Tier-1 University Summer Programs: What They Reward (and What They Don’t)

The Pre-College ROI Project | Issue 4 of 12

By Lindsey Kundel, Editor in Chief, InGenius Prep

There is a specific conversation that happens in college counseling offices every spring. A student returns from a university summer program—two weeks at Harvard, three weeks at Yale, a month at Northwestern—carrying a transcript, a written evaluation, and the confident expectation that this experience will matter to admissions. The counselor’s job, at that moment, is to be honest without being unkind.

The honest truth: for the vast majority of university-run summer programs, the university’s name carries more weight in the family’s perception than in the admissions reader’s interpretation. A 2015 Brown University administrator confirmed that the school’s summer program generated $6 million in a single year, roughly 70% of which was profit. Harvard’s Pre-College Program charges $6,100 for two weeks. MIT’s own website distinguishes its merit-based programs from others by noting, directly, that most summer programs “admit all or most students who can pay the (high) tuition.”

This installment applies the four-pillar ROI framework to university summer programs—mapping the wide range between programs that genuinely signal academic achievement and programs that primarily signal disposable income. The data on this distinction is unusually clear. And the lower-cost alternatives are, in many cases, more credible.

Executive Summary

University summer programs for high school students represent one of the largest and most misunderstood spending categories in pre-college education. Families pay between $2,000 and $20,000 for experiences ranging from two weeks to two months, often motivated by the belief that attending a program at Harvard, Yale, Stanford, or similar institutions will confer admissions advantage at those or comparable universities.

The evidence does not support this belief—at least not for the majority of programs. Admissions experts consulted across multiple published investigations are nearly unanimous: most university-run pre-college programs have minimal direct admissions impact, are aware of this fact internally, and rely on their brand names to attract families willing to pay premium prices. A single university can generate $4–6 million in summer program revenue. The programs are openly described, by those who run them, as revenue diversification vehicles.

At the same time, a small and clearly distinguishable category of university-associated programs carries genuine, recognized admissions value. These programs are almost uniformly free, highly selective, and merit-based. They include MIT’s MITES (Minority Introduction to Engineering and Science), the Princeton University Preparatory Program, TASS (Telluride Association Summer Seminar) at Cornell, Michigan, and Maryland, and the Summer Science Program (SSP). Their acceptance rates range from approximately 10% to under 3%. Their cost to students is zero.

The central finding of this installment:

The most credible university-associated summer programs are free. The most expensive ones are, in most cases, revenue generators that admissions readers treat with skepticism.

This inverse relationship—between cost and admissions credibility—is one of the starkest ROI patterns in the entire pre-college landscape. Families who understand it will make fundamentally different decisions than those who do not.

Section 1 — The Landscape: A $4–6 Million Business

1.1 How University Summer Programs Became a Market

University summer programs for high school students have existed for decades, primarily as enrichment opportunities for academically motivated teens. What changed over the past two decades is scale, cost, and the explicit framing of these programs as college admissions investments.

As admissions pressure intensified and families sought ways to differentiate applications, universities recognized an opportunity. Empty dormitories, underutilized classrooms, and brand names with extraordinary market power could be combined into a summer revenue stream. A 2015 Brown University administrator confirmed publicly that the school’s summer program generated $6 million in a single year—approximately 70% of which was profit. The administrator described the summer program as one of several efforts to “diversify the university’s revenue streams and reduce its reliance on undergraduate tuition.”

Brown is not unique. Across the Ivy League and elite university landscape, summer programs have become substantial revenue contributors. A 2020 CBS News investigation, citing college consultancy founder Christopher Rim, estimated that a single school could earn $4 to $5 million in summer tuition revenue annually. Harvard’s program charges $6,100 for two weeks (2026 pricing); the 7-week residential Secondary School Program at Harvard runs $14,250. Yale Young Global Scholars charges over $6,000 for two weeks. These are not modest fees.

The marketing language that surrounds these programs explicitly targets admissions anxiety. Programs describe themselves as opportunities to “strengthen your college application,” “signal academic readiness,” and demonstrate the kind of initiative that “elite universities seek.” Harvard’s own website notes that 20% of 2024 survey respondents reported attending an Ivy League institution after attending Harvard Summer School—a statistic that implies correlation without establishing causation, and that does not account for the selection effect of the kind of student who could afford and was motivated to attend Harvard Summer School in the first place.

1.2 The Taxonomy: Three Structurally Different Models

University-associated summer programs fall into three structurally distinct categories that families routinely conflate. The distinction is not obvious from program names or websites, but it is decisive for admissions value.

Figure 1.1. The three structural categories of university-associated summer programs differ fundamentally in selectivity, cost, and admissions credibility. The inverse relationship between cost and credibility is the most important pattern in this category.

1.3 The Branding Problem

The core challenge for families is that all three program types often appear under the same institutional umbrella. A student who attends Harvard Summer School and a student who participates in a highly selective merit-based program at Harvard are both associated with “Harvard.” On the Common App activities section, the distinction may not be immediately apparent.

This is not accidental. MIT’s own website makes the distinction explicitly, noting that it distinguishes its merit-based programs from the broader universe of university summer programs precisely because most programs “admit all or most students who can pay the (high) tuition.” That candor is unusual. Most programs do not advertise their acceptance rates, and their elaborate application processes—essays, transcripts, counselor reports—create an impression of selectivity that may not reflect the actual acceptance rate.

Admissions readers at selective institutions have developed pattern recognition for this. They know which programs within a given university’s summer portfolio are genuinely selective and which are not. A student who lists “Harvard Summer School” without specifying which program attended has not signaled achievement; they have signaled that they completed an application process and paid a fee.

Section 2 — Why Families Misread Value

2.1 The Institutional Halo Effect

Harvard’s undergraduate acceptance rate for the Class of 2028 was approximately 3.6%. Attending a program at Harvard feels like an achievement adjacent to that selectivity—as if the institution’s standards are, in some way, being applied to the student who walks its campus.

They are not. Harvard’s Pre-College Program describes its admissions process as based on “academic readiness, maturity, and interest in benefiting from a rigorous pre-college experience.” It does not publish an acceptance rate. The program accepts rising juniors and seniors who meet basic eligibility requirements and can pay $6,100 for two weeks. The instructors are “primarily Harvard affiliates—advanced graduate students and lecturers.”

The halo is real as a cognitive phenomenon and essentially absent as an admissions signal. Admissions readers who went to and work for Harvard know what Harvard Summer School is. They are not confusing it with Harvard College.

2.2 The Application Process as a Credibility Signal

Many university summer programs require what feel like college application materials: transcripts, essays, recommendation letters, sometimes standardized test scores. The elaborateness of this process implies meaningful selection. Families assume that if getting in required effort, getting in means something.

The effort required to apply and the selectivity of the outcome are not the same thing. A program can require two essays, a counselor report, and a $75 application fee while accepting 80% of applicants. The application process is, in some cases, primarily a mechanism for qualifying students as able to pay and for managing enrollment volume—not for identifying the academically exceptional.

One admissions consultant quoted in a 2020 CBS News investigation put it plainly: “The market believes they confer an advantage, but the universities don’t advertise that they do.”

2.3 The 20% Statistic and Correlation vs. Causation

Harvard Summer School’s 2024 survey finding—that 20% of respondents reported attending an Ivy League institution after attending Harvard Summer School—illustrates a pervasive misreading of correlation.

Students who can afford $6,100 for a two-week program at Harvard are, statistically, more likely to attend elite institutions. They attend better-resourced schools. They have more access to college counseling. They take more rigorous coursework. They apply to more selective institutions. The 20% figure reflects the characteristics of the Harvard Summer School applicant pool, not a causal effect of the program on admissions outcomes.

A student from this population who did not attend Harvard Summer School and instead spent the summer doing independent research or working a meaningful job would likely face similar admissions outcomes. The program is not moving the needle. The student’s pre-existing profile is.

2.4 The College Credit Confusion

Some university summer programs offer college credit, which creates a separate and legitimate value proposition: completing coursework that can transfer, satisfy requirements, or demonstrate readiness for college-level academics. This is distinct from admissions value.

Harvard’s Secondary School Program offers college credit for its 4- and 7-week courses, priced at $7,700 (4-week residential) to $14,250 (7-week residential). These credits are real and transferable to most colleges and universities. The academic experience is legitimate.

But college credit from a summer program and admissions advantage from a summer program are different things. A student who earns college credit in a summer course has demonstrated college-level academic performance. They have not demonstrated that they were selected by a meaningful external evaluation process—which is what drives Credibility ROI in admissions review.

Section 3 — Applying the Four-Pillar ROI Framework

3.1 Growth ROI

Growth ROI in summer programs depends almost entirely on what the student actually does during the program—not on where the program is held. A two-week exploratory course at Harvard in which a student attends lectures, completes readings, and receives a written evaluation from an instructor can produce real intellectual Growth ROI if the coursework is genuinely rigorous and the student engages with it seriously. The same course at a less prestigious institution would produce equivalent growth.

Growth ROI is not a function of institutional branding. It is a function of whether the student was challenged, whether the challenge produced new capability, and whether that capability is transferable to subsequent coursework or projects.

High Growth ROI in summer programs:  Programs with intensive academic expectations—substantial reading, problem sets, lab work, or project development—where the student can describe specific things they learned or produced. The student’s coursework or experience connects to prior interests and future study.

Low Growth ROI in summer programs:  Programs centered primarily on the college experience—campus tours, dining hall meals, social activities, and brief academic sessions—where the student’s primary takeaway is what it felt like to be on a college campus. The experience is pleasant and potentially useful for college selection, but does not develop academic capability.

3.2 Narrative ROI

Summer programs generate Narrative ROI when they deepen, clarify, or advance a student’s academic throughline. A student interested in neuroscience who spends six weeks in a selective summer research program studying neurobiology has strengthened their academic narrative. A student interested in neuroscience who spends two weeks at Harvard taking a survey course in “The Science of the Brain” has had an experience that may or may not deepen their story, depending on what they did with it.

The risk for Narrative ROI in the revenue-generating program category is that families select summer programs based on institutional brand rather than disciplinary alignment. A student whose application needs to show sustained engagement with environmental science does not strengthen their narrative by taking a two-week business course at Wharton’s pre-college program, regardless of how impressive Wharton sounds.

Narrative ROI requires that the summer program fit into the student’s story—not that the story fit around the summer program.

3.3 Credibility ROI

This is where the data is most decisive. The Credibility ROI of a summer program depends on whether an admissions reader interprets the listing as evidence of genuine achievement or as evidence of financial investment.

Figure 3.1. Credibility ROI in summer programs is inversely correlated with cost and positively correlated with genuine selectivity. Programs that are both expensive and non-selective carry the lowest credibility.

The risk of the negative credibility interpretation is real. Multiple admissions experts have noted that an expensive, low-selectivity summer program can signal to admissions readers that a family is willing to spend money rather than that a student earned something. At highly selective institutions where readers are experienced pattern-matchers, this signal is decoded quickly.

3.4 Wellbeing ROI

University summer programs can deliver meaningful Wellbeing ROI independent of their admissions value—and this is worth acknowledging directly.

A student who spends two weeks on a college campus, lives in a dormitory, navigates a new social environment, manages their own schedule, and discovers a subject area they had not encountered before has had a developmentally meaningful experience. The Growth ROI of this experience may be modest. The Credibility ROI may be minimal. But the experience of independence, peer connection, and intellectual exploration can be genuinely valuable for a student’s confidence and college readiness.

The error is not in pursuing these experiences for their own sake. The error is in expecting them to serve as admissions credentials when their structure does not support that interpretation. Families who spend $6,000–14,000 specifically because they believe it will meaningfully help with college admissions are likely to be disappointed. Families who spend that money because their student will genuinely benefit from the experience and they can comfortably afford it are making a different and more defensible calculation.

Section 4 — Category-by-Category Analysis

4.1 The High-Credibility Category: Free, Selective Merit Programs

A small number of university-associated summer programs carry genuine, recognized admissions credibility. They share three features: they are free, they are highly selective, and their selectivity reflects real academic evaluation rather than enrollment management.

Figure 4.1. High-credibility university-associated summer programs are nearly all free or need-blind. Cost is not the barrier; academic preparation and genuine selectivity are.

These programs are recognized by name at research-intensive and highly selective institutions. A student who is admitted to TASS or MITES does not need to explain what the program is; the name conveys selectivity and academic rigor to readers familiar with the competition landscape. For students in relevant fields and profiles, these are among the highest-ROI summer experiences available.

The catch: they are genuinely difficult to gain admission to. TASS accepts approximately 3–5% of applicants for a six-week experience focused on intensive seminar-style discussion of complex texts. SSP’s 10% acceptance rate reflects the rigor of its research-based program. MITES is MIT’s own investment in identifying and developing talent from underrepresented communities—it is not a revenue vehicle.

4.2 The Middle Category: Departmental and Academically-Administered Paid Programs

Between the fully free merit programs and the revenue-generating enrichment programs sits a middle category: paid programs administered by university academic departments or research institutes rather than by continuing education divisions. These programs vary considerably in selectivity and rigor, and their admissions value depends on specifics that families must research rather than assume.

Indicators that a paid program may fall in this middle, moderate-credibility category:

• Administered by an academic department (biology, mathematics, humanities) rather than by a Division of Continuing Education or a school of professional studies
• Acceptance rate below 30%, with published or inquire-able selection criteria
• Students produce real academic work—a research project, a paper, a presentation—evaluated by faculty
• Program has been running for multiple decades with documented alumni outcomes
• Financial aid is available and the program is not exclusively accessible to families who can pay full price

Examples in this category include programs like the Garcia Summer Research Program at Stony Brook University (highly selective, 3.8 GPA requirement, research-focused), Clark Scholars Program at Texas Tech (12 students annually, free), and the Michigan State University High School Honors Science, Mathematics, and Engineering Program (HSHSP, 24 students annually, research-focused).

4.3 The Low-Credibility Category: Revenue-Generating Enrichment Programs

This is the largest and most expensive category, and the one where the gap between family expectations and admissions reality is widest.

Harvard Pre-College Program: Two weeks, $6,100 (2026), non-credit, classes taught primarily by advanced graduate students and lecturers rather than full-time faculty. No published acceptance rate. Accepts rising juniors and seniors who meet basic eligibility (age 16+, high school student) and can pay. Harvard’s own financial aid for the program covers only a portion of costs and is limited. The program is openly described as offering “a glimpse of college life,” which is accurate and appropriate—it is not described as a selective academic achievement.

Harvard Secondary School Program: 4–7 weeks, $7,700–14,250 (2026), college credit available. More academically substantive than the Pre-College Program. Still primarily an enrichment offering with modest selectivity and a student population determined largely by those who can afford and choose to apply.

Yale Young Global Scholars (YYGS): Two weeks, approximately $6,000+, described as “internationally diverse” and interdisciplinary. Presents an elaborate application process. Accepted by thousands of students annually across multiple sessions. Admissions experts consistently describe it as a networking experience rather than an academically selective credential.

The common thread: these programs are well-run, pleasant, sometimes academically stimulating experiences that carry minimal independent admissions weight. As one admissions expert quoted by CBS News summarized: “They are a type of summer camp for kids. Your kid is somewhat supervised and is not running wild all summer—they are doing something academic.”

The problem is not the programs. It is the mismatch between what families pay for them and what they expect to receive in return.

4.4 A Special Note on Third-Party Programs at University Campuses

A meaningful subset of programs marketed as “university programs” are actually operated by third-party companies that lease campus facilities during the summer. The university’s name appears in the program’s marketing. The university’s admissions office has no involvement in the program and no awareness of individual participants. The instructors are not university faculty.

Shemmassian Academic Consulting, a widely-read college advising resource, notes this explicitly: “In many cases, colleges lend their names and campuses to programs run by outside, for-profit companies in order to make money off of otherwise vacant facilities over the summer.”

Families should verify: Is this program administered directly by the university, by an academic department, by a continuing education division, or by a third-party company? The answer determines not only what the student will experience but also what the listing will mean to an admissions reader.

Section 5 — What Admissions Officers Actually See

5.1 The Pattern Recognition

Admissions readers at selective institutions read thousands of applications annually and develop pattern recognition for program categories. Within the summer programs space, the following patterns are broadly understood:

• MITES, TASS, SSP, RSI, PRIMES, PROMYS, and a small number of similar programs are known quantities with recognized selectivity. A listing from these programs is immediately legible.
• Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, Columbia, and similar universities’ continuing education programs are known to have high acceptance rates and revenue-generating structures. A listing from these programs is read as a summer activity, not as a competitive credential.
• Programs the reader cannot identify are researched or, more often, evaluated on the basis of the student’s description of what they actually did.

The third category is instructive. A student who attended a lesser-known but genuinely selective and rigorous summer program—and who describes their work specifically, references a faculty mentor, and connects the experience to their academic interests—may receive more interpretive credit than a student who lists “Harvard Summer School” without further context.

5.2 The Two Questions Readers Ask

For any summer program listing, admissions readers are implicitly asking two questions:

• Was this student selected, or did they self-select (and pay)?
• What did this student actually do while they were there?

The first question is answered by selectivity and cost structure. Programs with verifiable acceptance rates below 20% and free or low-cost access structures answer it affirmatively. Programs with high acceptance rates and $5,000+ price tags answer it ambiguously at best.

The second question is answered by the student’s description. A student who attended Harvard Summer School and describes, in their activities section and essays, the specific intellectual problem they worked on, the way the course changed their thinking about a subject, and the follow-through action they took after the program answers the second question well. A student who lists “Harvard Summer School—studied neuroscience” does not.

5.3 Two Composite Case Comparisons

Case A: Expensive, Recognizable, Low-ROI

A student lists three summer programs across three years: Yale Young Global Scholars (9th grade, $6,000), Harvard Pre-College Program (10th grade, $6,100), and a Columbia University pre-college course (11th grade, $8,000+). Total investment: approximately $20,000+. Each listing notes the program name and a general subject area. No recommender mentions summer programs. The student’s essays do not reference summer experiences.

Admissions interpretation: The reader notes that the student’s family has invested substantially in their summer activities, that these were accessible experiences rather than selective ones, and that the student’s summer narrative does not inform the rest of the application. The experiences are not disqualifying—they are simply irrelevant as credentials.

Case B: Free, Selective, High-ROI

A student lists Summer Science Program (10th grade, accepted ~10%, free) in astrophysics. They describe their 39-day research project, the specific dataset they analyzed, the unexpected result they found, and how the experience clarified their interest in pursuing physics. Their physics teacher recommendation references the SSP experience specifically. Their college essay describes the moment a measurement they took themselves contradicted a published result—and what that taught them about scientific uncertainty.

Admissions interpretation: This listing is immediately legible as a meaningful achievement. The program is known. The acceptance rate confirms selection. The description demonstrates intellectual engagement. The recommendation corroborates the claim. The essay shows the experience had genuine impact. The reader learns something specific about how this student engages with scientific uncertainty.

Section 6 — The Equity Dimension

University summer programs sit at an unusual intersection: the most expensive programs are the least credible, and the most credible programs are free. This structure has meaningful equity implications.

6.1 What Cost Does and Doesn’t Signal

An admissions reader who sees Harvard Summer School on an application knows that the student’s family spent $6,100 for the experience. This information is not irrelevant. It is part of the context in which the reader evaluates the rest of the application—not positively or negatively, but as background on the student’s access to resources.

A student who gains admission to TASS, SSP, or MITES has been selected from a competitive pool on the basis of academic merit, without financial ability as a factor. That selection is interpretable as evidence of capability in a way that a purchased experience cannot be.

This is one reason the merit programs matter: they are one of the few categories in pre-college education where a genuinely level playing field exists, and where a student from any economic background who has the preparation can compete on the same terms as a student from any other background.

6.2 Contextual Evaluation

Admissions readers at selective institutions are trained to evaluate summer experiences within opportunity context. A student from a low-income background who worked a paying job over the summer has demonstrated work ethic and responsibility in a way that directly reflects their circumstances. A student from a well-resourced background who attended three university summer programs has demonstrated access to resources.

Neither is automatically advantaged or disadvantaged—but the interpretation is contextual, not absolute. Families who assume that spending more on summer programs will automatically translate to better admissions outcomes are misunderstanding the interpretive lens.

Section 7 — Family Decision Tools

7.1 The Three Questions to Ask Before Enrolling

Before committing to any university summer program, families should be able to answer:

1. What is the acceptance rate—and is it publicly available? (If not published, it is worth contacting the program directly or researching admissions forums. A program that does not publish its acceptance rate may have reasons for that choice.)
2. Who operates this program: the university’s academic department, its division of continuing education, or a third-party company? (The answer determines both the academic quality of instruction and the admissions interpretation of attendance.)
3. What will my student actually produce, do, or develop? (A research project, a piece of writing, a lab skill, a dataset—something specific—or primarily a campus experience and social connections?)

If the acceptance rate is high, the operator is a continuing education division, and the primary output is a campus experience rather than academic work, the program’s admissions value will be limited regardless of the institution’s name.

7.2 The Enrollment Decision Framework

7.3 Alternative Pathways With Equal or Higher ROI

The strongest summer activities for admissions purposes are often not university programs:

• Applying to free, selective merit programs: TASS, SSP, MITES, PROMYS, SIMR, and similar programs are competitive but offer higher Credibility ROI than most paid programs at the same institutions.
• Independent research or project work: A student who spends a summer pursuing a genuine intellectual project—writing, coding, analyzing data, designing an experiment—with a mentor who can speak to the work produces highly credible evidence of initiative.
• Meaningful employment or community engagement: A summer job, particularly in a field connected to the student’s academic interests, can demonstrate qualities—responsibility, self-direction, real-world engagement—that expensive summer programs cannot.
• Competition preparation (advanced): A student who uses the summer to prepare for ISEF, advance in math competitions, or develop a serious creative portfolio produces externally evaluable evidence of achievement.
• Local university research access: A well-prepared student who identifies a local university researcher in their area of interest and requests a summer research placement may gain genuine lab or research access at no cost—with significantly higher Credibility ROI than a paid enrichment program at the same institution.

7.4 Red Flag Scoring for Summer Programs

Figure 7.1. Summer program red flag scoring. Three or more signals, particularly any high-weight signals, should prompt serious reconsideration of the program as an admissions investment.

Section 8 — Methodology Note

This installment applies the same four-pillar ROI framework used across the series. Program-specific data is drawn from official program websites, published admissions guidance, and documented investigative reporting.

Key data points and sources: Harvard Pre-College Program cost ($6,100 for 2026) from Harvard Summer School official website. Harvard Secondary School Program 7-week residential cost ($14,250) from program website. Brown University summer program revenue ($6 million, 70% profit) from The Washington Post / Ivy Coach, citing a 2015 Brown campus newspaper report. CBS News revenue estimate ($4–5 million per institution) from 2020 reporting citing Christopher Rim, Command Education. SSP acceptance rate (~10%) and cost ($9,800, free for families under $75,000) from official SSP website. TASS acceptance rate (~3–5%) from program documentation. Harvard’s own language distinguishing merit programs from tuition-based programs from MIT’s program website. The 20% Ivy enrollment statistic from Harvard Summer School’s own survey materials.

Expert commentary is drawn from published sources: Brendan Mernin (Noodle Pros) and Christopher Rim (Command Education) via CBS News; Shemmassian Academic Consulting published guidance; College Transitions published guidance; and MIT’s own language on its program website.

Section 9 — Looking Ahead: May and the Internship Question

The May installment examines internships and “research mentorships”—a category that overlaps substantially with April’s analysis but introduces a distinct set of questions. Where summer programs are primarily evaluated on selectivity and institutional structure, internships are evaluated on role clarity, responsibility, and evidence of real-world contribution.

The specific tension May will address: the word “internship” is applied to experiences ranging from genuine professional responsibility at meaningful organizations to essentially supervised observation at a family friend’s office. As with summer programs and research, the label does not determine the value—the structure does. May’s data will document how wide that range actually is, and how admissions readers navigate it.

Section 10 — Conclusion

The university summer program market is one of the clearest examples in pre-college education of a gap between what families are sold and what admissions readers value. The institutions running these programs are among the most trusted brands in American education. The programs themselves are often pleasant, sometimes academically stimulating, and occasionally genuinely valuable. But for most families, the primary benefit is not admissions advantage—it is the experience itself.

The inverse relationship between cost and credibility in this category is striking and important. Brown’s summer program generated approximately $6 million in a single year—largely profit. Harvard charges $6,100 for two weeks. The most credible university-associated summer programs are free. TASS, MITES, SSP, and PROMYS are fully funded for admitted students. The barrier to these programs is not financial. It is academic preparation and the willingness to compete for genuine selection.

Spending $6,000 to list a university’s name is not the same as earning the right to list it. Admissions readers know the difference.

Families who understand this distinction will make fundamentally better decisions about where to invest their summer resources. A student who spends a summer in a selective free program, pursuing independent research with a mentor, or working meaningfully in their area of interest will, in most cases, present a more compelling application than a student who spent three summers at expensive university programs—regardless of which universities hosted them.

The clearest test: if the program is free or fully funded and you had to compete to get in, it probably matters. If you paid to attend, what matters is what you did while you were there.

Issue 5—Internships & “Research Mentorships”: Distinguishing Responsibility from Shadowing—publishes in May.

References

Section 1 — Market Data

CBS News / Cerullo, M. (2020). Pricey summer pre-college programs won’t get your kid into a better school. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/pricey-summer-programs-wont-help-get-your-kid-into-college/

The Washington Post / Ivy Coach. (2023). America’s elite universities are making millions off summer programs for teens. https://www.ivycoach.com/press/the-washington-post/americas-elite-universities-are-making-millions-off-summer-programs

Harvard Summer School. (2026). Pre-College Program cost and financial aid. https://summer.harvard.edu/high-school-programs/pre-college-program/cost-and-financial-aid/

Harvard Summer School. (2024). Secondary School Program cost. https://www.summerapply.com/school/harvard-university/secondary-school-program/

Harvard Summer School. (2024). Admissions page. https://summer.harvard.edu/high-school-programs/pre-college-program/admissions/

Sections 2–3 — ROI Framework

Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124–1131.

National Association for College Admission Counseling. (2023). State of College Admission. https://www.nacacnet.org

Damour, L. (2019). Under pressure: Confronting the epidemic of stress and anxiety in girls. Ballantine Books.

Shemmassian Academic Consulting. (2025). The best summer programs for high school students. https://www.shemmassianconsulting.com/blog/summer-programs-for-high-school-students

Sections 4–7 — Program-Specific Data

MIT MITES Program. (n.d.). Minority Introduction to Engineering and Science. https://oeop.mit.edu/programs/mites

Telluride Association. (n.d.). TASS: Telluride Association Summer Seminar. https://www.tellurideassociation.org/programs/high-school-students/tass/

Summer Science Program. (n.d.). SSP program overview and costs. https://www.summerscience.org

PROMYS. (n.d.). Program for Mathematics at Boston University. https://promys.org

College Transitions. (2026). Best summer programs for high school students. https://www.collegetransitions.com/blog/summer-programs/

Harvard College Admissions. (2022). How we read applications. https://college.harvard.edu/admissions/apply/what-we-look-for

OECD. (2021). Education at a Glance. https://www.oecd.org/education/

Bray, M. (2017). Shadow education: Private supplementary tutoring and its implications for policy makers. UNESCO IIEP. https://unesdoc.unesco.org