a wise use of my common app activity question?

College Essays
1

<p>I have really pathetic EC's, because I only got involved in most of my significant ones this year -- swimming and debate, although I have won awards for the latter. What I want to tell the AdComs (and what my MIT interviewer advised me to mention in my applications) is that as a migrant was I quite clueless about a lot of my school's ECs or felt too alienated to join them. </p>

<p>I plan to explain elsewhere that for example, my debate team only started this year, and that is why I only have one year on my application, but that I love it and have won awards (albeit as novice/JV, and any varsity awards will be after the deadlines).</p>

<p>Chess is a passion in which I have been winning tournament awards for two years now, but so far I have chosen not to write about it.</p>

<p>Rather I have chosen to write about being a Wikipedia sysop, because I think it will be more distinctive to AdComs, and I've written (in that tiny 150 word space) about mediating disputes and evaluating community "consensus," which can be a tricky thing.</p>

<p>Is this a wise choice, and furthermore, can someone evaluate what I've written? Thanks.</p>

2

<p>It seems like a good choice; it answers the question and tells more about you.</p>

3

<p>That's so interesting. If I was on an admissions committee, I would love reading about your Wikipedia involvement.</p>

4

<p>That's quite a risk. I've never heard anybody from higher education compliment Wikipedia.</p>

5

<p>I am hopeful then. I was trying to make it sound not mundane -- can someone read it just to vet it over?</p>

<p>"That's quite a risk. I've never heard anybody from higher education compliment Wikipedia."</p>

<p>I would have added how Wikipedia has allowed me to meet interesting figures from academia (including a climate modeller who works for the British Antarctic Survey), and how it was partially responsible for inspirig my passion for linguistics, but alas, the 150 word limit is so cruel. :( </p>

<p>(Also, I would add the reliability debate is getting old, since the argument of "anyone can edit it, so it must stink" has not been informed about the concept of almost-instant error correction.)</p>

6

<p>I'll read it. But be warned, I might love Wikipedia where adcoms wouldn't.</p>

7

<p>I can only hope most of them are reasonably informed of its concept... how old are AdCom members generally, anyway?</p>

8

<p>It varies immensely. There is no "general age" that I know of. I've met adcom members in their late fifties and sixties, and also those in their mid-twenties. It all depends, so it's probably safest to write for a wide audience, or to make it exceptionally clear what you mean.</p>

9

<p>I think that actually sounds really cool. I'm also writing about something that's not one of my "important activities." If it reveals something important about/to you, go for it!</p>

<p>I'd try to include the stuff about the people you got to meet... most people can edit articles, but that would show the depth of your involvement. </p>

<p>Just be careful that it's clear you understand that Wikipedia [my bible] is more useful as a starting point or a general overview than as an actual academic resource.</p>

<p>I'm willing to read it if you want, but be forewarned that I'm a HS senior.</p>

10

<p>Well, I don't think I have room to include that in -- my focus was less on the reliability than the idea of "community and consensus". I had this great idea of using my experience with Wikipedia's internal politics to discuss societies, social contract, and my theory of what happens to the distribution of power as an organisation grows, and so forth, but I replaced it with an essay of how I despise the plural monoculturalism that is substituted for true multiculturalism (a subject I feel <em>way</em> more passionate about). Tough dilemmas -- I can only hope my choices work!</p>

<p>But I will send it anyway -- tell me what you think.</p>