<p>I'm curious about the difference between an applicant that would be considered "well-rounded" versus one that would come across as having a laundry list of EC's and being a resume padder. Assuming there isn't a big red arrow or anything, is there any sure way to differentiate between the two? For example:</p>
<p>Student 1:
-involved in variety of EC's (sports, clubs, leadership) because wants to get into top college. A bit of a resume padder, joins a lot of things because thinks it will look good.
-Isn't really passionate about much, but studies a lot and is top student in class.
-Burning desire to attend Harvard or any other prestigous school.
-Gets stressed about the littlest difference in grade point average (takes as many AP classes as possible) and extremely competitive nature</p>
<p>Student 2:
-also involved in variety of EC's (sports, clubs, leadership), mostly does for fun.
-Passionate about one or two things, but not really has anything to show for it (no major awards, etc.)
-In top 5 of class, 4.0 UW gradepoint average, cares a lot about grades.
-Wants to go to top school, but one with a good fit, Ivy League may fall under that category, might not. </p>
<p>A lot of people of CC say, "adcoms will know immediately the difference between resume padders and people who are passionate and well-rounded", or "Don't join things just too look good, it won't work." Although this advice should be true, I'm not so sure. I personally can't think of a bigger resume padder than a girl last year who got into Stanford. What makes you guys so convinced that adcoms can correctly differentiate?</p>
<p>Assuming you didn't know that a student only joined an activity because it "looks good" I don't see how an anyone could tell the difference. I mean, something like "debate club" would look exactly the same on paper, irregardless if the student joined because they actually enjoyed doing it or just because they thought it would look impressive.
And at top schools, there are so many well-rounded kids involved in a ton of things. And I refuse to believe that there aren't a large number of EC/prestige whores at schools like HYP.</p>
<p>There seems to be a thin line between well-roundedness and laundry lists...at what point, in your opinion, does someone across as "resume padder"? Do top colleges care whether people do EC's just to look good, or will they just take the most impressive sounding people? Or look deeper and try to discern who might be passionate about things? </p>
<p>Arugably, a student who does something like starting a nonprofit charity could be the most "self-aware" applicant who goes out the way to impress adcoms. Isn't somebody who doesn't know as much about the admissions game and who does something like work at a restaurant and play a varsity sport just as deserving of admissions? Just their EC's are now considered "lackluster" because they do normal activities. Wouldn't you say students who go out of there way to do unique things are sometimes the biggest resume padders? It kind of defeats the purpose of looking for passion, IMO.</p>
<p>When everyone has good, well-rounded EC's (beyond good grades and test scores) what comes next? Does it really come down to essays or some other unknown factor? </p>
<p>How would a student demonstrate "passion" in an area that they are interested in? Awards and honors? Related EC's? Research? All of those? A good essay? At what point does an interest become a passion, and a passion become a hook?</p>