Are the values of EC's overrated at College Confidential?

I do think many on CC overrate the value of ECs, though I wouldn’t say they’re unimportant. IMO they can matter in three ways.

First, they can sometimes signal truly superior achievement, as in winning a national math or science competition, or being an internationally recognized cello player. But the overwhelming majority of applicants won’t be at that level.

Second, they can help the admissions committee round out a class. I believe it was the admissions director at Harvard who was once quoted as saying they don’t want an entire class full of class presidents—not that there’s anything wrong with being class president, it’s a significant (though not world-class) achievement in its own right, but the point is they don’t want an entire class of any one thing, and ECs help them do some sorting and balancing. At this level, ECs aren’t so much an achievement or a qualification, but rather just a marker of interests, skills, and experiences that can be balanced and blended to make an “interesting” and diverse class. (Of course, if they’d like to add some musicians, they’ll probably want some accomplished musicians).

Third, and perhaps most importantly. ECs help tell a story about who the applicant is as a person—what do they choose to do in their free time (away from the classroom and studies), how vigorously do they pursue it, and how does that fit in with the whole person as seen in essays, academic interests, LORs, etc. I agree that the term “passion” is now overused, but let’s not forget it originated with the adcoms. It’s in this third category especially that they’re looking for genuine interest and commitment to pursuit of the EC for its own sake, and not merely “manufacturing” ECs so as to polish an application. The latter tells a very different and generally unflattering story about the person.

Also note that the schools themselves tell us in the Common Data Set how important they think ECs are. Many of the most selective schools say they’re “important”—but not as important as grades, test scores, GPA, class rank, rigor of HS curriculum, essays, LORs, character, and talent/ability, all if which tend to be rated “very important.” But this is by no means uniform. Yale says ECs are “very important.” At the other extreme, Harvard says they’re merely “considered” along with all the other aforementioned criteria except class rank, which Harvard says is “not considered.”

@bclintonk

Thanks for the excellent post.

My S had stellar stats … high ACT, high GPA, excellent school, tons of honors/AP classes. No EC’s, though (at least, nothing colleges consider important - playing in a metal band just doesn’t seem to interest admissions folks). He got into a number of schools, but not UMich (in state) - he was waitlisted. He definitely had better stats than others in his school who got in, and he is an excellent writer (so essays weren’t the problem). We figure the lack of EC’s meant that he didn’t get enough points in the admissions process to keep him near the top of the pool. (Blessing in disguise, though, because he was much better off attending the school he attended … life has a way of working out as it should.)

I really hope lookingforward isn’t an adcom. Because as a person working in as STEM of a field as you can get, I deal with the disappointment of I always wanted to do X, and look at all my activities aimed at X, when it turns out those HS activities related to X are a lot different than actually doing X at a high level, and the person isn’t all that great at it. The kid who was “just good at math” and maybe followed a different interest in HS (but was actually good at math) has close to as good of a chance at being successful in much of STEM research.

What I consistently say, turtle, is the top colleges are not simply looking for stats and a few titles. We should agree on that. Nor the national/intl awards some think. But in the process of wading through thousands of “qualified kids” (kids who could probably do the academic work, as MIT and Harvard put it,) the tippy tops have the luxury of looking at how an applicant thinks, their perspective, how and what they chose to be involved with, what challenges they took on, and more. In other words, who these individual applicants seem to be. Energized or reactive? Has some vision or is locked into he same old hs box? No matter what kids “claim” to be interested in, how they actually pursued that.

And the tippy tops can cherry pick. It doesn’t matter if brain surgery is different in real life than the experiences a hs kid garners by volunteering in some sort of health delivery, in the actual environment. Or if robotics is different than responsibility for sending up a spaceship. This is high stakes and it pays to be savvy, both about what that college values and likes, and how you show you’ve got that.

Just “good at math” is far from what it takes to get the admit.

I agree with all of that, and I really like your examples. What bugs me (partially because I see some of it on the other end and partially for stupid reasons) is the lack of acknowledgement of the differences between the high school experience of the savvy and the reality of actually doing it. I’m perfectly fine with saying, tippy top colleges see lots of completely qualified applications, and use this type of thing as one of the ways to allocate limited places.

“Nor the national/intl awards some think.”

MIT, Cal Tech, Berkeley, CMU place a lot of importance on these awards, ie. if you show that you are one of the top hs scientists in the country, you’ll get admission in those schools. And those are the elite schools for STEM, along with Stanford, which does not value those as highly because of their focus on first-gen and URMs. Siemens, Intel engineering internships, are what got this kids in (along with perfect test scores).

Outside of the ten Harvard admits who were found to be write racists and misogynyst posts, HYPS made a lot of mistakes this year and ten years from now, they’ll know why.

Now, how would you know that? NO, “if you show that you are one of the top hs scientists in the country.” you are guaranteed nothing. Holistic, anyone?

Seriously? Or pulling our legs?
Those who know the top schools well have been discussing this on CC for years and agree there is no guarantee.