The author dispensing wisdom to high schoolers is himself 20 years old.

Eh. High school sucks. Get it over with as fast as possible.

Shared this with my son, who is taking his SAT tomorrow.

I generally agree that SATs and APs lose meaning once the college enrollment is behind you, though I was asked for my SAT scores by my third employer (D. E. Shaw & Co.). I had to check twice with the recruiter to be sure I’d heard her correctly that she wanted my SAT score from a decade ago. (She did.)

Probably not unrelated: DESCO was also the single highest density of talent that I’ve ever experienced post-graduation.

Talking about the AP exams in particular _improves_ time spent. You're sitting in class anyway, might as well get college credit for it. Getting a good grade there means you _won't_ have to take an equivalent course in college, most of the time. And that time in college is _truly_ free, rather than stuck in study hall, or within a boring suburb

I think he dismisses the fact that higher ranked schools will provide more opportunities. Those opportunities disproportionately affect your possible impact as well.

I went to a good, local engineering college that was respected in my metro area, but otherwise relatively unknown. It made it difficult to find a job on the early 2000s.

I did a masters at night after work at a well known state school (different metro area) and had FAANG recruiters all over the place.

I don’t know if a High School student can really prepare for selecting the “right” school, but a high quality college education is only one part of the equation. Connections and opportunities are equally, if not more important.

I agree that US K-12 education and college admissions have big problems, but I don't understand this argument:

> Compared to me at Mines, an undergraduate with the same major at MIT will enjoy a much-improved networking profile which will probably lead to a higher-paying job. They'll also have more research opportunities, [...] But if earning these benefits equates to spending class time and free time on increasing numbers rather than learning, it all becomes very difficult to justify.

OK, for the sake of argument[1], let's say that it's a choice between playing to the metrics vs. learning.

And, OK, for the sake of argument, that might mean the difference between going MIT vs. going to Colorado School of Mines.

With those givens, how is playing to the metrics difficult to justify?

[1] FWIW, my impression is that MIT incoming undergrads tend to have done both: hit the metrics, and learned.