<p>Are your EC's only really dissected and looked at when you are applying to the top top schools (HYPMSC) which have to look at your EC's because they get so many applicants with great numbers and grades?</p>
<p>ECs can help you get merit aid at colleges offering it.</p>
<p>"are applying to the top top schools (HYPMSC) which have to look at your EC's because they get so many applicants with great numbers and grades?"</p>
<p>It's true it's mainly important at these schools. But apparently not for the reason you say, as the number of actual near perfect SAT's is supposedly quite small in comparison to what people think. Combine with high GPA, etc, and even fewer people have it.</p>
<p>However, the schools you mention have a somewhat lower threshold before they consider admitting you...i.e. they'll very well consider slightly lower GPA and scores, even if they're relatively good scores. What finally makes you in is if they pore at your application and find you add something unique to their campus, and/or have some sort of <em>unique</em> potential for the future, something which they believe scores cannot tell.</p>
<p>If you're not into very many EC's don't do them! I didn't, ended up at Berkeley - which accepts you basically if you have good scores - and am very happy, because the school has such wonderful departments. Doing EC's just to put on your resume is not going to even close to guarantee you a spot in the top schools, so do what you like, and hope for the best is really the most logical option.</p>
<p>the top 20 schools care good deal about ECs because most applicants are at the academic ceiling. Below that, it ranges from somewhat, to not at all.</p>
<p>Pretty much. Grades/scores alone are enough to differentiate between Candidate A and Candidate B at the state school level (excluding places like Cal, U of Mich, etc).</p>
<p>We know that publics are stats driven for the most part.......What about LAC's below the top tier? or even privates below the top?</p>
<p>The most important thing for virtually all schools in the country is making sure that applicants have the stats and work ethic indicating they have the ability to graduate from the college if accepted.</p>
<p>The HPYS schools have so many superqualified applicants that the schools can afford to select from a pool of students with outstanding stats the ones who'll most contribute to an active campus representing all kinds of diversity: place of origin, major, race, religion, sexual orientation, etc.</p>
<p>Consequently, with the exception of recruited athletes -- who are in a category by themselves -- it's unlikely that one will gain acceptance to any LAC, private school on the strength of one's ECs if one's stats are far below the college's norm.</p>
<p>Colleges are evaluated based in part on their graduation rate. Colleges don't want to accept students who'll be very active in campus life while flunking out of college.</p>
<p>"t's true it's mainly important at these schools. But apparently not for the reason you say, as the number of actual near perfect SAT's is supposedly quite small in comparison to what people think. Combine with high GPA, etc, and even fewer people have it."</p>
<p>But most applicants to schools like HPYS have stats that are outstanding. One doesn't need perfect scores and grades to be in the top percentiles of high school students in the country. The stats that CC members sneer at -- 700 SAT verbal scores, for instance, still are in the top percentiles of college-bound students, and reflect a student's ability to handle the work at the top colleges in the country.</p>
<p>"But most applicants to schools like HPYS have stats that are outstanding. One doesn't need perfect scores and grades to be in the top percentiles of high school students in the country. The stats that CC members sneer at -- 700 SAT verbal scores, for instance, still are in the top percentiles of college-bound students, and reflect a student's ability to handle the work at the top colleges in the country."</p>
<p>Let me comment a bit on this. I completely agree that unconditionally favoring higher scorers on the standardized tests and those with higher GPA's is a very flawed thing. However, this is not for the reason you seem to suggest [if you didn't suggest this, forgive me] which is that "high scorers," say defined to be 700+ scorers [even 750+] and those in the top of their classes are necessarily able to handle the rigors of top colleges.</p>
<p>See any post by Sakky, or anyone else knowledgeable on the subject, and realize that MOST students accepted to Berkeley engineering will have higher stats than say 700s. They are certainly not all equipped to handle the challenges. Basically, even if someone had a 2400 on the SAT, I'd not say they're equipped to handle the rigors of top schools. Whereas, someone with a 2200 may very well be. So suggesting that everyone beyond a threshold is outstanding academically even to relatively the same degree is really a huge mistake. One needs to consider their application and their abilities <em>very</em> carefully before assessing how strong they really are. </p>
<p>I.e., if you suggest that students beyond so and so point in scores are capable of handling top schools, and that other factors like EC's should be judged from then on, I will tell you that almost any professor in the difficult fields at top schools would disagree with you. Quite a few students with "high scores" by any standard we can apply here will NOT handle top schools so well; I have examples with straight 800's on SAT II's and such to cite. The bottom line is these people worked hard, beat the system, and developed great stats.</p>
<p>I have discussed this point in another thread, and the real issue is that the curriculum we're judging students on is really really shallow in comparison to what real college work will be like. The AP's are in many senses laughable. Only a student who goes above and beyond AP Physics is going to handle physics at Berkeley, Stanford, MIT, Caltech, etc. </p>
<p>Now, if your point was exactly that the SAT and SAT II's are not a great judge beyond a point, given a difference between two high scorers is not really reflective of anything but a good vs. better day, I agree with you. But it's blatantly dangerous to state that all the reasonably scoring applicants are superqualified for the top schools.</p>
<p>Again Northstarmom, I think I agree with all the rest of you points. I'm just very wary of giving students the benefit of the doubt and saying they're <em>ready</em> academically for top schools. Because most are likely not ready for the toughest disciplines.</p>
<p>To all the others - yes, I agree, good academic scores and stats <em>will</em> get you into Berkeley and other good public schools. Not that this is a great thing, but anyway...I'd again warn that just because you're accepted to such schools doesn't mean you can handle their tougher majors. More in response to recent posts than the OP.</p>
<p>"if you suggest that students beyond so and so point in scores are capable of handling top schools, and that other factors like EC's should be judged from then on, I will tell you that almost any professor in the difficult fields at top schools would disagree with you"</p>
<p>No, I'm not suggesting that students with scores of 650/700+ would be able to succeed in all majors at a top university. I'm saying that they are smart enough to graduate in some major at a top university.</p>
<p>For instance, many students at top universities switch from being premed to choosing another prospective field due to their not being able to do well in freshmen chemistry. That happened with a couple of my friends at Harvard. Both graduated. One became a hospital adminstrator, the other a social worker.</p>
<p>The valedictorian of the class ahead of me in a very competitive public high school wasn't able to handle pre med at Brown. She, too, graduated, but didn't become a doctor.</p>
<p>It's not just HYPSM that value, and evaluate, ECs. Most elite schools do, including the other Ivies, other top private research universities (Duke, Northwestern, Wash U, JHU, Vanderbilt, etc.), some of the most selective public universities (Michigan and UVA certainly do), and many selective LACs. Most schools with acceptance rates below 50 or 60% are probably going to look at them, but their importance probably declines as the acceptance rate increases. </p>
<p>They do so for several reasons. First, just the fact that you have ECs tells them that you're an active person, not the kind of kid who just goes to class, does your homework, and then retreats to watch TV or listen your I-Pod. Active kids who get involved in ECs lend vibrancy to their campus. Second, what you do for ECs, along with your essays and to some extent teacher and GC recommendations will be pretty much all they have to go on to get some sense of who you are as a person, beyond your capacity to do schoolwork and score well on standardized tests. And they do care about this. I take them at their word when they say they really do value diversity at all levels; they're trying to put together an "interesting" class reflecting a diversity of backgrounds, experiences, and interests, not a cookie-cutter class where everyone looks and thinks alike and has the same set of life experiences. If they can find something in your ECs, essays and recs that tells them enough about you so they can decide you'll make their school a more interesting place, that can only help you. (But by the same token, that's why your involvement in a bunch of service projects that you don't really care about but are doing mainly becuase you think that's what they're looking for in your application may not help you all that much). </p>
<p>Third---and this one probably applies only at the most selective schools---a high level of involvement and achievement in ECs at the same time that you're excelling academically tells them that you have the kind of drive, motivation, ambition, energy, and ability to manage your time that it takes to excel at the highest levels, and that gives you an edge over other applicants with similar grades and test scores as they try to sort out who among a very large pool of otherwise highly qualified candidates is most likely to take full advantage of the educational opportunity, and who is most likely to contribute something extraordinary outside the classroom. Less selective schools don't have the luxury of making these kinds of comparative judgments and consequently won't make as searching an evaluation of your ECs, and in some cases may not consider them at all.</p>
<p>Northstarmom, sure. I didn't fully doubt this. </p>
<p>I guess I wish that it says a bit more to get a 5 on AP PHysics or AP Calculus =] it kind of means nothing to me.</p>
<p>They are the most heavily weighted for top schools, but they do still matter for many non-HYPMSC private universities. Public universities usually don't place much importance on them, if any.</p>
<p>"ou're excelling academically tells them that you have the kind of drive, motivation, ambition, energy, and ability to manage your time that it takes to excel at the highest levels, and that gives you an edge over other applicants with similar grades and test scores as they try to sort out who among a very large pool of otherwise highly qualified candidates"</p>
<p>Now, unfortunately, this scheme fails to actually pick out who really is best qualified for the top academic ranks in the colleges, though. I mean, say two guys have 2300's on SAT's, and 3.95 unweighted GPA's. First guy does no EC's at all. Second has great leadership positions, shows wonderful commitment to many things. Now, say they both want to major in math. It is HIGHLY flawed a conclusion to take the guy who does more EC's. </p>
<p>Now, admittedly top schools usually admit just generally good students, not by major. But I'm saying that the only thing the EC's likely speak to is how committed to such vibrant activities they are. And at times, this isn't the best way to admit students, because you're not really looking out for those who can excel in several academic majors.</p>
<p>Now, some such people who can excel end up at the top schools anyway, because they all apply, and a bunch get in. But I'd say ultimately we fail at really <em>predicting</em> who can succeed in the most competitive majors. Partially because hardly any academic achievement in standard high school AP work really speaks to such ability.</p>
<p>So I'm cautious with the term "excel" - I think we're better at predicting who'll excel at certain things than others.</p>
<p>"I take them at their word when they say they really do value diversity at all levels; they're trying to put together an "interesting" class reflecting a diversity of backgrounds, experiences,"</p>
<p>This I agree with.</p>
<p>"Now, unfortunately, this scheme fails to actually pick out who really is best qualified for the top academic ranks in the colleges, though. I mean, say two guys have 2300's on SAT's, and 3.95 unweighted GPA's. First guy does no EC's at all. Second has great leadership positions, shows wonderful commitment to many things. Now, say they both want to major in math. It is HIGHLY flawed a conclusion to take the guy who does more EC's."</p>
<p>Whomever is accepted to top colleges, a few of the students will end up at the top of the class, and some will end up at the bottom. There won't ever be a graduating class in which everyone is ranked #1.</p>
<p>Someone who's a math prodigy may be accepted on the strength of their extraordinary math talent even if they have no ECs. Otherwise, the college admissions officers who are faced with the two candidates whom you describe would prefer to take the student who'll add the most to the overall campus environment, not the student who'll only go to class and study.</p>
<p>What the top colleges have that virtually no other colleges have are a wide range of ECs that are run by talented, hardworking, independent students who are balancing ECs (some of which may take as much work as a full time professional job) while maintaining grades that will allow them to graduate.</p>
<p>"Someone who's a math prodigy may be accepted on the strength of their extraordinary math talent even if they have no ECs. Otherwise, the college admissions officers who are faced with the two candidates whom you describe would prefer to take the student who'll add the most to the overall campus environment, not the student who'll only go to class and study."</p>
<p>Sure. I agree that it's a good idea to promote an interesting campus community.</p>
<p>I'm merely commenting that from my experience, it is RATHER tough to predict who's actually able to handle themselves in college academics. Sure, if someone is Gauss incarnate, we're probably going to notice. But most likely, there ain't going to be a Gauss around to speak of, and we're going to have to settle for just very high quality academic minds. I'm saying it's pretty hard to predict who these are, given our current [rather shallow] curricula in certain secondary school areas.</p>
<p>"Whomever is accepted to top colleges, a few of the students will end up at the top of the class, and some will end up at the bottom. There won't ever be a graduating class in which everyone is ranked #1."</p>
<p>Of course not. I wouldn't suggest this, but there's a difference between being "not number 1" and "plainly not very qualified for the major."</p>
<p>^ By and largem, schools just aren't very interested in predicting who will succeed in any particular major. Nor should they be. A very large fraction, possibly half or more, of applicants to liberal arts colleges (including the liberal arts schools of research universities) don't know what they want to major in. Of those who say they do, another very large fraction---as much as 80%, some admissions officers say---will change majors at least once before they graduate. The exception to this is programs that require a full four years to complete, like engineering; there, the adcoms really do need to try to predict the applicant's aptitude for the field in question. But for prospective math majors, say, they really don't care; a certain fraction of prospective math majors will wash out and end up pursuing another major, but in the better schools the vast majority of them will get their degrees and most will go on to successful careers in whatever they end up doing, so what's the difference? Why is it of any concern to the school whether an applicant who says he wants to do math is really better suited to history or philosophy? Granted, ECs won't help them make that prediction, but it's a prediction they're not interested in making anyway as only a very small fraction of applicants will end up studying what they say they want to study when they apply.</p>
<p>For instance, a school like Harvey Mudd does a good job with the resources it has to admit students, but I can tell you that not every high scorer is going to last a minute in that school. Who will? Well, hopefully their essays and interviews make that clear, but they may not.</p>
<p>Which is why those who know the school from inside (e.g. RocketDA) say getting in is overrated. Doing well is another thing. Well forget doing well, just surviving.</p>