Are EC's only important for top schools?

Applying to College
21

<p>"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?"</p>

<p>Look, I'm not suggesting everyone decides his/her majors early on. I'm just saying that we should be cautious in overcrediting how academically qualified the well scoring individuals are. Pretty noncontroversial point. </p>

<p>And guess what -- schools WANT people doing well in their hard majors! I'm sure that if there were excellent means of predicting, schools would appreciate it. Now some means already exist, but I'm saying that they may have to come through means other than EC's. </p>

<p>I was discussing with someone who's pretty well read on the subject of how students are chosen...and one thing he mentioned were recommendations. I think ideally, two people with the same scores will NOT only be judged on EC's, but also on recommendations...what if a teacher can really speak to a particular student's math ability for instance? I think admissions officers will pay attention to this. It will <em>NOT</em> be just EC's determining the future. Diversity is great, but I think a campus needs its share of people who're just passionate about a subject. And the way to choose these can be independent of EC's.</p>

22

<p>Why do I care to post all this? Well, to the OP, I recommend that if for instance he/she is really into a subject, don't rush to do well in EC's possibly! Do what your heart is really in, and guess what -- not everyone who scores well and doesn't do EC's is a dull, boring, study all day, uninteresting person.</p>

<p>Very flawed conclusion. They could be passionate about their academics to an unusual extreme, be wonderful people to talk to, etc.</p>

23

<p>"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>Well, they may not study EXACTLY what they say they will, but often if they're up to it, they'll continue with something similar. E.g. an engineer may decide he likes pure math better. [I did this!] I mean, yes someone who says he wants physics may turn to art history, but unlikely. It would be nice to admit a few people who say they'll do physics and <em>really know</em> they can handle it. Guess what - people who switch out often do because they can't handle the given major!! </p>

<p>Sorry, my "edit" function is messed up, and this is why I'm posting many different times.</p>

24

<p>"It would be nice to admit a few people who say they'll do physics and <em>really know</em> they can handle it. Guess what - people who switch out often do because they can't handle the given major!! "</p>

<p>Your view is based on....?</p>

<p>I've seen students switch majors for a variety of reasons ranging from inability to being able to handle a major; finding a major that they like better; to finding that the subject that they thought they wanted to major in doesn't really interest them.</p>

<p>One learns a lot about oneself, one's interests, careers, majors, etc. between the time one is a high school senior and the time one is a college junior, the typical time that majors need to be finalized.</p>

<p>Also many people end up going to grad school in fields very different than what they majored in. After being in the real world working a job, they may find a new interest or decide that fields related to their major just isn't that interesting to them.</p>

<p>Most people have at least 5 different types of jobs in their lifetimes.</p>

<p>Anyway, if it ends up that a student switches majors because they aren't particularly talented in a field, it's no loss to a place like Harvard because the student is still likely to be among the 97% or so of undergraduates who end up graduating from Harvard within 6 years of entering. Some of those who don't will graduate from another college or will graduate from Harvard later.</p>

<p>" not everyone who scores well and doesn't do EC's is a dull, boring, study all day, uninteresting person...very flawed conclusion. They could be passionate about their academics to an unusual extreme, be wonderful people to talk to, etc."</p>

<p>True. The bottom line, is, though, that at places like HPYS, the ECs -- the large numbers of student-run, vibrant clubs, service opportunities, etc. on campus are what differentiates HPYS etc. from schools of similar sizes. Unless a student without any ECs is literally a prodigy in their discipline, admissions officers will pass them up in favor of students who have the requisite stats plus strong ECs.</p>

<p>Meanwhile, there are plenty of other colleges that would be delighted to take the student with high stats and no ECs. Many colleges even would lavish excellent merit aid on such students.</p>

25

<p>Look, I said "often." Don't bite my head off =] </p>

<p>I gave an example myself where I transferred between two comparably tough majors, and it was due to change of interest.</p>

<p>"Unless a student without any ECs is literally a prodigy in their discipline, admissions officers will pass them up in favor of students who have the requisite stats plus strong ECs."</p>

<p>Well, sure, and anyway most insane thinkers' abilities are evident only later on in their careers, not going out of high school. And I know that it <em>is</em> true that students with heavier EC's are likely to be favored. There is, as I've mentioned, a degree of helplessness on the schools' parts in finding who really is out to passionately succeed at a given major, and I'm kind of pinpointing that our high school curricula are a little to easy in many areas to really speak to students' abilities. </p>

<p>Look, it's hard to tell if a student will even pursue EC's he/she did before college, in college. So many I know who gave up debate and such things after high school and majored in what? Electrical engineering, polisci, biology, etc, etc! What do they do outside of class in school? Nothing! It's <em>very hard to predict</em> both what someone will major in and what someone will do as EC's in college. So by this logic, college admissions should be utterly random? No, I mean you do the best you can. If someone shows exceptional interest in math beyond just getting a 5 on the AP and an 800 on respective SAT II's, I would say there is value in admitting them, because they add an aspect to the campus community! If their teachers RAVE about them, there is an advantage in taking them. Guess what, EC's aren't the only factors - essays + recommendations are other ones taken into account. I just don't believe "DO EC's" is the way to advise those who want to get to top schools. I say, do <em>whatever</em> you're into, and if that just means study, then just study. Write about your views in your essay.</p>

26

<p>also, i see people on here with like math honor society, biology honor society, science club, technology club, etc.. some schools can have more ec opportunities than others.. so i dont really think thats fair either.. when some schools have more opportunities and choices while some others (like mine) have one national honor society and a few clubs which arent very big</p>

27

<p>"the large numbers of student-run, vibrant clubs, service opportunities, etc. on campus are what differentiates HPYS etc. from schools of similar sizes."</p>

<p>Quite a strong statement. Note that these are also insane research schools with particularly amazing faculty. Shouldn't we be very deliberate about admitting students who can take advantage of these particularly well? It's not all about EC's. </p>

<p>Now how hard it is to pick out such students is a different story. But it is definitely a little sad to me that unless you're Einstein, you're not going to be admitted to a school because you're vibrantly into a subject. And I discourage people on this thread from giving up their passions if they do not lie in the direction of EC's.</p>

28

<p>It's not the length of your list that's important. It's the depth of what you do.
It takes far more work, independence and leadership to start a club than it is to join an already existing club. </p>

<p>It takes far more work, independence, and leadership to get involved in an organization in your community than in your school.</p>

<p>Consequently, colleges will be far more impressed by a student who creates or finds an opportunity in an area where few students do ECs than colleges will be impressed by students who are, for instance, club presidents in schools that have lots of ECs and strong advisors.</p>

<p>BTW, the honor societies and honor clubs are not particularly impressive ECS for top colleges. Most of their applicants could belong to such clubs if their schools offered them.</p>

29

<p>"Quite a strong statement. Note that these are also insane research schools with particularly amazing faculty. Shouldn't we be very deliberate about admitting students who can take advantage of these particularly well? It's not all about EC's. "</p>

<p>Actually, the amazing faculty does far more research with their grad students than with their undergraduate students.</p>

<p>The schools that send the highest proportion of students to grad schools are LACs, not HPYS, which pride themselves on students who go to professional schools and become community leaders, not doctorate holders.</p>

<p>That's why if a student is interested in doing lots of undergraduate research and spending the bulk of their time studying while not participating in ECs., a LAC probably is their best match, not a place like Harvard. </p>

<p>The places like HPYS are very happy with the kind of students they admit and the kind of undergraduate experiences that they create. Similarly, the LACs are happy with the kind of students they have and the kind of undergraduate opportunities they offer.</p>

30

<p>Northstarmom -- I don't dispute anything you said in the last post. What I was disputing was the idea [perhaps not yours, but someone's on this thread] that it's not WORTH looking for energetic minds in different areas of study. Whether they choose these as majors or not, their energy will generally direct them to some sort of academic success. </p>

<p>I seemed to garner the impression that people were telling me it's completely worthless looking for particularly promising literature, math, physics, bio, and history class students. These passions are just as legitimate as other extracurricular passions. The thing is, not all of these academic passions legitimately find their way into extracurricular ones. E.g. - a math passion does not have to lead to participation in math competitions; why? the math in competitions doesn't interest every mathematician. My highly brilliant professor has stated explicitly that he was never into these, and just liked his subject a ton. So the idea that "It's impossible to predict what someone will do in college as his/her major...so ignore how exceptional they are at their subjects" is kind of flawed, because the same uncertainty holds for what EC's people will do in college.</p>

31

<p>"The elites still lead in producing undergraduates who go on for doctorates (Caltech had the highest percentage during the 1990s), but Earlham, Grinnell, Kalamazoo, Kenyon, Knox, Lawrence, Macalester, Oberlin, and Wooster do better on this scale than many higher-status schools. In the 1990s little Earlham, with just 1,200 students, produced a higher percentage of graduates who have since received doctorates than did Brown, Dartmouth, Duke, Northwestern, Penn, or Vassar...."
Who</a> Needs Harvard? - The Atlantic (October 2004)</p>

32

<p>"That's why if a student is interested in doing lots of undergraduate research and spending the bulk of their time studying while not participating in ECs., a LAC probably is their best match, not a place like Harvard."</p>

<p>This is simply too much! Do you realize how strong Harvard's undergrad departments in many areas?! Do you know what kinds of classes they offer? NOT everyone admitted, nay hardly any, actually takes advantage of the most precious ones! I go to Berkeley, and similar remarks hold for our math department [and engineering department]. I chose Berkeley over schools like Harvey Mudd College and Caltech...and my choice was NOT foolish, because a big school has certain resources a small one doesn't. A strong graduate department can be a great strength. Most of the time yes, prof's deal with their grad students. But if you go looking hard, big schools can offer these opportunities.</p>

33

<p>A big school has resources to offer quite a few things. Smaller ones are great, but they're for specific kinds of students. I fit best at big research universities. I mean, by your logic, nobody should go to Berkeley or Stanford just to study engineering [no EC's in picture]? I think not...these schools, apart from having highly vibrant out of school involvements, are also just plain old insanely good engineering schools, which offer great undergrad education + research opportunities for undergrads.</p>

34

<p>" seemed to garner the impression that people were telling me it's completely worthless looking for particularly promising literature, math, physics, bio, and history class students. "</p>

<p>No one has said that. If one has extraordinary academic talent, one can be admitted on the basis of one's academic talent even if one lacks ECs.</p>

<p>Realize, however, that the standards are very high for "extraordinary academic talent." Getting straight As and a 5 on one's AP English exams combined with an 800 verbal score wouldn't be enough to demonstrate an extraordinary talent in creative writing, for example.</p>

<p>A student who has spent their time writing a book or movie script that an expert assesses as reflecting extraordinary talent could be accepted despite their not having participated in ECs.</p>

<p>Keep in mind that the student who is an academic prodigy but lacks ECs still is in competition with students who have remarkable academics combined with remarkable ECs.</p>

<p>For instance Michael Crichton, who went to Harvard undergrad and then to Harvard Medical school before writing blockbusteres like Jurassic Park: "showed a keen interest in writing from a young age and at the age of just 14 had a column related to travel published in the New York Times." After having a disagreement with a professor whom Crichton believed was grading too low, Crichton switched his major from literature to biological anthropology and graduated summa cum laude. In medical school, he wrote novels to help pay for his education.</p>

35

<p>"This is simply too much! Do you realize how strong Harvard's undergrad departments in many areas?! Do you know what kinds of classes they offer? NOT everyone admitted, nay hardly any, actually takes advantage of the most precious ones! "</p>

<p>Do you realize that I'm a Harvard grad and have been a member of the national committee of alum alum interviewers?</p>

<p>The average student at a place like Earlham or Grinnell is probably more of a pure intellectual than is the average student at Harvard.</p>

36

<p>"Realize, however, that the standards are very high for "extraordinary academic talent." Getting straight As and a 5 on one's AP English exams combined with an 800 verbal score wouldn't be enough to demonstrate an extraordinary talent in creative writing, for example."</p>

<p>Right, I even said, 5's on AP tests and 800's on SAT II's don't tell me someone can handle a tough major at all. A 5 on AP Calculus is practically worthless in my eyes when you come to judge a student's ability to handle college math, physics, or engineering for instance.</p>

<p>How 'bout someone who can potentially ace Berkeley's or MIT's electrical engineering courses? That drops the numbers WAY WAY WAY down. [Just an arbitrary example of how different college success is from high school success].</p>

<p>"No one has said that. If one has extraordinary academic talent, one can be admitted on the basis of one's academic talent even if one lacks ECs."</p>

<p>Well someone actually DID say something a little too close to that. Not you, but another poster. </p>

<p>"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?"</p>

<p>I don't like this indifference. Granted, someone who shows exceptional promise at creative writing may decide to do engineering. Fine. But there's something about their passions which I think makes them worth admitting.</p>

<p>And come on, why does everyone make the rift so deep -- is there NOTHING in between Einstein and an <em>average</em> well scoring student with a 5 in calculus, etc? How about a tangible factor -- who is likely to be able to contribute to the college X, Y, and Z departments.</p>

37

<p>"Do you realize that I'm a Harvard grad and have been a member of the national committee of alum alum interviewers?</p>

<p>The average student at a place like Earlham or Grinnell is probably more of a pure intellectual than is the average student at Harvard."</p>

<p>I know they ARE potentially more pure intellectuals. You seem to be implying this is a good thing. I am saying not so much. If you're a Harvard grad, well I have numerous math prof's who were Harvard undergrads, Harvard grad students, and I know plenty about at least their math department...and know it's worth admitting pure intellectuals. Which they already do. But I think in slightly more random a fashion than is necessary. I think a little toning down of this "They're above this threshold, look at EC's now" attitude would be healthy.</p>

38

<p>"And come on, why does everyone make the rift so deep -- is there NOTHING in between Einstein and an <em>average</em> well scoring student with a 5 in calculus, etc? How about a tangible factor -- who is likely to be able to contribute to the college X, Y, and Z departments."</p>

<p>If a student is likely to major in an underserved department -- for instance humanities at Harvard -- that can be a big plus even if the student isn't a prodigy in that field.</p>

<p>One of my former Harvard roommates is a research scientist at a medical school. She entered planning to major in psycology, but switched to biology her soph year. She didn't discover she liked research until she got a work study job as a Harvard junior. When she entered Harvard, she had planned to be an elementary school teacher.</p>

<p>Throughout Harvard, she participated in a variety of ECs including community service and a group related to politics. Even though she's a research scientist now, she is active in her community in ECs that aren't directly related to her work.</p>

39

<p>"I know they ARE potentially more pure intellectuals. You seem to be implying this is a good thing. I am saying not so much."</p>

<p>But that's why more than likely you chose to go to a school that reflected your interests and values. Fortunately, in the U.S., there are thousands of colleges, reflecting a wide variety of interests and values.</p>

40

<p>Sure, I favor admitting people like your friend to a school like Harvard. What I'm saying is that a slightly higher correlation between "pure intellectual" and acceptance to a school like Harvard, which is not just an overall prestigious name, but also blessed with simply fantastic departments, is not a bad idea at all. I'm saying, don't leave them all for small, focused schools necessarily.</p>