Just wondering if any of the following extracurricular activities I’m working on seem significant and/or noteworthy on applications to an Ivy or other top school.
Starting a debate league - I’ve been contacting schools in the area to form a debate league, where members of each school’s debate club can participate in competition.
Directing a middle school musical - I’ve been interested in directing the annual musical at my local middle school. I am currently in high school but participated in the musical when I was in middle school.
Starting a coffee shop at my high school - I started this initiative as a fundraiser, but there is widespread support from students and teachers to turn it into an actual business, with the profits going back to the school.
Co-authoring a research paper - I have worked with a local medical lab for the past few months and will co-author their latest paper. Also working on a similar subject for my local science fair.
Those are nice accomplishments and make u a strong candidate, but they are not hooks.
Hooks are institutional needs the school deliberately recruits for: URM numbers, development case mega dollars, elite athletic prowess, celebrity cache, political connections.
I think those are awesome extracurriculars. They’re not hooks.
But I think if you put all of that on an application it won’t look… cohesive. I think doing activities because you think colleges will like them is the wrong path to take. Students who do that generally aren’t compelling, imo.
What @GMTplus7 has stated^^^
Hooks:
URM-native american, african-american, hispanic-american, pacific islander
ATHLETE: well known for prowess and skills in the regional area.
DAUGHTER/SON: of a Senator, President, VP, Kennedy, etc.
CELEBRITY or children of celebrities: Emma Watson (Hermione Granger)
Donor of significant $$$$: Bill Gates kids.
Call me cynical, but it all seems random. One thing doesn’t fit with the other. As if your real goal is to pad your resume rather than follow your interests.
The debate and theatre stuff fit together. What if you build on THAT kind of stuff.
Generally, what are called “hooks” are not things that can be earned by your own accomplishments. The exception is athletic ability that is high enough to attract a college to recruit you as an athlete. The others are things that you cannot do anything about, like being related to a huge donor or well known person of interest.
A spike is when you are exceptionally good at one thing and your entire application is formulated to make your work in that field seem to be at a highly advanced (or even graduate) level. What you’ve listed are some good beginnings to a bunch of activities, but given how many things there are, it is hard to believe that you are excelling/will excel at all of them, especially at an advanced level.
hooks: legacy, development, recruited athlete, URM, first gen college student
spikes: started own company that is making a profit or started own no-profit that has had a signficant impact, developed an app and sold it to google, major Intel or other scientific award, published novel or book of poetry
I agree with the consensus that these are great ECs, but not hooks.
I understand, but disagree with the posters who have commented that the “random” nature of these activities gives a bad impression. You are who you are and you’ve done what you’ve done. You seem like an interesting applicant, as opposed to a manufactured, overly polished product of a college consultant. Good luck!
There isn’t usually an issue with ‘un-matched’ ECs, considering colleges like some rounding, diverse engagements. But OP has miles to go. It’s far too soon to consider these some complete array for an Ivy. And middle school doesn’t count; “starting”/trying to start a debate team won’t be as important as what it amounts to. Lots of kids “co-author” a paper (and you have to realize that this is very rarely the equivalent effort of the professionals.) OP needs to look at this from the colleges’ perspective.
None of them are spikes. (Perhaps the last one could be, but it’s all about where the paper ends up published, the prestige of lab and the co-authors, your actual level of involvement, etc, etc…)
They are extra-curricular activities, no more, no less.
These are excellent definitions, but I have one minor quibble. “Well known for prowess and skills in the regional area” isn’t enough to be a recruited athlete. Being the fastest swimmer in Alaska or the Dakotas is meaningless if there are hundreds of faster times coming out of California and Texas, and the best fencers in Hawaii haven’t been recruited anywhere the past several years. A better definition would be: Strong enough to help a collegiate team.
Being a “recruited athlete” is definite thing that happens between you and the college(s). Anything else having to do with athletics is just an extra-curricular activity and not a hook.
