(s)?) academics are strong enough for your interests?
As far as jobs after college, that tends to be more major dependent than school dependent. A math or statistics major with applicable elective choices, or a computer science major, is likely to find better job prospects than a biology major, for example.
Also, I wouldn’t assume that all NESCAC schools are relaxed, and if you’re taking a quantitative major, unless you are one of those genius type who can work out math proofs in 5 minutes, 2 sports + a quantitative major seems like a load.
Though granted, you could quit the sport(s) later.
Don’t assume that any grades+scores are good enough to get you in if you’re not a recruited athlete, though.
Plenty of applicants with super-high stats + amazing EC’s but no hook get rejected from these schools.
MIT students can cross-register at Harvard, Wellesley and Massachusetts College of Art & Design, among others. There should be no lack of “well-roundedness” there.
–What is your GPA / SAT?
–What is your main sport?
–Are you being recruited by NESCACs or Ivies currently?
You’re dealing with some of the most selective schools in the nation, so any admissions help that you can get based on your athletic ability is a huge bonus. Instead of thinking about which path would be better for you, in theory, you have to figure out your most viable options, in reality, based on which schools actually want you.
Williams is excellent for math/science, for example, but if the coach has lukewarm interest, then your odds are on-par with everyone else (in other words, good luck to you). Follow the interest – your options will narrow but your odds will improve.
I think you’re setting yourself up with a false dichotomy, here; you won’t necessarily have more job opportunities coming from a math/science college or technical institute than you would have from a NESCAC school. The NESCAC colleges are highly selective, well-known colleges that send students to great opportunities, and pretty much all of them have elite reputations.
Are you very advanced in math and/or science - and by advanced I mean you have already completed multivariable calculus and linear algebra? If you haven’t yet finished the calculus sequence and/or aren’t similarly advanced in a science, then I don’t think you will necessarily feel limited course-wise or resource-wise at the NESCAC colleges. You have to remember that these colleges are not ordinary small liberal arts colleges that are tuition-driven and resource-poor - they are the best of the best. They attract faculty that could’ve gotten jobs at places like MIT if they wanted to, faculty who love research but are also passionate about teaching and mentoring undergraduates. To be sure, you can always flip through the course catalog at these colleges and see what’s offered.
Another thing you could do is attend one in a consortium. Amherst, for example, is in a consortium with UMass, which is a large research university with concomitant resources. Wesleyan considers itself more of a research/teaching hybrid, where professors are exhorted to be teacher-scholars. Tufts is an actual research university. And I know they aren’t NESCAC, but Swarthmore and Haverford are both in consortium with UPenn, where you could potentially take some classes. Harvey Mudd isn’t NESCAC either but it’s a small math/science focused college.
Conversely, as was pointed out, I don’t think you have to feel like you can’t be well-rounded at MIT, and certainly not at an Ivy League. For example, even if you were to pick a SEAS major at Columbia, you’d still have to complete a modified version of the Core Curriculum and would have the opportunity to take humanities, social science, and arts courses across the university (including at Barnard).
In fact, Barnard is a good compromise college. Barnard’s students play on Columbia’s athletic teams, so it’s Division I. It’s a small LAC with all of the resources of a very large, prestigious research university with strengths in math and the sciences.
@Dunboyne 33 act composite, 92 avg (I go to prep school)
Main sports are field hockey and ice hockey.
I’m getting recruited by nescacs for both sports.
MIT just for field hockey (they only have club ice hockey)
I’d like to focus on engineering if that helps at all.
I’m assuming you’re considering D3 because you don’t require a D1 level to further your athletic goals.
If your ultimate goal is engineering, it begs the question, are you truly ok with studying math + science at a LAC or do you really want to focus on eng in undergrad? I know you said math/science are your “passions”, but getting into engineering from a LAC involves extra time and/or grad school. Are you ok with that extra time/money?
Perhaps post questions about the recruiting process in the athletic forum.
D3s - especially the schools you’ve mentioned - have much more uncertain results for recruited athletes than D1 schools (like the Ivy League). In other words, at a D1 you will know well in advance of decision day whether you’ll be admitted; at the D3s you’ve mentioned, there is no certainty until decision day.
There are a whole bunch of posters in the athletic forum who have gone through the D3 process.
(As an aside, your ACT is good enough AS A RECRUITED ATHLETE for the Ivy League; but in the NESCAC and MIT you may be (will be at MIT) pitted against the entire applicant pool because coaches have limited influence in admissions. If you are good enough - and there is a huge jump between D3 and D1 typically - the admissions advantage of D1 may interest you.)
@stemit 33 is “good enough” for anywhere, even (and especially) MIT. MIT is very, very clear that they simply don’t care all that much about scores assuming you can show that you are academically capable of attending. A 33 is fine.
There is a huge difference between being competitive with the applicant pool, and a certainty that you are in (and not competing with the applicant pool).
OP is competitive with the overall MIT applicant pool. But, she would not need to compete with the entire pool at a D1.
For proof, just look at the results threads at those schools. While a 33 is a fantastic score, that score does in fact get denied.
While being a recruited athlete at a D3 can “move the needle” for admissions, no one really knows how much (although MIT certainly takes the approach that whatever assist it gives it isn’t much); but at a D1, there is no needle - the athlete is in (assuming the academics are above a set academic bar).
Yep, @DeferredChicago, plenty of 33 ACT’s with great EC’s get denied at the Ivies and MIT. Being an athlete is a hook, but unless an Ivy is recruiting her, she doesn’t have a sure thing or choice to make right now.
@DeferredChicago, @stemit meant that a 33 ACT as a recruited athlete is enough to guarantee admission to an Ivy. However, if she is not a recruited athlete, unless she is URM or has some other major hook, her chances at an Ivy would drop significantly even with a 33 ACT.
Yes, if you really want to do engineering, then choose a school which offers it natively (look in the ABET accreditation listings). 3+2 programs that require you to transfer to complete an engineering degree are rarely completed, and even less suitable for you if you want to play a sport at the “3” school (of course, they cost extra, with uncertainty about both admission and financial aid at the “2” school).