MAA Blog: The Problematic Math of College Admissions

By Dave Kung, Director of Policy; Josh Recio, Course Program Specialist at the Dana Center

Maria was a promising high school student with a love of history. Some of the supportive teachers at her Rio Grande Valley high school planted the idea of going to college, maybe even one of those “elite” schools far from South Texas. With an eye toward that goal, she buckled down and tackled the list of challenging courses her mentors suggested. Despite not having a interest in STEM fields, she persisted in the advanced math track, making it through AP Calculus and getting an associate degree (magna cum laude) in mathematics, her golden ticket in the college admissions game! She was accepted to an Ivy League school where she graduated with majors in History and English.

What does Maria think of her high school math experience? “I grew to really like calculus,” she reports. “But looking back on it, learning more statistics would have been more useful for me.”

All across the country, there are tens of thousands of students just like Maria (not her real name) who take calculus not because they’re interested or because it will help them reach their aspirations, but because it’s seen as their golden ticket into a more prestigious college. They are caught up in a Cold War-era system that prizes one branch of mathematics over all others. They see success in high school calculus as earning them a stamp of approval, a badge indicating they’re ready for success in college – no matter if it’s important for their intended STEM major or if, like Maria, other math content would actually serve them better.

While the use of calculus as a gateway ended up helping Maria, take a minute to contemplate other students hoping to get into an elite college. Half of US public high schools don’t even offer calculus. Are the students in those schools less worthy of an Ivy League education – just because of their zip code? Like many issues of access in our education systems, public high schools with a high percentage of minoritized students are the schools less likely to offer calculus. Of the schools that serve primarily Black and Latino students, just one third offer calculus. Don’t many of the students in those schools deserve a golden ticket through the admissions gateway to a better college – and a more prosperous future?

And what about Maria herself? What if she had decided to take more statistics instead of Calculus? That option would have provided a better background for her later work, and she knew it at the time. Would she have gotten into the elite school of her dreams? How screwed up is a system that might have penalized her for wanting to learn math content that was in line with her aspirations?

You might wonder if these perceptions of the value of calculus in college admissions are really accurate. A set of reports from Just Equations and the National Association for College Admissions Counseling (NACAC) confirms that they are. The first report found that taking calculus in high school is viewed very favorably by college admissions professionals, even though calculus is rarely an outright requirement for students not pursuing STEM majors. A whopping 79% of admissions professionals think that students who have taken calculus in high school are more likely to succeed in college. They widely view calculus as the most rigorous math course, maintaining a system in which calculus, or at minimum the path toward calculus, often takes precedence, even for students like Maria whose future would be better served with a different math course.

A second report shows exactly how higher education admissions influences high school students’ course taking. Calculating the Odds: Counselor views on math course taking and college admissions uncovers high school counselors’ perspectives—and why they push students like Maria toward calculus. According to survey data, 93% of counselors believe that calculus gives students an edge in college admissions. On the flip side, 73% of them believe that not having calculus narrows students’ options.

As institutions recognize the need for enrolling students with strong backgrounds in mathematics outside of the path to calculus, some are taking significant steps toward changing how they view applicants. And this movement is, perhaps surprisingly, being taken on by some of the most influential institutions of higher education. Stanford recently changed their admissions statement related to math to welcome students who chose to study statistics in addition to those who have studied calculus. Harvard’s robust description of what their admissions team is looking for in a student’s math background includes a direct statement addressing the current inequity of math course options that exist for high school students. While they state that calculus can be an important option for some, Harvard is explicitly encouraging potential applicants to take rigorous math courses that are “aligned with their interests and goals.”

The understanding that a student doesn’t have to pursue courses that may be irrelevant to their ambitions just to be considered for admission opens up the opportunity for many students to think of their high school math education as viable preparation for their future. Those opportunities are now open to students in the most populous state, with the University of California expanding options for admissions.

When schools with the academic reputation of Berkeley, Harvard, and Stanford make these types of policy changes, other institutions take notice. Currently, we are working with universities across one state to adopt a single math admissions statement that encourages multiple course options for high school students. By not penalizing students whose goals and interests are outside of the calculus pathway, these universities will have an opportunity to enroll and support a more diverse group of learners. Future History majors like Maria can enter college much more prepared for the math they will need to be successful, knowing that their experiences are respected and welcomed.

Our current mathematics education system suffers from numerous issues in need of addressing, two of which we wrote about in an earlier post. Together, these issues form a quintessential “wicked problem,” a complicated morass with no single, silver-bullet solution – one so complex that will never be fully solved. Like all wicked problems, reforming the system to equitably align content with students’ aspirations can feel like a massive lift. It’s hard to even wrap your head around the issues. And college admissions policies, practices, and perceptions form just one part of that massive problem.

Rather than give up and accept the flawed status quo, we subscribe to a philosophy of collective action. If many of us throughout different parts of the mathematics community all work on attacking our piece of the wicked problem, we can collectively make a difference. On the issue of math and admissions, we can all start by educating ourselves. The two Just Equations reports offer great insights into the nature of the admissions problem. An upcoming webinar hosted by TPSE (Transforming Post-Secondary Education in Mathematics) on October 6th (register here) will examine how to address this problem.

Ultimately, we as educators have the responsibility of taking concrete steps toward equitable opportunities for students as they make decisions about their futures. So once we better understand the issue, it’s time to dive in and work on the part of the problem that’s local to each of us. Find out what the admissions policies are at your institution. Talk with the admissions staff and find out how they view different math options. Talk with them about how different mathematics aligns with different majors – that it’s not about one area of mathematics being better than another, but rather that different mathematical tools are useful for understanding the world in different ways. Be explicit: Our collective deference to calculus is problematic from the perspectives of content and equity.

Together we can move the community toward a more just, equitable place - where the Marias (and Marios) of the future can confidently take rigorous math courses that interest them, knowing that there is more than one math pathway into all colleges and universities.

Dave Kung leads the policy work at the Charles A. Dana Center, which includes in-depth policy analysis and the development of tools and briefs for systems, regions, and states. He also serves as Director of MAA Project NExT, a professional development program serving math faculty early in their careers.

Josh Recio is a member of the curriculum team at the Charles A. Dana Center, which authors content development for Agile Mind middle and high school course programs. He also supports the Dana Center’s Launch Years Initiative, which seeks to usher in a new paradigm to support students for college preparation and guide them through pathways for degree attainment.