Different intended majors get different applications wrong in different ways. Here's what STEM applicants, humanities applicants, business applicants, and pre-professional applicants commonly get wrong — and what to do instead.
STEM applicants — common pitfalls
- Missing the humanities side. Top STEM schools (MIT, Caltech, Stanford CS) want students who can write, think across disciplines, and engage with humanities — not just code or solve math problems. A 5 on AP English Literature signals the breadth that pure-STEM applicants lack.
- Activities list dominated by competitions without production. AMC/AIME alone is weaker than AMC + an actual built thing (a published paper, a shipped piece of software, a substantive research project).
- Generic 'I love computer science' essays. The specific subfield matters — algorithms vs systems vs ML vs HCI all reflect different intellectual commitments.
- Weak supplemental essays at top schools. STEM applicants often write essays as if they were research summaries; admissions wants to see the human, not just the technical thinker.
- Overlooking course rigor in non-STEM areas. Skipping AP English in favor of a 5th AP STEM course can read as 'narrow,' not 'committed.'
STEM strategy fixes
Take AP Lit or AP Lang. Read books outside your field. Pick a specific subfield as your spike (not just 'CS') and demonstrate engagement with it. In essays, lead with the human element of why you're drawn to the technical work.
Humanities applicants — common pitfalls
- Skipping the rigor proof. Humanities applicants need to demonstrate the same level of academic rigor as STEM applicants — strong AP courses, strong test scores (if submitting), and strong grades in challenging humanities courses (AP Lit, AP US History, AP Comparative Government).
- Generic 'I love reading and writing' essays. Specifics matter more in humanities. The favorite book that defines your intellectual life beats the abstract 'love of literature.'
- Weak research narrative. Humanities students often don't think of themselves as 'researchers' but admissions does at top schools. A senior thesis on Toni Morrison's late novels signals research depth that 'I read books in my free time' doesn't.
- Underplaying writing. The strongest humanities applicants have a portfolio of writing — published or self-published essays, a long-form research paper, a creative writing portfolio. Letters of rec from English/History teachers carry significant weight.
- Aiming only at LACs. Top research universities (Yale, Princeton, Brown) have outstanding humanities programs and are often less competitive for humanities applicants than STEM.
Humanities strategy fixes
Take the same rigor as STEM applicants (5+ APs, strong scores). Develop a writing portfolio. Find a research mentor or independent project in your field. Read deeply within a sub-area; build a specific intellectual identity.
Pre-business applicants — common pitfalls
- Generic 'I want to study business' essays. Top business programs (Wharton, Stern, Ross, Haas, McDonough) want intellectual engagement, not vocational language.
- Weak academic rigor. Business school admits often have softer course rigor than STEM admits. Take AP Calc BC, AP Stats, AP Macro/Micro Economics, AP Computer Science.
- Activities focused only on 'business clubs' (Investment Club, DECA, FBLA). These are fine but generic. The business applicant who also wrote a research paper on emerging-market economics, built and ran a real small business, or did substantive analysis for a nonprofit stands out.
- Wharton-specific: weak quantitative spike. Wharton wants applicants who could thrive in finance/quant rather than just 'business.' Strong math and CS coursework signal readiness.
- M&T-style dual programs (Penn M&T, Northwestern MMSS, USC IBEAR): require demonstrated readiness in BOTH fields. A pure-business applicant doesn't fit M&T.
Business strategy fixes
Take the most quantitatively rigorous courses available. Build a specific business interest with substance behind it (real research, real entrepreneurship, real economics-focused work). For Wharton specifically, demonstrate quantitative depth.
Pre-med applicants — common pitfalls
- Generic 'I want to be a doctor' essays. The specifics of what draws you to medicine and which subfield matter.
- Substantively weak clinical experience. 100+ hours of meaningful patient interaction is the bar at top schools; 30 hours of shadowing dad's practice is not enough.
- Missing research. Most top medical schools admit research-engaged applicants more often. High school research with a physician or in a biomedical lab signals seriousness.
- Pre-med-track tunnel vision. The strongest pre-med applicants have humanities depth too — strong writing, strong reading, broad intellectual range.
- Choosing schools based on 'pre-med advising' alone. The best schools for pre-meds are the schools where YOU will thrive academically — not the ones with the most marketing about pre-med rates.
Pre-med strategy fixes
Real clinical experience (100+ hours, ideally direct patient interaction). Research, even if undergraduate-level. Strong rigor in BOTH science and humanities. Choose schools where you'll thrive — strong pre-med outcomes follow strong students at any rigorous school.
Pre-engineering applicants — common pitfalls
- Confusing 'engineering' with 'pre-med' or 'business' for application purposes. Engineering schools want depth in math, physics, CS, and engineering coursework specifically.
- Missing the design/build narrative. Top engineering admits often have built things — robotics teams, FRC competition leadership, side projects, internships at engineering firms. Theoretical engineering interest without production is weaker.
- Not understanding admit-by-major selectivity. CMU SCS, Berkeley EECS, Georgia Tech CS, Princeton Engineering admit at much lower rates than the school's overall admit rate. Treat them as separate applications.
- Skipping AP Physics C. AP Physics 1/2 is okay; Physics C signals readiness for college engineering math.
Engineering strategy fixes
AP Calc BC + AP Physics C + AP CS-A minimum. Build something tangible. Apply to admit-by-major schools knowing they're more selective than the school overall. Demonstrate engineering specifically — robotics, hackathons, science fair, summer engineering programs.
Pre-arts applicants — common pitfalls
- Underestimating the academic side. Tisch, USC SCA, RISD, Carnegie Mellon SOA all require strong academics in addition to portfolio. A 1300 SAT will not save a strong portfolio.
- Generic portfolios. Specificity matters in arts portfolios as much as in essays. A focused portfolio with a clear artistic identity beats a 'sample everything' portfolio.
- Skipping the audition prep. Most performing arts programs require auditions; preparation matters as much as the application materials.
- Underestimating the application of LACs and broad universities for arts. Some of the strongest creative writing programs are at Wesleyan, Vassar, and Bryn Mawr — not just dedicated arts schools.
Arts strategy fixes
Maintain strong academics. Develop a focused artistic identity. Build a coherent portfolio. Audition seriously. Apply broadly across arts schools and broad universities with strong arts programs.