<p>I'm considering Medical School, but Graduate school in astrophysics or something along those lines might also be in the works. </p>
<p>I'm barely entering college, straight out of high school, but I'm a junior at Texas A&M University by credits, so I'll be graduating in 2 to 3 years. I'm an honors student hoping to double major in English & Mathematics or English & Physics, but within these 2 years I'm also planning on researching, volunteering, taking part in ECs such as singing and maybe student government, and with all of this I'm also writing a Sci-fi romance novel. </p>
<p>I also have the opportunity to get a Master's while getting a bachelor's, but that would make it a lot more difficult to double major, and was wondering if it would look better getting a Master's or getting a double major in my 2 year time frame. Getting a Master's would probably add at least 1 more year of me staying at Texas A&M, but I'm ready to push forward. My hopes are to land in Harvard, Stanford, Princeton, MIT, or Yale University for graduate studies, but once I narrow down my choices as to what I want to study I'll hopefully be able to narrow down my list. I'm also going to be studying for the MCAT and taking Bio/Organic Chem courses to stay in tip-top shape for it. </p>
<p>All in all, do you think graduate schools would think it's unique for a student to graduate early double majoring with a lot under his belt, or do you think it would be better to spend more time there to get more under my belt? </p>
<p>One of the reasons I chose A&M was because of all the benefits I'd get from it, such as honors and having lots of my hours transfer over as opposed to Brown Univ., which was my dream school, but it didn't give me any benefits at all other than it's open-curriculum system. I hope I made the right choice, but before I keep yapping off, I'll leave it here.</p>
Um, yeah… come back after you’ve made that decision. There is nothing to advise on if you have not even determined which track, medical or graduate, is the one for you.</p>
<p>
Graduate schools care about only research experience. So if what you have “a lot” of under your belt after graduating early is good research experience (and LORs attesting to that), then you’ll be fine.</p>
<p>The only advantage I can see with graduating early is saving money if that is the issue. To spend 4 years exploring such interests as you have and getting enough research in order to be a great candidate would be the advantage, imo. (Also, all Brown’s students are essentially honors students.)</p>
<p>I like the idea one one major and the one year masters that many schools offer. but really it depends so much on what is important to you too, not just to grad schools, please. Take a year of college to think it over. You’ll be just fine whatever school you attend, I’ll guess.</p>
<p>But you don’t pick the grad school before you decide on a major. The grad school is selected based on best fit and what schools have the professors who want to work with you and your special interests, and vice versa. Undergrad quality in general doesn’t alway equate to a strong grad department.</p>
<p>If you want to go to grad school for anything, I would suggest staying for the full four years unless money is really a problem. The extra year might give you more research and course opportunities. I know of one person who graduated in three years and he got into Stanford; I know of another student who graduated in three but didn’t take advantage of potential research opportunities and graduate coursework and he ended up disappointed.</p>
<p>I totally agree with others about staying to get the full experience and use the time for more research experience. I would also say that you owe it to yourself to take time to explore different career paths because you’ve worked so hard. You only go to college once so don’t rush through it.</p>