Importance of Schedule Rigor?

[watch]

Okay so I'm rewriting this to make it more applicable to the thread title. The OP was too much about me.

 

How much do you guys think schedule rigor matters? In particular, it seems to me that's lots of people on this forum don't have very difficult undergraduate records. They have econ classes, and maybe math up through intro to analysis and a couple econometrics classes. Is this what the people applying to MIT/Princeton have?

Edited December 13, 2016 by watch

[tm_member]

There was a thread on this a little over 3 years ago, but I wanted to have a better conversation on the topic.

 

I have not gone a single quarter without taking at least 3 STEM courses (if we count Econ as STEM...lol) including organic chemistry and molecular biology. I'll graduate next year with this record in tact, and probably a 4.0 in ECON and something close to that in math (including through a year of modern algebra, upper level real analysis, combinatorics, etc).

 

How much more impressive is it that I did this while taking a more rigorous courseload? Will this increase my chances to go to a good grad school? Or is it just 'what classes have you taken and done well in'?

 

They really won't notice it unless you can have someone mention it in a letter of recommendation.

 

I wouldn't bother asking your letter writers to do so though. Remember that most of the potential admits to any good PhD program will have had a rigorous schedule, it's kind of a given. As a result, the ability to handle that schedule is a necessary but not sufficient condition for admission.

 

Something like being a full-time RA (9-5, 5 days a week) and doing well in two or three upper-level math or econ classes at the same time would be worth mentioning but your letter writers should know that.