For HYPSM, do humanities kids need 4 years of science?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:vs. 4 years of history, vs. 4 years of a foreign language? What is this fascination with science? Add another history or foreign language course instead.

This won’t be why there’s an HYPSM rejection: “darn it, a humanities kid, and we need way more, but no 4 years of science. Into the circular file!” There will be 100 other reasons kid is rejected; not that.

The flip side is also true: “5 years of science. Fantastic candidate. We need more STEM majors. Admit!”

The problem for this kid is that there will be plenty of other kids applying with 4 years of science AND 4 years of social studies AND 4 years of world language. So, you're right that their application won't necessarily be dumped into the garbage upon arrival, but they will be compared to the students who have the coursework and rigor in everything.

Of course there will be examples of students who succeeded without 4 years of science, and if an anecdote here or there makes OP feel better, that's nice. But OP should know that a story like that doesn't prove that 3 years of science will be treated like 4 (or 5) years of science. It will be seen as a deliberate choice—which might be the right one for the kid—that may have consequences for admissions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Absolutely yes you do.

I got into MIT with 3 years and no physics

If you did not get in within the last two years, your chances experience isn’t relevant to today’s landscape.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:vs. 4 years of history, vs. 4 years of a foreign language? What is this fascination with science? Add another history or foreign language course instead.

This won’t be why there’s an HYPSM rejection: “darn it, a humanities kid, and we need way more, but no 4 years of science. Into the circular file!” There will be 100 other reasons kid is rejected; not that.

The flip side is also true: “5 years of science. Fantastic candidate. We need more STEM majors. Admit!”

The problem for this kid is that there will be plenty of other kids applying with 4 years of science AND 4 years of social studies AND 4 years of world language. So, you're right that their application won't necessarily be dumped into the garbage upon arrival, but they will be compared to the students who have the coursework and rigor in everything.

Of course there will be examples of students who succeeded without 4 years of science, and if an anecdote here or there makes OP feel better, that's nice. But OP should know that a story like that doesn't prove that 3 years of science will be treated like 4 (or 5) years of science. It will be seen as a deliberate choice—which might be the right one for the kid—that may have consequences for admissions.

I agree there may be consequences for admissions; I just think it’s unlikely.

I disagree there are “plenty of other kids” wanting to study humanities (with such a demonstrated interest, and top notch in everything else.) You are saying the differentiator between 3 or 4-year science kids wanting to study humanities may be their “rigor.” Well, depends: multiple APs in languages, or that fourth year of science? In that instance, it’s a choice alright, but not, to me, about rigor. Assuming the other science grades are strong, it would be a choice based not on avoidance but on opportunity.

I acknowledge that some AOs will see it your way. But most won’t and, for that reason, kid should choose courses based on intellectual interests and not what may or may not get them into college (elite colleges actually like this, if it comes through in the application).

Another important consideration: more kids are admitted for humanities than actually end up studying them. There is a “switch over” issue and some kids, at least, are trying to game the system. Even many who are not doing so consciously at application will succumb to external pressures and major in something more “practical.” Double majors in humanities and STEM/CS/Econ still make demands on teaching resources (and quality of instruction) for the “usual suspect” disciplines that these schools are trying to minimize.

What I am suggesting is that some of these 4-year science kids and, especially, 5-year science kids studying multivariate calculus are very likely “switcheroos,” whether they are conscious of it now or not. No, I am certainly not saying 3 years of science should, for that reason, be preferred over 4. But I am saying that, unlike STEM applicants (which is an understatement to say there are “plenty of”), any given two humanities applicants will not be alike: the differentiator will in that sense not be who has taken 4 years of science, but who is the true humanities applicant for that particular (under-enrolled) humanities discipline. Bonus for those with no interest in double-majoring in CS etc.!

[Anonymous]

that's an interesting observation. I would say I'm pro 4 years of science, but I do in fact know kids who apply as Classic etc majors who have no intention of majoring in that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:that's an interesting observation. I would say I'm pro 4 years of science, but I do in fact know kids who apply as Classic etc majors who have no intention of majoring in that.

me again - it's funny but I'm not sure that college readers are smart enough to read it this way. I'm pretty much always suprised by how colleges spend and dont spend money: I've seen so many terrible tour guides and I know they have a lot of 24 year old readers with 1 year experience.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:that's an interesting observation. I would say I'm pro 4 years of science, but I do in fact know kids who apply as Classic etc majors who have no intention of majoring in that.

A classics major with 5 years of science should raise red flags. But maybe it doesn’t; agree that AOs are often inexperienced and/or not the brightest bulbs. My presumption is that they will have a mandate — at least at some schools — from on high to look at humanities kids more closely; the more closely a kid is looked at, the more that kid becomes an individual (the level of scrutiny where 3versus 4 years matters less). But I could be wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:that's an interesting observation. I would say I'm pro 4 years of science, but I do in fact know kids who apply as Classic etc majors who have no intention of majoring in that.

me again - it's funny but I'm not sure that college readers are smart enough to read it this way. I'm pretty much always suprised by how colleges spend and dont spend money: I've seen so many terrible tour guides and I know they have a lot of 24 year old readers with 1 year experience.

I was very surprised by this too. Had a Williams guide who you could not hear at all, and could not get around him in a semi-circle because of snow. DC said the college was “lame.” Couldn’t disagree with his assessment, even though I am a Williams fan.

Then there is Haverford, which actually made half the parents and students at an info session wait 1/2 hour more for a tour — because the tour guide could not handle more than 20.

Then we have Bard, where the student tour guide actually rocked it with 50 people.

This kind of stuff is small change and is just implementing basic principles of event planning. The most professional operations I saw in this regard were Vassar and (surprisingly) Georgetown.

It it is so easy to get this right. Amazing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Absolutely yes you do.

I got into MIT with 3 years and no physics

Pre- or post-WWII?

Don't be so mean. I'm sure it's post-WWII.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Absolutely yes you do.

I got into MIT with 3 years and no physics

How old are you? Your anecdata is only relevant if you started college within the last ten years and, more specifically, the last five.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:that's an interesting observation. I would say I'm pro 4 years of science, but I do in fact know kids who apply as Classic etc majors who have no intention of majoring in that.

me again - it's funny but I'm not sure that college readers are smart enough to read it this way. I'm pretty much always suprised by how colleges spend and dont spend money: I've seen so many terrible tour guides and I know they have a lot of 24 year old readers with 1 year experience.

I was very surprised by this too. Had a Williams guide who you could not hear at all, and could not get around him in a semi-circle because of snow. DC said the college was “lame.” Couldn’t disagree with his assessment, even though I am a Williams fan.

Then there is Haverford, which actually made half the parents and students at an info session wait 1/2 hour more for a tour — because the tour guide could not handle more than 20.

Then we have Bard, where the student tour guide actually rocked it with 50 people.

This kind of stuff is small change and is just implementing basic principles of event planning. The most professional operations I saw in this regard were Vassar and (surprisingly) Georgetown.

It it is so easy to get this right. Amazing.

Do Bard then. Williams doesn't need to crush it, Bard does.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:that's an interesting observation. I would say I'm pro 4 years of science, but I do in fact know kids who apply as Classic etc majors who have no intention of majoring in that.

me again - it's funny but I'm not sure that college readers are smart enough to read it this way. I'm pretty much always suprised by how colleges spend and dont spend money: I've seen so many terrible tour guides and I know they have a lot of 24 year old readers with 1 year experience.

I was very surprised by this too. Had a Williams guide who you could not hear at all, and could not get around him in a semi-circle because of snow. DC said the college was “lame.” Couldn’t disagree with his assessment, even though I am a Williams fan.

Then there is Haverford, which actually made half the parents and students at an info session wait 1/2 hour more for a tour — because the tour guide could not handle more than 20.

Then we have Bard, where the student tour guide actually rocked it with 50 people.

This kind of stuff is small change and is just implementing basic principles of event planning. The most professional operations I saw in this regard were Vassar and (surprisingly) Georgetown.

It it is so easy to get this right. Amazing.

Do Bard then. Williams doesn't need to crush it, Bard does.

you dont see her point? all these kids are working for 20/hr. why hire lame tour guides at all?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Absolutely yes you do.

I got into MIT with 3 years and no physics

How old are you? Your anecdata is only relevant if you started college within the last ten years and, more specifically, the last five.

I'm glad that there are so many people that are clueless about what it takes to get to a top school. Literally on the E3 admissions card for MIT there is no box for took 4 years of science. In order to make it to the table for review you have to be in the top 25% of the SAT scores and GPA. Then you have to impress them with your file. In my case, I had numerous local, state and national awards- gasp - not in science.

I also had a friend that got into Stanford and he didn't take the most rigorous courses at our school but had 4.0 and 1600 SAT score.

[Anonymous]

If your school doesn't offer 4 years of science (where is that??)...no.

If you're in the IB program and science is an SL subject for you...maybe not.

Otherwise...yes.

At a mainstream school, there's no reason not to take four years of math, science, history/social studies, English, and a foreign language. Why jeopardize your chances? Why sell your own self short academically? For a random elective? Get out of here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:that's an interesting observation. I would say I'm pro 4 years of science, but I do in fact know kids who apply as Classic etc majors who have no intention of majoring in that.

me again - it's funny but I'm not sure that college readers are smart enough to read it this way. I'm pretty much always suprised by how colleges spend and dont spend money: I've seen so many terrible tour guides and I know they have a lot of 24 year old readers with 1 year experience.

I was very surprised by this too. Had a Williams guide who you could not hear at all, and could not get around him in a semi-circle because of snow. DC said the college was “lame.” Couldn’t disagree with his assessment, even though I am a Williams fan.

Then there is Haverford, which actually made half the parents and students at an info session wait 1/2 hour more for a tour — because the tour guide could not handle more than 20.

Then we have Bard, where the student tour guide actually rocked it with 50 people.

This kind of stuff is small change and is just implementing basic principles of event planning. The most professional operations I saw in this regard were Vassar and (surprisingly) Georgetown.

It it is so easy to get this right. Amazing.

Do Bard then. Williams doesn't need to crush it, Bard does.

you dont see her point? all these kids are working for 20/hr. why hire lame tour guides at all?

Because they can

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Absolutely yes you do.

I got into MIT with 3 years and no physics

How old are you? Your anecdata is only relevant if you started college within the last ten years and, more specifically, the last five.

I'm glad that there are so many people that are clueless about what it takes to get to a top school. Literally on the E3 admissions card for MIT there is no box for took 4 years of science. In order to make it to the table for review you have to be in the top 25% of the SAT scores and GPA. Then you have to impress them with your file. In my case, I had numerous local, state and national awards- gasp - not in science.

I also had a friend that got into Stanford and he didn't take the most rigorous courses at our school but had 4.0 and 1600 SAT score.

Sh*t happens. What can we say? But it doesn't happen to everyone because most folks applying don't have "numerous local, state and national awards- gasp - not science." (I kept your typo and lack of Oxford comma [still use it cuz it's not like we are typesetting this stuff by hand]).

If a candidate has something truly compelling then it might happen, but the reality is what is compelling about most applicants is that they have simply cranked and cranked for years. That's it.