<p>"That's why math/science achievements do and should matter more in college admissions."</p>
<p>So students who excel slightly more in non-math/science fields (but still do well in the latter) should be considered less valuable to a non-technical U? Historians, writers, and students with laser-like insights into human dimensions are not worth much in higher education? Is that your position?</p>
<p>As a current Princeton student, I can assure you that the campus is not dominated by math/science types. Community service groups are very active, as are political organizations. The five largest departments at Princeton are economics, politics, English, history, and Woodrow Wilson School (public and international affairs). So while I can't really say how much weight math awards are given in comparison to community service, I can say that students with a passion for community service, politics, etc. are still being admitted in healthy numbers. Top schools are fully aware that awards and recognition outside of math and science are hard to come by, and you won't be punished for it.</p>
<p>@Ray: An overwhelming number of applicants to top schools have excellent academic qualifications as demonstrated by SAT scores, GPA, recommendations, etc. It's not as if colleges are sacrificing the quality of the entering class when they admit a student with a passion for community service over someone with math and science awards.</p>
<p>I'm annoyed by this false dichotomy between humanitarians and strong math/science students. Unless what you actually meant was humanities.</p>
<p>This thread is severly mixing up humanitarian and humanities.</p>
<p>Humanitarian endeavors have nothing to do with academia, but involve some important character traits and leadership that would help at a University. Ivy league schools are building a class of the future's world leaders in every field, which is why they may want a student that is a well versed humanitarian. They tend to do well in politics and business later in life.</p>
<p>The study of humanities is equally academic to math and sciences. Humanities are the social sciences, history, and English and students that excell in these courses can also be considered as genius as many of the Siemens/ISEF/olympiad award winners, but there are fewer of such organizations to recognize their accomplishments.</p>
<p>^Yes, at least 3 of us here, over the 2 pages, have brought up this confusion, but it's being ignored or bypassed. Math/science students are capable of "humanitarian" impulses & activities, and "Humanities" students (history, English, social sciences, the arts) are capable of analytical understanding. In fact, one of the most misunderstood facts in society at large, and on CC, is how much analytical skill is required in academic humanities fields. There is nothing academically superior about a math/science student by virtue of the concentration itself. You have to look further than the student's interest & coursework to determine analytical capability.</p>
<p>I disagree with #2. The top schools do not believe the top schools want well rounded kids. They want well rounded classes. A resume with dozens of things accomplished muddies the water. As one parent mentioned the adcom's want to be able to describe an applicant in a few words ... her son was described as ... if i remember correctly ... "Farm Fishing Freddy" ... </p>
<p>Focus on your strengths that make you unique ... depth is far more important than breadth.</p>
<p>The humanities I feel are valued just as much as math/science awards, and I don't believe one can compare a math/science student to the humanitarian/service student. I am with mallika7122 in that I love to show my passion through service. However, I am also strong academically and have achieved math/science awards (not a plethora of awards but some). However math and science are more logical fields and although they show intellectual ability, the humanities is entirely different when discussing thought process. One can succeed just as much in the humanities through other accomplishments, such as classes taken, grades achieved, projects, etc., as a student who succeeds in math/science. It matters how well one does in their passion, not which passion is weighted more than another.</p>
<p>@chinnychinchang: But you see, the problem that people are talking about is that there aren't as many "accomplishments" in humanities. There are stuff like the National Latin Exam and such, but nothing to compare with Intel/Siemens, etc.</p>
<p>"there aren't as many "accomplishments" in humanities. "</p>
<p>^ merely reflecting the limitations of your knowledge.</p>
<p>Thats rather condescending. Why don't you enlighten us?</p>
<p>Math/sciences and humanities are not mutually exclusive. Many mathematicians and scienctists were great philosopers and humanists. Decartes, Pascal, Leibniz, Einstein, Bohr,... were great scientists and humanists.</p>
<p>Having read the OP only, I think the opposite - so many kids are massive community service hours and about how they will save the world and cure cancer.</p>
<p>au contraire, Poisonous. Why don't you and/or PBailey enlighten <em>us</em> on why you presume that math/science owns humanities? I found PBailey's post transparently condescending, and reflecting ignorance.</p>
<p>(P.S. It doesn't own. And no liberal arts college or Research U believes that, either.)</p>
<p>Good job by coolweather.</p>
<p>@ ephiphany: Whoa! I didn't knock your post, calm down. How could I be condescending when I myself am a humanities person (look at my previous posts if you want evidence of this). Do you think I will look down upon humanities? Or for that matter, what evidence is there that I look down upon math/sci people? Why on earth would I look down at people who are good at what I am not?</p>
<p>As for ignorance...isn't that the point? I'm a high school student and I don't know of any good programs in my area for history (i think i posted this on page 2, possibly page 1). There are loads for math, sci, eng, foreign lang, etc, but no history except for working in a museum, which I'm not interested in. I'm looking for a program where I can learn some history in a structured environment similar to that of school, but more intense and at a higher level, possibly focusing on a single region or time period. There are a lot of math/sci programs that colleges offer, but rarely are they humanities. For example, I got one from, UPenn I think, which only offered math/sci except for a "forensics" thing, but I'm more interested in HISTORY. Numerous math/sci competitions are well-known. Some examples off the top of my head (and since I suck at math, I don't even really pay attention to this stuff anyway): Intel, Siemens, American Math Competition/AMC (not sure of actual name/acronym?, all sorts of various state championships, etc. I understand that math/sci is often easier to quantify, and maybe there aren't as many aspiring historians as me, but I think that there are enough to warrant at least a program or two where I live (and trust me, the area where I live is intense for summer programs, almost every kid is in one, and we have scads of programs in math/sci, heck we had a kid in my school that designed his own compression algorithm, and its actually useful! but i digress). Even if there WERE programs, it obviously isn't as prominent, if I, a resident since kindergarten, as well as quite the history buff, can't find one! Welcome to any suggestions. If you could find one, it would be awesome! Area: Silicon Valley, CA (San Jose, CA, Cupertino, CA, etc)</p>
<p>I understand that there probably are reasons that these programs aren't so common, but it doesn't stop me from dreaming. As for condescension...um...look at your post. </p>
<p>"^ merely reflecting the limitations of your knowledge." </p>
<p>If my memory serves, you are a parent, right? I'm just a high school student that doesn't have my own parents helping me look. All this is pretty intimidating for a rising junior. I know that if I was an aspiring math/sci major, I wouldn't need to look very hard for specialized programs.</p>
<p>Furthermore, though another poster may have stated that he or she thinks math/sci owns humanities, I certainly don't share that sentiment. I don't think that colleges will reject humanities people and only accept math/sci (alright, harvey mudd, MIT, caltech, etc, maybe), as that would be absurd. I merely believe that it is much harder to participate in interesting programs that serve a dual purpose of quenching one's interest in a subject as well as demonstrate to colleges one's interest.</p>
<p>I apologize, PBailey. Your response was good! I'm just tired now, hitting the pillow & will get back to this tomorrow. I think I looped you too much with others' responses, which did smack of ignorance in my view, and not an ignorance that can be attributed to youth, but to a more deliberate narrowness, which does not advance anyone's college aspirations, btw. (For those others.)</p>
<p>I think you do, a tiny bit, put your own field down & perhaps feel intimidated by the math/science visibility around you on CC, which does tend to dominate, at least in the student forums. That could be a mis-impression on my part! Just strikes me as a little self-deprecating, when I think absolutely no humanities students needs to accede to any math/science student by virtue of "urban legend." In the population as a whole (not only on CC), there's a mistaken notion that perforce, math/science students must be "smarter" than humanities students. This is absolutely false. Neither is necessarily smarter than the other by category. I'll tell you something: insiders in college admissions tell me that the committees value an 800 in verbal (CR) more than an 800 in quantitative, because the CR is more relevant to the kinds of tasks required in college.</p>
<p>I do agree that there are not <em>enough</em> humanities prizes as there could be, but there are more than the world at large, & the CC world, believes there are. They get a lot less publicity, that's all. Curious humanities students seek them out, & seek out in general opportunities for advanced course work wherever they can find that. Perhaps that includes yourself, hopefully.</p>
<p>Sorry, to bed now.:)</p>
<p>I believe that one reason the humanities aren't rewarded as much at a young age is because people really start shining a little bit later in life in these fields. However often times in science and mathematics, the superstars start shining around the time they apply to college.</p>
<p>The second has to do with rigor. Any time you can quantize an effort, you can raise the bar to absurd levels and watch as people demonstrate they can sail over it. It's much harder to quantize work in the humanities. That doesn't mean that the humanities aren't important though.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I don't think that colleges will reject humanities people and only accept math/sci (alright, harvey mudd, MIT, caltech, etc, maybe), as that would be absurd.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>A slight digression...these schools don't only accept math/sci people. They require that you be good enough at math/sci to get through their core curriculum, but once you show that you can do that, you can be as much of a humanities person as you want. There are some top-notch humanities and social sciences departments in some tech-oriented schools.</p>
<p>@ jessiehl: Ah, my bad. Thanks for pointing out the error!</p>
<p>@epiphany:I agree with much of your post, but don't most people understand that an 800 is harder to get in the verbal than the math? and that people can be intelligent in different ways. I don't think anyone thinks that at all.</p>
<p>Science, math, and engineering provide a key service to society. The tools and thoughts we develop are the artifacts of society. Anyone who wishes to challenge the importance of such areas of study is delusional.</p>
<p>The development of knowledge and technology can be a humanitarian endeavor. In fact, I will go so far as to argue the only way that this species is going to survive is through the full embrace of science and technology. While science is supposed to be disinterested, modern science has the following unspoken doctrine:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Life is incredible and one should try to preserve it in all forms to the best of one's ability.</p></li>
<li><p>The pursuit of truth and knowledge should not be swayed by personal gain.</p></li>
<li><p>Skepticism is required; Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.</p></li>
<li><p>The only sacred truth is there are no sacred truths.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>A good scientist should have a handle on how we are here, how remarkable it all is, understand the nuances of life, and understand how to best serve humanity.</p>
<p>While I don't spend my time in soup kitchens, I spend my time understanding the world around me so that someday I can produce something that can improve the quality of life for everyone. I am both.</p>
<p>rocketDA: Well stated!<br>
That is one perspective, a very true and thoughtful one. However, what if a student serves their community by not working in soup kitchens but creating one? I mean there is no math, science, technology there to "produce something that can improve the quality of life for everyone," but there is leadership that did this exact thing.
I guess it shows most passion to be both. Would a student aforementioned be rejected over a student demonstrating both?</p>