I wonder sometimes if when these questions are asked of people that they aren't skewed towards tier-1 research university admissions processes. That's not to say it isn't valuable knowledge, but for someone who is very enthusiastic about math, but for one reason or another had trouble with some classes, might like to know a tier-2 research university would expect (I am describing myself here, I am not merely hypothesizing). I'm honestly not sure, I will be applying in the fall to schools in both categories.

I here people talk about graduate courses being a plus and I know people who have gotten into grad school without graduate courses under their belt. Similarly many who have gotten into graduate school that never took the Putnam exam.

I also somewhat wonder whether Applied Math programs look at applicants in different ways than Pure Math programs (though the distinction is not always made, and sometimes what is essentially an applied math program will not even have "math" in the title, or a program that could potentially satisfy an applied math person in their wants)

It seems that these questions always end up with answers skewed towards tier-1 research universities and especially the study of pure math rather than applied... could anyone comment on applied math or tier-2 research universities?