<p>So, I'm looking through the Columbia application (Columbia being one of the very few "elite" schools that doesn't accept the common app), and I'm realizing that the application is far more constraining than the application for virtually any other top school. It seems the emphasis here is almost completely on stats: standardized test scores and grades, with comparatively little opportunity to really let the admissions committee know who you are and what you've accomplished. The space alloted for EC's is almost comical -- allowing at most a handful of words to list the activity and "leadership positions" held. In addition, the instructions say to "refrain from submitting attachments", which I assume includes resumes or more detailed explications. On the other hand, there is an indication elsewhere that "supplementary materials" are permitted -- although for most other schools, those are generally targeted fairly narrowly at performance disciplines like music and art.</p>
<p>How have applicants dealt with this limitation -- particularly applicants with meaningful activities and accomplishments? I did briefly read through some earlier threads and saw some advice along the lines of convey your "passion" in 10 words or less. Uh huh, right. Any constructive thoughts on this question would really be appreciated. Perhaps, in the end, Columbia simply makes its decisions on the numbers -- and, once you're "in the range", admission comes down to an essentially random determination (which I'm sure some would argue is equally the case at schools soliciting relatively more information) -- but I'm hoping otherwise.</p>
<p>Did you look at the rest of the application? How about the last read books or the “Why Columbia?” parts of the app? I’d say these are more interesting than anything on the common app. (Disclaimer: it has been 4 years since i even looked at a college app…)</p>
<p>Your real complaint here is in the EC section…or at least that’s all you conveyed. I don’t think you’re really thinking about who applies to Columbia. Most everyone is going to be NHS, varsity sports, etc. etc. etc…Yes these are important if you’ve had some leadership positions in them or have done some really outstanding things but for the most part, they are kind of assumed. Until you have an EC that is starting a non-profit that sells t-shirts to benefit victims of African genocide (actual EC during HS from someone in my year) then you should be able to condense things to fit onto the app in the space allotted. </p>
<p>Lets face it, VERY FEW people will have more than 1 of those sorts of ECs. If you do have one then work it into your essay.</p>
<p>Logic could also argue that by having a tailored application, Columbia takes every question and element of it seriously and that while you may feel somewhat constricted by this, they are far more likely to thoroughly read through your short, limited answers than the school that simply opts for the easier [common app] option, having no interest in the answer you provide- no matter how much space is allotted for it. </p>
<p>Of course no one but adcoms would know.</p>
<p>Skraylor, there is much merit to what you say. I agree that some other parts of the application are superior to the common app, and I did get a little excited when I saw the questions on books, concerts, etc. And, you’re right, my main issue is with the EC part of the application. What bothers me is that the application effectively treats the EC’s as the same, no matter how they were approached by or how much they meant to an individual student.</p>
<p>To take your example of NHS, I know everyone and his cousin is a member, so that means nothing in itself. Almost as irrelevant is holding an officer position in NHS (which the application does allow you to note), which probably means you are popular among the “academic” group or you happened to be one of the few in attendance on the day the vote was held (which actually worked out for me) or some other such circumstance. And, while official positions aren’t necessarily completely meaningless, they’re likely to be pretty close to meaningless. Contrast that scenario with the case of someone who doesn’t hold a leadership position per se, but who uses NHS as a platform to really make a difference, by, say, overcoming numerous obstacles to set up a fundraising drive to raise $10k for lower income students. The point is: it’s pretty much impossible to capture the real essence of any passion or true contribution on the form – which, ironically, leads to the self-fullfilling result that the people who contribute next-to-nothing (“etc, etc, etc”, as you put it) are viewed the same as those who really make a difference. I do acknowledge that the essay offers an opportunity to underscore an area of major contribution, but that comes at the opportunity cost of an ability to reveal other personal characteristics and insights, and the essay doesn’t lend itself to conveying multiple areas of contribution, etc.</p>
<p>To me, the fact is that, for most high school students, EC’s represent the only way they’ve been able to make a real difference in their community (or not). So why severely constrain the ability to talk about them? There’s nothing inherently wrong with this restrictive approach I guess – it’s more of a UK-like approach to the application process (Oxford, Cambridge) – but, in the end, it ultimately almost ensures that everything comes down to the numbers.</p>
<p>Being concise is important.</p>
<p>And being self referential is awesome.</p>