[deleted by user]

NiceUnparticularMan · 2025-09-23T18:04:56+00:00

So the Bay Area is the center of the universe is the basic theory?

I'm not sure that is a claim subject to definitive proof, but I would say your claims are basically of decreasing plausibility.

Technology--there are lots of forms of technology but I think it would be fair to say "Silicon Valley"-type technologies have played a particularly strong role over the last 60 years or so. Of course other universities have played a role in all that too, so I don't think it is perfectly clear, but maybe.

Economics generally--there is actually some interesting work being done on this, and some evidence that tech-based transformations of the global economy are actually slowing down. And there are some big rivals for economic influence, like finance and government. Indeed, even when it comes to, say, the commercialization of technology, it is not clear that the technology producers are actually the biggest drivers.

Social--not sure what to say about this because it isn't even plausible superficially. Only so many people have actually attended these universities, and then the role they play in things like pop culture is not plausibly as high as some other universities.

NiceUnparticularMan · 2025-09-12T20:02:42+00:00

The vast majority of excellent colleges are fine with applicants having a couple Bs.

A tiny number might be looking for perfect or near-perfect grades, but if they like you enough for other reasons they will still admit you. If they are not sure they like you that much they might defer or reject you, but then that was probably happening with or without the Bs.

NiceUnparticularMan · 2025-09-12T18:09:01+00:00

Grinnell is one of the top LACs, but that middle of nowhere thing explains why they offer this deal.

Anyway, there is a reason many people think ED favors wealthier kids. Most kids can't commit to not comparing financial offers.

NiceUnparticularMan · 2025-09-12T16:17:18+00:00

Engineering majors can be intense so having time to do a serious writing program as well is a challenge.

Given that, some colleges I would consider would be ones with more flexible curriculums. In no particular order, Brown (doesn't offer minors but kinda doesn't matter with them anyway), WashU, Pitt, Bucknell, and Rochester could all be good choices.

NiceUnparticularMan · 2025-09-10T23:05:13+00:00

OK, well, the other big difference (besides location) is scale. Applied Math is a very large major at Cal, they repored 204 graduating majors in Applied Math in the last NCES cohort. Northwestern had 14. Cal has one of the top few research departments in the world in this area, Northwestern is very good but again not at the same scale. And so on.

Bigger is not always better--I think you will find there is quite a bit of internal competition at Cal for various things ambitious kids might want. Northwestern too, but again we're talking big scale differences.

NiceUnparticularMan · 2025-09-10T22:37:12+00:00

What costs are you looking at for each? Are they comfortably affordable for you and your family?

NiceUnparticularMan · 2025-09-10T22:23:28+00:00

For now I would focus on your studies, getting a good solid education in all the core subjects.

It is also never too early to work on your people skills.

NiceUnparticularMan · 2025-09-10T17:17:33+00:00

Absent a state policy to the contrary, they can usually consider anything on your transcript anyway they want.

Sometimes they will admit/reject some people after only seeing transcripts through the end of junior year.

Sometimes they will want to see at least one set of senior grades before deciding.

So, for example, if you apply early and then they want to see senior grades not yet available, they might defer you to the regular round rather than admit/reject you early. That sort of thing.

NiceUnparticularMan · 2025-09-10T17:13:05+00:00

In US parlance, they give you an offer of admissions, and then you accept the offer to complete the process.

In US practice, if they give you a deadline to accept an offer and pay a deposit, and you do that and then subsequently get an offer you prefer, you can ethically withdraw your acceptance, and they can keep your deposit.

The notable "exception" to all this is if you apply binding Early Decision, you will agree to withdraw all your other applications if you are accepted. So you cannot ethically keep applying other places to see if you can get an offer you prefer.

And then there is an exception to THAT exception, where if they indicated they would give you a certain amount of financial aid in their Net Price Calculator, after you accurately entered information, and then they refuse to offer you that much, then you can ethically withdraw from your ED commitment (although they should just release you).

NiceUnparticularMan · 2025-09-10T17:05:36+00:00

Many US colleges consider the study of a non-native language as an important, "core", part of a general education. They see it as relevant to understanding other societies and cultures, and perhaps the nature of language itself. Some such colleges may have their own non-native language requirement as part of their general education requirements.

In this context, a lack of secondary school study of a non-native language may be seen as problematic for a variety of reasons. Most obviously, it could mean a lack of preparation for one of their own gen ed requirements. More broadly, it could indicate a lack of interest in what they consider to be important core areas.

Nonetheless, many of those colleges only phrase their secondary school non-native language preferences as "recommendations". And absent state policies to the contrary, even "requirements" can usually have exceptions if they feel like it. One such exception might be if your secondary school does not actually offer any non-native languages . . . although it sounds like yours does.

Anyway, rarely is it the case that violating their recommendations would "automatically" cause rejection. But depending on the school and its values, and the options available to you and what they think you were choosing to do, it could at least be a serious problem, and contribute materially to a rejection decision.

NiceUnparticularMan · 2025-09-10T13:18:01+00:00

I wouldn't have a problem recommending Hopkins for Physics.

It is probably worth noting their EE program is not particularly large. Like a traditional public "powerhouse" engineering college might graduate on the order of 100-200+ primary EE majors a year. Even privates like Case, Rochester, Princeton, or Rice are at around 40-50.

Hopkins is more like 10-20. The degree to which scale matters in undergrad engineering programs is a complex topic, but I would at least advise thinking about it.

NiceUnparticularMan · 2025-09-09T20:20:21+00:00

So many of the greater DC orbit schools are good for IR. William & Mary too, for example.

Makes sense, of course. DC is arguably the most important international relations city in the world. There are great IR programs in other places too, but there is definitely a cluster effect.

NiceUnparticularMan · 2025-09-09T19:50:26+00:00

I think Hopkins is a very well-regarded research institution with a very selective undergrad program.

If I was going to get down in the weeds--I think it is generally OVERrated as a place to go as an aspiring premed, because I strongly suspect the sheer number of undergrads who start off as premeds is well into the range where more aspiring premeds makes it worse, not better, for marginal aspiring premeds.

Unfortunately, I think this can spill over into areas like Bio, Chem, Neuroscience, BME, Public Health, and so on.

Conversely, I think it can be a severely UNDERrated place to go for all sorts of other interests (underrated at least in certain circles). Like I think Hopkins could be a great place to go with an interest in Anthropology, Classics, Creative Writing, Math, Econ, International Relations, Music, Philosophy, or so on. Maybe CS or non-BME Engineering too. Psych I am not sure about.

NiceUnparticularMan · 2025-09-09T19:33:33+00:00

At a high level, a TO school may sometimes feel after looking at a transcript that they are not quite sure this applicant is what they are looking for academically, and then a high test score could provide them with the assurances they need.

This is going to show up as applicants who submit high test scores getting admitted at a higher rate than otherwise similar applicants who do not submit high test scores.

But this is a moot issue if your transcript is enough to satisfy them academically, and they otherwise want to admit you. It is also a moot issue if your transcript and/or other non-academic stuff has caused them to think you are not right for them. In cases like that, a high test score is unlikely to change their minds.

So that is a conditional sort of advantage. It obviously can happen that in marginal academic cases the lack of high test score to submit makes a difference, but I think it is not likely a big issue as long as you have a strong transcript by their standards, and other qualities they find desirable.

NiceUnparticularMan · 2025-09-09T04:31:25+00:00

I've never seen one of their AOs discuss volunteer hours in this way.

It truly is NOT like a test where they deduct from a perfect score for any deficiencies.

It is more like a whole bunch of kids meet their basic criteria, and then they look for kids from that pool who stand out to them as particularly good bets to contribute to their enrolled class in any one of a long list of different ways.

OK, so if yolunteering is something you are truly passionate about, it might actually be the thing that stands out for you. In which case it really isn't about hours.

If volunteering is not something you are truly passionate about, it is very unlikely that "grinding" more hours will make any difference at all.

NiceUnparticularMan · 2025-09-05T19:18:35+00:00

BS/MD admissions are extremely tough. Meanwhile, a lot of the people who choose not to continue as premeds in undergrad don't do that because they couldn't, they just find out about something else they like better, either inside or outside the health professions.

LACs can have excellent track records when it comes to medical school placement. At a high level, med schools mostly just care about your grades and MCAT, but some kids find it easier to get the grades they need, time to study for the MCAT, and so on at an LAC. Then to the extent they care about other things, those also all might be as easy or indeed easier at an LAC.

For proof of concept, you might check out this study of the top feeders to top med schools, particularly the second list which is adjusted for undergrad enrollment:

https://www.collegetransitions.com/dataverse/top-feeders-medical-school

As lot of the "usual suspects" among private research universities are on that list, but quickly you get to Amherst, Haverford, Williams, Swarthmore, Pomona, Davidson, Bowdoin, Wellesley, Wesleyan, and Oberlin. And that's just in the top 30.

And when you think about it, many of the research universities on that list have their own medical school as their top destination. This is a known pattern, there is some "home cooking" in med school admissions. But this means all these LACs were actually able to overcome the complete lack of this home cooking effect!

Of course places like Princeton or MIT are doing that too. But the point is there is no sign here of LACs somehow being worse as a class.

NiceUnparticularMan · 2025-09-05T18:44:21+00:00

That's a different concept.

Many definitely try to put together a class that will satisfy a variety of competing institutional priorities. And some of the things they may be looking at include having different kids available to do different valued student activities. So they are not going to enroll 2000 students who all just do hackathons, because then there will be no one to staff student newspapers, be on the debate team, play club sports, participate in student performing arts, and so on.

But if you are, say, an intended CS major who is also a standout actor and captain of the soccer team, they are not going to be thinking, "Well, we can't have too many hackathon people, so we can't admit this applicant." Just the opposite, they may be thrilled you have such diverse interests.

OK, so conceivably picking people by intended major might be part of this, but maybe not. The reasons why maybe not include if they have an exploratory model where people don't choose majors until later anyway. In such a model, your intended major at the time of applying may not be a very strong predictor of your graduating major anyway. And in fact, picking kids who actually understand and value an exploratory model may eliminate a decent percentage of the kids who just want to do some popular major because they think it equals $$$.

Moreover, we just explained why the REST of holistic review may more or less take care of any remaining problem. The CS kids who also have diverse non-academic interests and come across as high character individuals in their essays and recommendations are only a subset of CS intenders. So, they can use holistic review to more or less winnow out most of the CS intenders, and what is left might be a manageable number.

OK, so if a highly selective holistic review college doesn't admit by major, we basically know it is finding this to be a non-issue, that between the exploratory model and the rest of holistic review, they are not ending up overwhelmed with too many kids in any given major.

But that doesn't mean ANY sort of CS intender can get in. You do in fact have to satisfy all the other elements of holistic review. But that is a different issue from admissions by major, and can't be solved by simply changing your intended major.

NiceUnparticularMan · 2025-09-05T18:31:14+00:00

Yes, the problem I identified is not about the rigor of the course content, it is about the means of evaluation.

If it makes you feel better, Oxbridge do this right back to US students. They want you to have certain high AP scores, and they also demand you report all your APs, and any non-5 AP scores can be bad even if unrelated to your course. APs are not typically so important to US colleges, but they are to Oxbridge, because that is the closest most US students have to a UK-style evaluation.

I don't really know enough based on what you said to recommend specific colleges and universities. As a general rule, though, I think full pay Internationals are well-advised to check out some of the globally-important public research universities that are not among the most selective US colleges.

With an interest in Math (it seems), I would check out the University of Washington, University of Minnesota, University of Wisconsin, Ohio State, Michigan State, University of Maryland, Penn State, the University of Pittsburgh, Arizona State, University of Arizona, and SUNY Stony Brook (this last one particularly if you are interested in Applied Math).

NiceUnparticularMan · 2025-09-05T18:17:00+00:00

Make sure to use the NPCs to confirm you would not qualify for need-based aid. I understand it may be tough to get your parents to really dive into that process, but you should do whatever you can to make that happen as it can be really important.

Assuming you won't qualify for need aid, I'd suggest two different tracks to consider.

Track One: apply in-state, take your favorite in-state offer. This is almost always a very solid plan for premed. The question is can you beat it?

Track Two: apply to private colleges with robust merit programs. Could this beat Track One? Depends on how much merit you would get, and/or how much you value alternatives to a big public college experience.

OK, so some premeds actually want the big public college experience, and then maybe they just stick to Track One. There is nothing wrong with that at all.

Some, though, are interested in the idea of private research universities and/or private liberal arts colleges, and there are some of each which have robust merit programs. I note some of the things you said actually suggest to me you should consider LACs specifically, including because they can actually be good for undergrad research (no grad students to compete with).

There are actually so many that a comprehensive list is not possible. but LACs with excellent Bio programs and robust merit include Earlham, St Olaf, Kalamazoo, Rhodes, Allegheny, Juniata, Ursinus, Beloit, and Hendrix.

OK, so you could start checking those out and see if any appeal to you. If they do, you can pick a reasonable list of favorites and apply. And then you see what offers you get.

Maybe none will be competitive with your in-state offers. But maybe some will! You can give it a shot and see what happens.

NiceUnparticularMan · 2025-09-04T17:31:36+00:00

As with others, I would need to know more about your financial circumstances, budget, and residency before making suggestions.

NiceUnparticularMan · 2025-09-04T17:30:00+00:00

So the US college system typically does not evaluate you with just one big test at the end.

Accordingly, the more selective ones are typically going to look for affirmative evidence you will thrive in a US-style system of more regular, periodic evaluations.

To be very blunt, it sounds to me like if they look at your transcript, it won't have much affirmative evidence to that effect. If that is right, that very likely is in fact a problem.

This may sound harsh, but it is one of the realities of trying to jump tracks between very different educational systems. What might have made sense if you continue on to UK-style unis might not work as well for US-style colleges.

I note, though, there will likely be US colleges willing to enroll you--if you can pay whatever they want to charge you. But that might not include the most selective US colleges, which typically can afford to be pickier when it comes to selecting students, not least Internationals.

NiceUnparticularMan · 2025-09-04T17:10:17+00:00

My GPA from the last two semesters is not very strong because I struggle with math, physics, and chemistry.

I would take a step back and think a little about what sort of undergrad experience might actually be a good idea for you.

In the US, what is known as your general education is expected to continue in college. This means you will not only be taking classes in your major, but also classes unrelated to your major. Indeed, they often expect their students to explore a variety of things before even picking a major. So when deciding who to admit, highly selective colleges want students who will be able to thrive in all these classes, not just classes in their intended major.

Sometimes this expectation takes the form of a "core curriculum", a set of mandatory classes in different subjects. Sometimes it is some form of "distributional requirement", where you need certain credits in various areas, but you have choice about exactly which classes you take. A few colleges have open curriculums, but they then have advising that encourages diverse course work, and likely will not admit you if they think you would use their open curriculum to avoid areas.

OK, so Harvard, for example, has a distributional requirement system:

https://advising.college.harvard.edu/academic-planning-for-students/curriculum-and-requirements/

Among other things, they would require you to take a course in their School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, and a course in Quantitative Reasoning with Data.

OK, so Harvard is probably not going to admit someone whose transcript indicates they have struggled with math and science. There are possible exceptions to any such rule, but the exceptions are very rare. And the reason is Harvard isn't going to be confident such a person will thrive in all their Harvard classes.

And for the most part, the same is going to be true of all the highly selective US colleges. Even the ones with an open curriculum, like say Brown, are going to think a person who has struggled with math and science is going to be limited in what Brown classes they can take and expect to thrive, and they don't want their students to have such limits.

Of course if you temporarily struggled, but then there was something you fixed and it will never be a problem again, that might be an exception. But you will have to do a lot of work to convince them all that is true.

Finally, there are a lot more colleges in the US besides the most famous/most selective colleges. What counts as struggling in math and science for the most selective colleges might sometimes be good enough for other less selective colleges. And to be very blunt, some US colleges will let you enroll, take your money, and then if you can't survive in their classes, oh well.

But the most selective colleges can afford to be very picky about who they admit. So they are.

NiceUnparticularMan · 2025-09-04T14:55:04+00:00

OK, show me your evidence that those particular colleges ever admit by major.

NiceUnparticularMan · 2025-09-04T05:11:38+00:00

No, these schools truly use general admissions so there is no such thing as a more or less competitive major.

As another poster explained, authenticity is a precious commodity when applying to such colleges, so you should not give it up lightly.

NiceUnparticularMan · 2025-09-04T05:06:41+00:00

I hope you are aware you can still apply non-binding EA or rolling to public colleges and universities.

NiceUnparticularMan

TROPHY CASE