are essays and ECs REALLY all that important?

Applying to College
1

<p>based on my personal experience from ppl i know who got into harvard and other top ivies, i don't think essays and ECs are as important as everyone says. in fact, perfect SATs and GPAs aren't either (but they're not as commonly picked on as ECs...people with 10 clubs that they've been in since frosh year and are president of 7 of them are said to have weak ECs) true, they're important, and can make you stand out even if you have mediocre test scores, but you CAN offset the fact that you have absolutely NO ECs, can't write an essay in a readable language, and have all ur teachers hate ur guts: with great gpa and SAT scores you'll still get into harvard! ok, so this is a bit of an exxageration. but take my examples:</p>

<p>1) valedictorian from a couple years back got straight As taking 7 APs senior year (and like even more junior year)...never done before at my school. he also had 1590 on his SATi and 800s on 8 SATiis. he had absolutely NO extracurriculars, didn't talk to people at lunch (even when they tried to be friendly), and all his teachers absolutely hated him. he always cut class on test days (and blame it on something excusable) to study, and then would buy answers from past students or get them from siblings who took the same classes. i was surprised he was able to get recommendations, all his teachers hated him. my friend was talking about him in a class once and the teacher said not to mention his name cuz it gave her a headache. teachers still talk about how horrible this kid is. however, he still got into harvard ED.</p>

<p>2) my family friend was top 10 in the class and was part of like one club that she was semi-passionate about (not really, but she was co-president and like one of 2 members). she also spent about 20 minutes (no exxageration) on her essay...it was completely BS about how her parents were awesome and inspiring. completely obvious that she spent about 5 seconds on it. however, she still got into princeton ED. she didn't have any significant awards or anything, and was probably the lazieset person in the world. after her princeton acceptance she got Cs for all of her senior year classes.</p>

<p>and i can probably continue naming the ~10 people who get into hypsm each year from my high school...none of them have any hook, great ECs (most of them are just president of like one club, with no music or sports), and i can guarantee that nobody spent more about 2 or 3 hours writing the essays.</p>

<p>it kinda shows how high-strung CCers are...people that are president of 5 or 6 clubs and have national awards are said to have "weak ECs" or that they need to show "more passion." i guess CC just kinda tones down everyone's stats...being president of 2 or 3 clubs and captain of a sports team probably involves many hours of participation every week. i bet the people who ask for chances and are told that they have "absolutely no chance" have probably more chance than the average applicant -__________-</p>

2

<p>^ those are exceptions. Some people have such great academics that they are able to get in, and you dont know what other factors they had to sneak in. Those are EXCEPTIONS/OUTLIERS, and are NOT SIgnificant.</p>

<p>For top schools, for the mass 99% of applicants, no ec's = rejection. It's a plain and obvious fact made valid by more than just some stories of some random people getting in when hundreds of thousands of ivy league acceptances have been handed out in the past 10 years. A hundred cases of this is not significant at all.</p>

3

<p>Everything matters.</p>

4

<p>One word: hacks.</p>

5

<p>^ naw, pwnhacks</p>

6

<p>ec's + essays > standardized testing</p>

7

<p>The more selective the school, the more important ECs + essays are because so many people with 2200+ in SATs apply.</p>

8

<p>I'm not sure how you can "guarantee" that none of them spent more than 2-3 hours on essays. They probably worked very hard on their essays (even if they didn't show it externally), just like the majority of the applicant pool for those schools.</p>

9

<p>I completely agree with the OP. Obviously, it completely depends on your school and its acceptance history at the top schools. I think that GPA & SAT scores are the most important. Colleges look to see that you have DONE extra curriculars, but I don't think its essential. If you have amazing ECs but not as great SAT scores and GPA, then your ECs might be helpful. I think CC puts WAY too much weight on extracurriculars. There is also this big idea at CC the extracurriculars you are involved in have to be 5 hrs everyday and completely rare and spectacular. This is also untrue. My school sends about 20 students a year to the ivies, most of who simply perform really well in school and do a sport. Some are presidents of clubs, but that is rare.</p>

10

<p>Nothing is certain. One who has a mind-blowing essay but mediocre test scores might have a reasonable chance of getting into a UC school or Ivy league school.</p>

<p>Not everyone is a 2400, 5.0 GPA, intern for noble prize winning scientist, etc. </p>

<p>Relax, mmk? It's just college.</p>

11

<p>"I'm not sure how you can "guarantee" that none of them spent more than 2-3 hours on essays."</p>

<p>well i read some of their essays, and even if they spent more than 2-3 hours on them it doesn't show.</p>

12

<p>
[QUOTE]
I think CC puts WAY too much weight on extracurriculars.

[/QUOTE]
</p>

<p>I'd say CC doesnt put ENOUGH weight on extracurriculars. Most people who apply to top schools w/ their high SAT and GPA are REJECTED. If you are still deluded about the importance of extracurriculars, go look up princeton's statistics.</p>

<p>75%+ of 2300+'s on the SAT are rejected, most of the time because they have no extracurriculars or not good enough ones and were stupid enough to think they could go to a top college by hiding in their room all day. </p>

<p>Extracurriculars do more than show "lol community involvement", they are as good of a future indicator of success as grades and SATs, since someone who has the determination, charisma, and leadership to be an effective leader, then they have a much higher chance of success than someone who is just a book-worm.</p>

<p>Besides, studies also have shown that there is a high correlation between GPA and extracurricular involvement - the less extracurricular involvement, the lower the self-esteem, the lower the GPA, the lower the potential in life.</p>

<p>If you want evidence, just go look how many 4.0 2300's or 2400s are rejected in the masses from the top ivie schools simply because the schools see them as pieces of paper and not true human beings, because thats what they are in the end if they are in the end if they just waste their time studying all the time. The top schools know studying/academics are a MEANS, not an end, because theres no point in education if you do nothing with it, and translating the ability and knowledge gained in academics to the real world is what the ideal student does.</p>

13

<p>If someone like the valedictiorian you described got into Harvard with only good numbers and no extracurriculars, I'm inclined to think there's something missing from the picture.</p>

<p>Did they have legacy?
or since they also had a history of cheating/dishonesty, i'm inclined to think he/she may have simply made up extracurriculars on the application.</p>

14

<p>"Did they have legacy?
or since they also had a history of cheating/dishonesty, i'm inclined to think he/she may have simply made up extracurriculars on the application."</p>

<p>no, he did not have legacy. but maybe he did make up extracurriculars, that ill never know. if he did does that mean colleges don't check?! cuz that's just unfair...people can make up extracurriculars, which takes about 2 seconds. other people who work for them spend a couple hours per year and a couple years working for them, and they get the same credit for it. (not that doing ECs are just for college, but i would hope colleges would double-checkk...)</p>

<p>"If you want evidence, just go look how many 4.0 2300's or 2400s are rejected in the masses from the top ivie schools simply because the schools see them as pieces of paper and not true human beings"</p>

<p>maybe that's true, but after reading from CC i'm starting to think my high school was a bit different than most schools. i've heard people on CC who have 4.0's, 2400's, a hundred 800's on SATii's, and in addition to all of that they have absolutely insane ECs, too. Unless that person is absolutely brilliant, there's no way that he could do that in my school. i'm just a junior, so i'm doing ok right now, but from my friends' experiences it's absolutely impossible to get a 4.0 UW GPA unless you work your @$$ off like the harvard guy i described...as in missing a week of school each month to study. (he could blame it on some nonexistant disease since his parents were doctors and could write convincing medical excuse notes. :0)</p>

<p>and also, i'm looking thru all these :chance me: threads and the main thing people are sayin is you need more ECs. but a lot of these people have WAY more ECs than just about everyone in my school who has gotten into harvard and princeton and yale, etc. for example, being on a varsity sports team and the president of one club is considered having STUNNING GREAT OVER-THE-TOP ECs for anyone that is in the top 10 of the class. and for those people there's about a 50% chance he'll end up at hypsm or maybe other smaller ivies.</p>

<p>so i guess it really depends on the school. if you go to an incredibly amazing and competitive magnet school, like TJ, and you get straight As or close, there's a great chance that you can get in harvard without any ECs. NOT to say that my school is an amazingly competitive magnet school, it's just a public school (it *is *one of the best in NJ tho). but the people who get into harvard and yale at my school are nowhere near as amazing numbers-wise than the people who are criticized on CC.</p>

15

<p>What do you guys think of someone who has really high numbers but whose extracurriculars are just a bunch of clubs in which he or she happens to be interested? Maybe a competition or two in an area of interest, but nothing outstanding? </p>

<p>See, on paper, I'll look like I just randomly joined a pile of clubs for the sake of joining them -- the one thing that EVERY college admissions board hates and publicly admits to hating. I have no leadership positions or varsity letters, let alone the things that are considered worthy ECs on here (Northstarmom gives an incredibly helpful -- and intimidating -- list in <a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/what-my-chances/210497-those-ecs-weak-so-whats-good.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/what-my-chances/210497-those-ecs-weak-so-whats-good.html&lt;/a&gt;) But is it bad that I spend my time doing things that I enjoy? </p>

<p>I hate how people do things about which they couldn't care less, just so that they'll look "passionate" on paper: the ultimate irony. Half of the time, I also hate how I'm not one of these people. </p>

<p>I'm torn, because sometimes I think that these people deserve the spots in top schools more than people like me -- at least they're dedicated enough to do these things in the first place. (Not to mention, of course, the fact that some people ARE passionate and not doing these things just to win the admissions 'game.') But should the rest of us be penalized for exploring our interests? For joining existing clubs instead of founding a new one just to show our 'leadership abilities' -- a club which will inevitably deteriorate as soon as the founder puts it on his resume and graduates? Why do we all have to be leaders, anyways? Can't one be successful just by being extremely proficient in an already-established field, or do we all have to do something completely new and unheard of?</p>

<p>This whole thing is frustrating. I think I'm gonna whine about it in my college essays next year. XD</p>

16

<p>Poseur: That's exactly one of the many things I've been thinking/worrying about, I'm a senior in the middle of the application process, and yeah I know precisely what you mean. If I were to go head-to-head with any other "overachievers" here on CC, my ECs just don't cut it. I've got no significant community service or research/internship experience, no major leadership positions, and except for a musical instrument (I do NOT have any accomplishments with guitar playing, and c'mon, anybody can just pick up a guitar and start playing, which is kind of what I did) I've only been doing my ECs for a couple of years, or less.. For example, I did a sport last year for a few months. (I can hear laughter and derisive snorting all around now) But the thing is they did need players for the team (it was a new EC) and I was genuinely interested when I signed up. I dropped it this year though because academics and my other EC were taking up so much of my time.</p>

<p>I can say with all honesty though that every single item in my unimpressive list of ECs got there out of pure interest and wanting to try out new things and test the waters.. You know, stuff that I thought your average teenager would be likely to do. But I don't know how the adcoms are gonna realize that unless I explicitly write it down somewhere in my application (and even so, I don't think I'll do that, unless I wanted to sound like a douchebag). And then I come to this website and I get blown away by all these amazing stats and ECs.. I have nothing against these other students, in fact, I admire them for having accomplished so much at this age. I think whatever angst I'm having is mostly directed towards myself.. Why can't I be like that too? And what am I even thinking, applying to top schools when I can already provide them with plenty of reasons to reject me?</p>

<p>But anyways. Enough ranting. To answer your first question, well, I wouldn't hold it against you if you didn't exactly have stellar resume. It would be a relief actually, since everyone else has got practically everything covered already with perfect stats and ECs and something or other, I think I'd get a massive headache if I had to read one more application like that, but then again I'm no admissions officer :) And maybe I'm just biased and/or bitter. Hahaha. </p>

<p>However, I also think it depends much on your personality. I don't believe that every successful applicant to top schools has to be a Type A kind of person, a go-getter, someone who knows exactly what he/she wants and how to go about getting it. If you'd prefer to stay at home and read instead of going out there to do some volunteer work or spend time in a lab doing research, because it's just NOT your thing, then who am I to say that you can't do well and thrive in a competitive school? If you're not a leader because no matter what people say and what it looks like, you're happy and content with being a follower, who am I to judge you for that?</p>

<p>To the OP: In response to your question.. well I think essays and ECs are definitely important, because everything has to come together to create a cohesive application and project to the adcoms your personality.. It's their job to figure out from every piece of information if you'd be a fit for their school. Sometimes the applicants themselves fail to successfully convey how and why a school is right for them. And sometimes, unfortunately, the adcoms just miss the mark I guess.</p>

<p>Here on CC though, everything's blown out of proportion. Peace out.</p>

17

<p>hey guys, i agree that it's a bit unfair since admissions officers really can't tell the difference between a person who is doing things for fun like u guys and a person who just goes to one meeting per year of a club and puts it on their app. i think, however, that what they're expecting is that you do all your experimenting in middle school and especially freshman year, that since you don't have a huge course workload in frosh year that you join as many clubs as interests you. and ultimately they expect you to find something that you are interested in, from the clubs and activities that you joined freshman year, and commit to it--commitment is very important in college applications. Yes, some people on CC really do have a million ECs are president-positions in all of them, but that's really not necessary. One or two passionate clubs and activities that you're in, where you're the president, is really all that's needed. that's part of what i was talking about-when "chancing" others, CCers seem to be looking for a long list of ECs...but honestly, a true club that you're passionate about and don't do just to put it on ur app takes so much time that it's unrealistic to have 5 or 6 of them! if you're truly passionate about a club and dedicate your time to it, and you become the president, is that worse than having 5 clubs where you're the only member (and therefore the president) and you don't really have meetings or do anything productive (since the club's only purpose is to decorate your application)? colleges realize you're probably exploring your interests when you join clubs, and all they're really asking for, i believe, is commitment to one or two things that you really like. they'll be hypocritical if they ask for more than that and still tell you not to do things just to embellish your app.</p>

18

<p>I agree that Ivy admission difficulty is exaggerated for those in the top, say, 1% of SAT/ACT scorers.</p>

<p>If you have a 2200+ SAT score, you'll probably be choosing between some top schools, assuming that you have a 3.8+, 2200+ SAT II's, decent ECs, and well thought out essays.</p>

<p>If you are outside the top 1% of SAT scorers, admission is far more competitive and a hook is virtually necessary.</p>

19

<p>lol i agree. unless there's only ONE spot left would the ECs really matter for someone who has a 2400 and a 4.0 etc.</p>