If you can afford it, and are open to studying abroad, you might be a good candidate for Oxford/Cambridge or other UK universities, where you can study just math for your whole degree.
‘I really think that you should reconsider brown. This is not the best reason to pick a school.’
Why wouldn’t the open (excellent) curriculum be a great reason to pick a school?
Yes, fenway, the link in 15. My comment about it wasn’t to you.
I think other posters have done a good job debating the merits of sticking with STEM vs branching out, so I won’t offer my views on that. What I will say is that Brown isn’t the only school without a core/distribution requirements. I don’t think it’s wrong to write about the Open Curriculum, but I do think you should ask yourself why you prefer Brown above the others, even if you don’t explicitly state the answer in your essay.
When I said that other students might find you boring, I was being somewhat facetious. Then fenway totally disagreed and went on about how accepting Brown students are.
I think Fenway went to a different school than I did. Brown students are human, after all, and I’ve met plenty who were not accepting. To be honest, I do think it’s possible that someone who ONLY takes math and hard science classes might be considered boring!
Yes, there are plenty of students who don’t take math and science classes, and plenty of students who don’t take humanities classes. But even those students pull together a diverse program. You can avoid math and science – yet take classes in English, history, sociology, economics, political science, Classics, visual arts, MCM, urban studies, international relations, philosophy, psychology, etc. And a science kid can take classes in physics, chemistry, biology, computer science, applied math, economics, environmental science/studies, geology, psychology/cognitive science, math, engineering, public health, neuroscience. And there are science courses that are designed for non-science kids and humanities courses that might be of interest to science kids. Brown wants its students to have an open mind.
@suzyQ7 I think Brownparent was not being critical of the open curriculum, but of the way the OP would use it. I’m not sure whether I agree with that. It’s an interesting point of discussion. I’m seeing a bunch of Brown grads in the next few days, so maybe I’ll come back with some different perspectives.
I hate seeing all these people saying the open curriculum is about “exploration.” It’s not. You can look at the Magaziner-Maxwell report that proposes the curriculum and see that that was not their intention (emphasis mine). As they say in the opening to their curriculum proposal:
and then again later
http://library.brown.edu/libweb/papers/BrownCurriculum.pdf
Now one could argue that only wanting to take math and science is “narrow professionalism” but I disagree. Math and science are such broad topics that to me narrow professionalism would be taking classes in those topics part and parcel as they relate to a specific career path and not out of any intellectual motivation but only motivated by a paycheck.
As I said prior, the point of the New Curriculum was to allow for individually focused education. It was built out of the understanding that it was problematic to impose various educational standards on people. Many students can’t handle that freedom. I once called myself someone who “hated the humanities” because I didn’t consider classical studies to be part of the humanities because in my high school, they were considered “foreign language” even if they weren’t taught in foreign language. The only “humanities” classes were our history and english classes which focused heavily on post renaissance western civ so there I was someone who "hated humanities. OP has not given us enough to truly judge whether or not he’s mature enough to handle the new curriculum, but I am 100% confident that a desire to focus on math and science is a perfectly good fit for the open curriculum.
We each bring our own perspectives and interpretations. And experiences. It’s true that, “Rather than defining a broad set of distribution requirements, the open curriculum gives students the freedom to choose for themselves.” But the context in admissions is roughly 30k applications, a grand chunk of them well qualified-- a small class and the ability to select kids with the apparent ability to use the OC/liberal education well. This is more than the lack of distribution requirements. More than the individual satisfying a narrow set of interests determined in high school.
“Our open curriculum ensures you great freedom in directing the course of your education, but it also expects you to remain open to people, ideas, and experiences that may be entirely new. By cultivating such openness, you will learn to make the most of the freedom you have, and to chart the broadest possible intellectual journey.”
When you’re offered something like the OC, when it somewhat defines the academic context, be cautious before stating outright in your freaking application that you are all set, good to go, know exactly what your interests are and will be.
Excellent points @iwannabe_Brown
“Exploration” should be considered “self-exploration” in the context of the Open Curriculum.
It may seem counter-intuitive to some, but the Open Curriculum results in less diversification of curricular choices among the student body than the curricula at elite schools with distribution requirements.
Take Yale as just one example. (I am not including the core schools such as Columbia and UChicago in this comparison)
By virtue of the Yale distribution requirements, 100% of Yale students take language courses, science courses, humanities/arts courses, and quantitative reasoning courses
I don’t have the stats to prove it either way, but I am going to go out on a limb and say fewer than 100% of Brown students take courses in any one of those areas, never mind all of them. Welcome input from those with data that might validate or invalidate this opinion.
As for the following statement
I have been persuaded by many posts on CC that elite schools want to see “passion” in an application. I do not know if this is absolutely true for every elite school because I am not an insider, but I have been persuaded nonetheless.
To all the applicants out there who have told Brown you want to be doctor, or an engineer, or an actor, or a filmmaker–and these aspirations are substantiated by your academic record, ECs, and essays–my opinion is that the quoted statement should not make you feel uneasy about your application. I believe your dedication, to the extent it comes across as sincere, should be considered a positive thing.
I also think Admissions understands that 17 year olds sometimes can change their minds, and that this possibility would not retroactively detract from the dedication you have shown so far. (Can’t prove this, just an outsider’s opinion)
I hope Brown always has a place for someone who (otherwise qualifies) and says something like:
“I know exactly what I want to do in life. Math is my passion, I have always wanted to do math, and I am basically obssessed with it. If I got into Brown, I would go extremley hardcore on math and science classes and dive very deeply into ceartain areas.”
FWIW, this is precisely what I did.
You told them all you wanted to do was pre-med? (Am I remembering correctly that you were PLME?) Or you emphasized the future goals but also presented well rounded experiences and “showed” some intellectual curiosity? You would have needed both the depth and the breadth.
This thing about passion isn’t as simple as how often it’s repeated on CC.
Actually, Jim Miller, director of admissions, has stated on numerous occasions (I’ve heard him say this at least 3 times) that he strongly dislikes the idea of a high school student having a passion. He does not like the term passion. He much prefers a student who gets great joy from something. Joy is the word he likes to use.
And I believe there’s videotape evidence to support this.
And the former dean at Stanford.
I can see all the applicants out there rushing to amend their applications now.
Before you do, get more substantiation. If there are videos, good chance they are online and can be searched and posted.
If James Miller strongly dislikes the idea of a high school student having a passion, he must dislike a whole bunch of current Brown students he has admitted.
In the meantime, until we can get further confirmation about this, here is an old quote of Jim Miller’s
@lookingforward It’s been 11 years since I submitted my application but I know I specifically said that I wanted to double concentrate in biology and classical studies. I made it clear that I wanted the open curriculum to allow me to structure my studies within those areas as many schools would not have allowed me to dive in such depth to those two very different topics. I don’t recall if I made any mention of post grad plans (which, if I did, would have been a PhD in the biological sciences since that’s what I thought I wanted to do at the time). I wanted to study what I wanted to study because I found it exciting. I’d rather learn what I love learning and figure out the best path for me than pick a path and force myself to fit the mold. I remember my guidance counselor packaged me as the “modern day renaissance man” - the scientist who reads homer and cicero in their original languages before suiting up as the captain of his varsity team. I never applied PLME, and am currently in an MSTP (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_Scientist_Training_Program).
I did an ScB in Biology and a concentration in classics (because I didn’t want to do the 5 year SCB/AB program), so 28/32 classes were spent on concentration requirements (20 for the ScB in biology and 8 for the concentration in classics). Of the 4 extra classes I had, I took one on health care policy my senior spring after I had decided to do MD/PhD, an extra classics department class, CG44 (a class on the cog neuro underpinnings of the 5 senses essentially) and another cog studies class on language learning/processing. There were still more bio and classics classes I didn’t get to take that I wanted to.
Passion is special, but the word is tired and misused. I would not write it in a college application.
To all still working on their Brown applications:
All the following are opinions, even though for brevity, they might appear to be stated as facts. These opinions are not based on inside information because I have none.
- Passion is a wonderful thing to demonstrate. Passion is demonstrated by a record, not by your use of the word, any more than athleticism is demonstrated by saying you are athletic or your creative writing skill is demonstrated by saying you are a creative writer.
- Brown accepts a whole bunch of people who had passions for one thing or another before they arrived at Brown. Brown does not dislike applicants who are passionate.
- If, as part of your application that demonstrates passion, you choose to use the word "passion" instead of the word "joy", well all I can say is that I hope Brown Admissions doesn't stoop to the level of making distinctions based on such petty semantic trivialities. And I hope they realize that even though there may be shades of distinction between the two words, "joy" is routinely listed as a synonym for "passion"
- If none of this rings true, then one option that would be available to you, for example, would be to emphasize a laundry list of ECs that you participated in rather than focus on the one or two that you really devoted a lot of time and heart to. Similarly, if there is one subject area that inspires you, maybe do not dwell on that, but emphasize instead a variety of areas that interest you. To be clear, these are not my recommendations, they are alternatives if you do not agree with me.
- Finally, do not fret if you think your Brown application shows passion or the word "passion" appears. Just be honest and true to yourself...I think
Well, it’s “show, not just tell,” so you can think about skipping either word, “passion” or “joy.” And that concept applies to “intellectual curiosity,” as well. You either show it or you don’t.
And yes, rounding is good, depth and breadth.
IWBB, I think your interests were (and are) impressive. That’s my point. It’s not simply that you knew (or thought you knew) you wanted to focus nearly exclusively on bio and classics. It’s that you had and could acknowledge these seemingly different interests. And yours, combined with the LoRs and your hs record, likely spoke volumes.
Now, just my imo- and some of this comes from experience: we spend too much time on CC on the whole concept of passions. What helps for the elites is “activation.” Not just what you think you love, but how you pursue it, the level of thinking and the willingness to challenge yourself that follows, how one finds ways. And those “passions” really should be relevant for your admissions review.
^That’s all true, and I agree with it, but it’s completely irrelevant to whether we’re talking about exclusively math and science or broader pursuits. That’s been my point all along. You could “tell, not show” about how much you want to explore and have no activation on your extremely wide array of interests and you won’t stand a chance.
Having a strong and impressive record that is focused is in no way a detriment and in no way misuses the open curriculum. I thought we were having a discussion about that concept - whether it’s bad to have more focused interests vs. more broad interests. If all we were really talking about is the concept of “show not tell” then there’s no reason for this discussion as I highly doubt anyone falls on the side of “telling not showing is just as good.”
Of course focused interests are good. Of course the school wants kids who have identified some initial goals, have drive and the goods (academic and other) to back that up. But remember, OP started with the blanket statement that it “will allow me to take courses only in math and science” and refers to "boring"others (ex WH.) (The nerve he hit, for me. I think different wording wouldn’t have.) He gets credit for posting that he will try to be more positive, which I assume means open, at least in his app/supp.
By “explore,” I don’t mean a path of random this and that. Look, at it’s very simplest, OP can leave open that he might be interested in a WH class, as well. Or something. Why not, in this particular context? Granted, if he gets in, he can do what he wants. But he needs to get in.
I’ll admit I’m a bit baffled we’re arguing.
I think I have a new problem: Brown’s math department sucks. They only offer a handful of courses.