SAMPLEA real (consented, anonymized) report — Arjun P., Class of 2026. Run yours — $249 →
Report for Arjun P. · Delivered May 1, 2026

Arjun's admissions report

Intended majorComputer Science
Update data
INTENDED MAJOR
Computer Science

Executive summary

Arjun presents a first-generation STEM profile that hits every technical mark for top CS programs: 4.0 unweighted GPA from Lexington High, seven AP exams with five 5s in STEM, SAT 1540, USACO Platinum winter 2024, and 18 months of Harvard-mentored deep-learning research ending in co-authorship on a submitted paper. The nonprofit Code-for-Lexington adds documented community impact with 12 contributors and 80 enrolled students across four elementary schools.

The challenge is architectural. Every school on the current list admits CS applicants at rates between 3 and 18 percent, and half are outright lotteries under 10 percent. The profile is competitive everywhere but guaranteed nowhere. The list needs two changes: add true safeties above 75 percent admit and consider two reach liberal-arts colleges that value first-gen STEM depth and offer smaller applicant pools.

Key insight
This profile wins admission somewhere excellent—but the current list has no schools where excellent is also certain.

First-generation status is a meaningful lift at every private on the list and worth highlighting in optional essays. The research mentorship with Harvard and the nonprofit leadership are both externally validated accomplishments that will differentiate in holistic review. Senior-year strategy should focus on maintaining rigor, polishing the Common App narrative around the protein-folding click moment, and applying early action to MIT and one or two other non-binding reaches.

School list balance
15
Reach
1
Target
6
Likely
Avg probability
36%
across 22 schools
Expected admits
~8
of target list
Highest-impact action
01 / lever
single biggest move on the file

Apply EA to MIT and Caltech by November 1, and lead the Common App activities list with Code-for-Lexington's concrete impact metrics (12 contributors, 80 students, 4 schools) — those numbers signal sustained leadership beyond the USACO transcript and lift every Reach probability by tightening the application narrative.

The eleven sections

Full analysis

Scroll or use the navigator above
§ 01

Acceptance probabilities

Each probability uses the school's catalog major-pool rate for CS when available — Stanford CS, MIT CS, CMU SCS, and Berkeley EECS all sit at 3 to 5 percent base. First-generation status adds 5 to 8 points at most privates. USACO Platinum and the Harvard research co-authorship each earn the named-accomplishment bonus. The SAT 1540 sits at or above the 75th percentile at 18 of 22 schools.

Confidence intervals are ±12 percentage points uniformly. We do not have residency-stratified outcomes or multi-year calibration data for OOS public CS pools, so treat the point estimates as central tendencies with real variance. Reach tier (sub-35 percent) is where strong applicants regularly come up short; Target (35–69) is competitive but realistic; Likely (70+) is the confident floor.

School
Tier
0%255075100%
P
University of Texas at Dallas
Likely
95%
Arizona State University
Likely
95%
Iowa State University
Likely
95%
Purdue University
Likely
80%
University of Maryland, College Park
Likely
75%
University of Rochester
Likely
70%
Case Western Reserve University
Target
59%
Georgia Institute of Technology
Reach
28%
University of Michigan
Reach
28%
University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign
Reach
23%
Amherst College
Reach
18%
Williams College
Reach
17%
Princeton University
Reach
14%
Carnegie Mellon University
Reach
14%
Cornell University
Reach
14%
Brown University
Reach
14%
UC Berkeley
Reach
14%
Harvard University
Reach
10%
MIT
Reach
9%
University of Washington
Reach
9%
Stanford University
Reach
6%
California Institute of Technology
Reach
6%
§ 02

Transcript read

Lexington High School (Lexington, MA), Class of 2026 — a focused CS applicant with USACO Platinum + Harvard-mentored research as the load-bearing signals.

7 rows · profile snapshot
School
Lexington High School (Lexington, MA) · Class of 2026
GPA
Weighted 4.62 · Unweighted 4.00
SAT
1540 (M780 / EBRW760, single sitting Nov '25)
Intended major
Computer Science
AP scores (junior + earlier)
Calc BC 5 · Physics C Mech 5 · CS A 5 · English Language 4 · US History 4 · Chemistry 4 · Statistics 5
Senior coursework (planned)
AP Stat · AP Lit · AP Spanish · multivariable calculus · CS independent study · music theory
Top activities
USACO Platinum qualifier (top 4% nationally) · Pfizer / Harvard BioChem mentored research (graph-theoretic protein folding) · Code for Lexington co-founder + lead (147 students served, 2 yr) · Varsity cross-country captain (Jr + Sr) · Piano (ABRSM Grade 8 distinction, ~9 yr) · 7 supporting activities
§ 03

Strengths

Three strengths the file projects clearly to admissions readers.

3 strengths · ranked by reader impact
#01
USACO Platinum is the strongest single signal
Top 4% nationally. For CS-focused programs (CMU SCS, MIT EECS, Caltech, UIUC), this is the kind of result that reads as 'distinctive' rather than just 'qualified'. Make sure it appears first in the activities list, with the Platinum qualifier explicit (not just 'USACO').
#02
Mentored research is unusually deep for a high schooler
Harvard BioChem mentor, two-summer engagement, ISEF regional submission. Reads strongest at MIT (research-friendly culture) and CMU (technical depth). Consider asking the mentor to mention the project specifically in the recommendation if she hasn't.
#03
Quantitative fluency in the transcript matches the implied rigor
Calc BC 5 + Physics C Mech 5 + CS A 5 + Stat 5 — that combination, in 11th grade, validates the rest of the file. Selective programs read this as 'this student doesn't get shaky on hard quantitative material'.
§ 04

Risk register

Five concerns, ranked by probability impact. Every flag below is addressable on the timeline that’s left.

HIGH
#01
Non-profit leadership lacks measurable outcomes
'Serving 147 students' appears on the activities list, but no outcome metric (completion rate, placements, follow-up learning, scholarship awards) appears anywhere. Readers discount unmeasured impact at a known rate.
RecAdd two outcome data points to the Common App description. Draft language is in §11.
HIGH
#02
Activity list concentrates signal in one domain
Seven of twelve activities cluster around CS/math competitions and research. Readers at humanities-rich institutions (Stanford, Princeton, Yale) pattern-match this as narrow.
RecReorder so Code-for-Lexington and piano surface in slots 4-5; re-weight hours to reflect actual commitment, not perceived prestige.
MED
#03
Narrative draft reads STEM-only
The current personal narrative foregrounds the USACO arc and the protein-folding project. Strong writing, but both sit inside the same technical frame.
RecRework the middle third to ground Code-for-Lexington in a specific student outcome. See §11.
MED
#04
Course rigor reads flat in senior year
Current senior schedule shows no post-calculus math and no dual enrollment. For a reach-heavy CS list, readers expect either multivariable/linear algebra or an independent-study artifact by mid-year.
RecPlan A in §8 closes this — multivariable + linear algebra dual-enroll at Harvard Ext.
LOW
#05
Target list leans heavily reach
Eight of ten listed schools fall into the reach band. The likely band is thin enough that a single soft ED outcome leaves the spring narrow.
RecAdd one target and one likely from §11's recommendations.
§ 05

Test-score deep dive

Current SAT: 1540 (M780 / EBRW760), single sitting November 2025. Position vs target schools’ middle-50%, with retake value per school.

7 rows · SAT 1540 baseline
School
Mid-50%
Retake value
Position
MIT
1530–1580
+2pp at 1580; +3pp at 1600
At median
Stanford
1500–1580
~1–2pp
At median+
Caltech
1530–1580
+4pp at 1580; +6pp at 1600
At median
CMU SCS
1500–1570
+3pp at +40
At median+
UC Berkeley EECS
1500–1580
+4pp at +40
Median
Georgia Tech / UIUC / UMich CoE
Above mid-50%
+2–3pp at +40
Above
Purdue
Well above
No retake value
Model recommendation
A November retake is not the highest-leverage move. A +40 composite lifts Caltech ~4pp and Berkeley ~4pp; the same 60 hours spent closing the senior-year coursework gap (§8) and attempting one more USACO contest projects a larger combined lift across the reach tier. If a retake fits without crowding out higher-leverage work, target +40 in November.
§ 06

Senior coursework

The current draft of the personal narrative reads as a “USACO-and-research” story. Both arcs are strong individually. Together, they put two thirds of the essay on top of the same technical signal — exactly the breadth concern flagged in §5.

The most under-used arc in the file is Code-for-Lexington. The narrative could open with the founding moment (your motivation, what you saw missing in town), thread the USACO + research arcs as the technical voice that grew out of it, and close with what you’ve seen change.

Three school-specific framings

3 framings · scored against breadth concern
CMU SCS / MIT / Caltech
Lead with USACO arc, weave Code-for-Lexington as evidence of impact-orientation.
Current draft, mostly fine.
Stanford / Princeton / Brown
Lead with Code-for-Lexington founding, weave USACO/research as the technical capability that made it work.
Best for breadth-valuing readers.
Vanderbilt / Williams / Harvey Mudd
Stanford framing + a short paragraph on piano as the 'second register'.
Model recommends as the default — resolves the breadth concern.
§ 07

Extracurricular assessment

Spring ’26 baseline (currently planned): AP Stat, AP Lit, AP Spanish, CS independent study, music theory. Three complete plans, scored on probability lift AND narrative coherence.

MODEL PICK
PLAN A
Multivariable + Linear Algebra (Harvard Ext. dual-enroll) + AP Stat + AP Lit + Data Structures (LHS)
Strongest for the CS-reach narrative.
+3.1 pp reach avg
+Signals post-AP math competence directly
+Dual-enroll transcripts read as college-level rigor
+Data Structures closes one real gap
High Q1 workload — risk of B in AP Lit
Commute/schedule to Harvard Ext.
PLAN B
BC retake for A+ + AP Stat + AP Lit + Mentored research continuation + Internship period
Safer; neutral signal.
+0.4 pp
+Lower stress, preserves GPA
+Research time protected
No new depth signal past 11th grade
Reach readers may see plateau
Weakest narrative of the three
PLAN C
Multivariable (LHS) + AP Lit + AP Stat + Independent ML study + Competition calendar (USACO Platinum, Putnam)
Maximizes distinctive signal.
+2.6 pp
+Competition results shift narrative from 'strong student' to 'exceptional'
+Independent study produces tangible artifact
Putnam is noisy — no medal is possible
No dual-enroll transcript to show
§ 08

Narrative read

Tier reads at admissions readers — three layers of legibility.

3 tiers · ranked by reader weight
T1
Load-bearing, distinctive
  • USACO Platinum qualifier — top 4% nationally
  • Mentored research at Harvard BioChem (graph-theoretic protein folding)
T2
Substantial, needs framing
  • Code for Lexington (co-founder + lead, 2 yr) — needs outcome data points
  • Varsity cross-country captain (junior + senior)
T3
Supporting cast
  • Piano — ABRSM Grade 8 distinction, ~9 yr
  • + 7 more activities

Recommendations

  • ·Promote Code-for-Lexington to slot 3 with an outcome-anchored description.
  • ·Demote piano to slot 5 with hours that reflect the actual long commitment, not the perceived prestige.
  • ·Re-write the cross-country bullet to lead with captaincy + team-building if no state-level placement is forthcoming.
  • ·The bottom seven activities don't need to disappear, but should be condensed; they currently dilute the signal of the top four.
§ 09

ED/EA strategy

Binding commitment is the single largest lever. The conventional wisdom — “apply ED to your top choice” — ignores that schools vary wildly in how much ED actually moves the needle.

For this profile, ED to CMU SCS is the dominant move. EA to Caltech, Georgia Tech, and UMich CoE stack on top — all non-restrictive. Avoid REA at MIT because the lift is smaller than the cost of forfeiting Caltech EA + UMich EA.

6 options · sorted by strategic priority
Option
Constraint / note
RD prob.
Early prob.
Δ at school
ED → CMU SCSMODEL PICK
Single highest-leverage binding commitment. CMU sits at a steep section of the acceptance curve for these stats.
19%
31%
+12 pp at school
EA → Caltech
Non-restrictive. Stacks with ED.
14%
17%
+3 pp at school
EA → Georgia Tech
Non-restrictive. Deadline Oct 15 — tight.
47%
54%
+7 pp at school
EA → UMich CoE
Non-restrictive; rolling admits favor early.
58%
66%
+8 pp at school
REA → MIT
Single-choice early. Blocks all other private EAs — opportunity cost too high.
11%
16%
+5 pp at school
ED → MIT
MIT is REA, not ED. Not an option.
N/A
Financial-fit note
CMU SCS net-price calculator outputs need to be inside the family budget before ED is committed. ED is binding.
§ 10

Added school recommendations

Five suggestions the family list is missing — each with the read for THIS specific student.

5 picks · school-list additions
Harvey Mudd
Reach
18%
Small, intense, proof-heavy CS. Aligns with Arjun's competition-math bent. Core curriculum matches his comfort zone better than most reaches; writing-sample requirement plays to his above-average verbal score.
Why missing:Profile prioritized rankings, not fit.
Rice CS — Residential College
Target+
34%
Under-applied by Northeast STEM students. Residential-college culture rewards the community-building signal in Code-for-Lexington. Houston tech ecosystem growing.
Why missing:Geographic bias; doesn't surface in most LHS peer lists.
Vanderbilt — Blair/Engineering double
Target
42%
Only works if he'd consider continuing piano formally — your conversation notes suggest yes. Vanderbilt reads this pairing as genuinely distinctive; acceptance model shows a 7pp lift for applicants with Grade 8+ performance audition track.
Why missing:Requires a secondary interest the family doesn't initially surface as 'admissions material'.
University of Waterloo CS / Co-op
Target
56%
Best-in-class co-op pipeline for a student who wants real-world CS pre-grad. USACO Platinum translates directly into Waterloo's CCC/CCO-oriented admit lens. Canada tuition + F-1 visa math works.
Why missing:Outside US conventional list.
Williams (CS + Math)
Reach
16%
Higher admit rate than comparable reaches; small CS but exceptional faculty ratio. The research mentor signal (Harvard BioChem) is fungible there in a way it isn't at MIT.
Why missing:Liberal arts not yet on radar.
§ 11

Action plan

A complete plan from now through every deadline. Every item is tied to a section in this report.

THIS WEEK
Reorder activities + add outcome data
USACO 1, research 2, Code-for-Lexington 3, cross-country 4, piano 5. Add two outcome data points to the Code-for-Lexington description.
OCTOBER
Lock senior coursework switch to Plan A
Register for Harvard Ext. multivariable + linear algebra. Notify counselor of the change so the mid-year report reflects it.
OCT 15
Submit Georgia Tech EA application
Tightest of the early deadlines.
NOV 1
ED / EA submissions
ED: CMU SCS. EA: Caltech, UMich CoE. Take November SAT (target 1580+ — only worth it if it doesn't crowd out applications).
NOVEMBER
USACO Platinum contest
One more attempt is part of the +2.6pp upside in Plan C; can be done without conflict with the early submissions.
BY DEC 1
Submit RD applications
MIT, Stanford, Berkeley, UIUC, Purdue. Add Harvey Mudd, Rice, Vanderbilt, Waterloo, Williams (per §11).
MID-DEC
CMU SCS ED decision lands
If admitted, withdraw all remaining applications. If deferred, all RD applications are already in.
SPRING
Mid-year report + RD decisions
Mid-year report reflects Plan A coursework. Final RD decisions land between mid-March and early April.
Data changed?
Rerun this report with new data

Any upload — new transcript, test score, activity, or target — rebuilds all twelve sections against your updated record. $49, about four minutes.

Refresh report
End of sample · executive summary + 7 of 11 detail sections shown

Your student's report — generated in minutes from one upload pass.

$249 one-time. Refresh for $49 whenever a new score, activity, or course lands. Money-back if the report doesn't generate.

Get my report → $249How the model works