<p>"The Wall Street Journal report did specifically highlight a "consistent trend"one that forensic coaches have known for a long timethat dedicated participation in drama and debate has significantly increased the success rate of college applicants at all schools which track such data. State and national award winners have a 22% to 30% higher acceptance rate at top tier colleges and being captain of the debate team "improved an applicant's chances by more than 60% compared with the rest of the pool," according to the report. This is significantly better than other extracurricular activities that tend to recruit from the same pool of students as forensic teams such as school newspaper reporter (+3%), sports team captain (+5%), class president (+5%), and band (+3%). Even without winning major awards, participation in speech and debate develops valuable skills that colleges are seeking out and that is reflected in the above average acceptance rate (+4%). Colleges and universities today are looking for articulate thinkers and communicators who will become active citizens and leaders of tomorrow. "</p>
<p>I can see it being true, and my feeling when reading this was <em>yep</em>, <em>yep</em> with each statement, but I think it is one of those things that are less a rule and more a trend. Certainly it’s not worthwhile to adopt a admissions “strategy” around which ECs to pursue. Over-strategising is imho one of the things that universities see right through. Whatever EC a student chooses to adopt, (debate, science, whatever) it is much more important for it to be natural and develop organically out of interest, than in hopes of boosting admissions chances. </p>
<p>Incidentally I watched some of Yale’s teams at the WUDC (World Universities Debating Championship)…University of Sydney was better. :P</p>
<p>(well they did win the whole thing after all!) :)</p>
<p>Where does this quote come from, and who is Dr. Luong? A forensics coach at Yale? He’s certainly not Yale’s admissions director (that’s Jeff Brenzel), and my guess is he’s not in admissions at all. </p>
<p>This is the first I’ve heard that you’re at a specific advantage in the Yale admissions pool if you have participated in debate. Brenzel has repeatedly said that applicants should pick their activities because they appeal to them, not because they think particular activities will look best to the admissions committee. Yes, successful applicants will have engaged in one or more activities at a high level. And debate is an excellent activity. But at the admissions table is debate a cut above other accomplishments like journalism, music, or community leadership? I doubt it. Trying to outthink an admissions committee is a useless exercise, IMO.</p>
<p>And I think the OP’s selective quote is abit misleading, when the article is read in context, it’s much clearer what Dr Luong is trying to say. </p>
<p>Well perhaps - according to old figures anyway (see above, or at source) I can’t see that this is unreasonable. It isn’t to say that Debate is inherently a “better” thing to do than any number of other things, but perhaps suggests a trend that the “A type personality” kid, with excellent communication skills (etc) may be drawn to debate, and therefore it may be a trend that more debaters/public speakers are admitted. Not necessarily because of debate, but more of an issue of correlation, not causation.</p>
<p>Correlation is not causation. The kids who do debate, from my observation and experience, tend to be high academic achievers. Look at the list: while being team captain is an achievement and may show leadership (or at least popularity and / or skill) that doesn’t mean the kid is a great student.</p>
<p>I think some of his arguments are misleading. Of course being a distinguished debater will help you more than being a class president, band member, or sport team captain because nearly all high schools in this country will have multiple sport teams, a band, and student government. On the other hand, not every school has debate. Just looking at the numbers, a Debate captain would theoretically stand out more than a Football Captain because there are simply more football captains around the US than debate captains. </p>
<p>On top of that, I think schools who do have debate are more likely to be private schools, prep schools, or well academically-established public schools. And if debaters (in general) go to better academic schools (in general) then they would theoretically be in situations where they are better prepared (in general) for the college admissions process.</p>
<p>And finally, to echo what Lergom said, this is an example of a correlation, not causation. This study tells us that better qualified applicants tend to pick debate; not that debate makes them better applicants.</p>
<p>A lot has changed in the admissions scene since 1999. Those figures for debaters might very conceivably have been reduced over the years, to mirror the increasing selectivity in general over the past decade. </p>
<p>I would assume this has less of an impact at HYPMS-level schools as it would at say the other Ivies or their peer institutions (Duke, Georgetown, Northwestern, etc.) where debaters being accepted could only reflect a college’s desire to fill its student body with people who are articulate, knowledgeable and vocal.</p>
<p>In any case, before I wax lyrical about any advantages debaters might enjoy, I offer myself as a subject for experimentation. My GPA is weakish, and the rest of my application is strong. I’ve started debating 6 years ago and yes, I was captain by the time I graduated from HS. I also have a supplementary recommendation from my debate coach and I’m waiting to hear from 18 schools in RD. Let’s see how my outcomes turn out.</p>
<p>No it is definitely true. There are a RIDICULOUS number of debaters here. I do not know if debate is CAUSING this though or if there is just a correlation between people who do debate and intelligent people. Because there are also a large number of people here who were involved with music to some capacity.</p>
<p>Yale is drawing its students from the most competitive fraction of HS graduates. All of them are going to be accomplished in some area. That area may be debate, but accomplishments in debate are not going to be valued more highly than accomplishments in other areas done at the same high level. Yale needs kids to write for the many newspapers and literary/intellectual publications, perform in a cappella groups and instrumental ensembles, lead student government, and lead workshops and competitive teams in the broader community. And I’m just scratching the surface.</p>
<p>It’s fallacious to say that just because Yale needs people to occupy the various niches on campus, the debaters in the applicant pool enjoy no competitive advantage. Yale’s obligation to fill those positions does not translate to an equal ‘value’ accorded to applicants with different ECs but who participate at them at the ‘same high level’. If debate were a purely extracurricular venture, then in principle you’d be right. However:</p>
<p>(1) debaters often possess skills that allow them to succeed in the classroom, bringing to the classroom carefully argued and worded stances that are expressed in discussions and in papers. (note: I’m not insinuating that debaters are the only group that possess these skills)</p>
<p>(2) the research experience many debaters have also makes them prospectively valuable in a scholarly capacity. (corollary: this might also mean debaters are more likely to carefully and comprehensively study the literature in their field of study, something that many students today neglect to do)</p>
<p>(3) today’s liberal arts collegiate environments favor students who are familiar with a broad variety of disciplines. successful debaters have an acumen for this sort of multidisciplinary knowledge acquisition. </p>
<p>The merits that a debater brings to a college extend beyond these three-points but my intent was to illustrate that the skills a debater develops makes him useful to the university committee in more ways than a violinist or a soccer player might because his/her abilities spill over from extracurriculars into academics, which is ostensibly the prime focus of attending college.</p>
<p>In arguing that Yale values debaters beyond others, you are taking a highly parochial view of what constitutes value to colleges and how colleges assess it. To use your example of the violinist, the student who excels at music is almost never one-dimensional. He or she brings to the table a constellation of qualities colleges value – not simply the ability to play Lutoslawsky. There are many, many ways beyond debate for a student to display a spark of intellectual curiosity and enthusiasm for engaging with peers and communities – to make him “useful to the university committee.”</p>
<p>I think it’s funny that the debaters are giving us such cogent arguments about why colleges *should *prefer debaters. I’m not persuaded that they actually do, though.</p>
<p>@wjb: Of course one can be widely read, capable in oratory and proficient in argumentation, research and other academic skills even if they’ve never been on a debate podium. As I mentioned, in no uncertain terms, debaters are not the only group possessing these skills. That said, I believe that in choosing what is first and foremost an academic community, debaters might be more successful because:</p>
<p>(1) it’s harder to establish a causal relationship between being a gifted violinist or athlete and the ability to boast a diversity/depth of academic knowledge or an acumen for research or argumentation. it’s more conceivable that debate is among the most successful ways to cultivate those desired skills. </p>
<p>(2) good debaters are generally seen to already possess those skills to some degree which might favor them in ceteris paribus admissions decisions. by this i mean that the perception of debaters as a knowledgeable, articulate lot capable of informed critical thought, whether or not it is a narrow stereotype, widely persists and as much as you’d want your admissions officer to believe that the award-winning violinist has the same chances of classroom success as the award-winning debater, perception prevents that possibility. </p>
<p>Anyway,</p>
<p>@Hunt: You’re right, I’m only indulging in optimistic conjecturing and to tell you the truth, I have no real idea if debaters like myself enjoy any advantage in the admissions process. I will however be interested in the results of a more carefully constructed study done within today’s hyper-competitive admissions setting. No matter what such a study will conclude, one can find logical explanations to support it, as you’ve seen above.</p>
<p>I completely agree. When I was a freshman taking debate for the first time in high school, one of the first things my coach/teacher cited to me was that debate is the #1 activity that is looked for by colleges. Whether that’s true or not I can’t say, but I would definitely agree with the statement that it’s hugely valuable in college admissions.</p>
<p>Debate, especially Policy, LD, and PF (IEs are great too, but speech events tend to require less practice and skill, on the whole) - teaches you SO many things. Research skills, communication skills, dedication, perseverance - there’s really no other sport that gives you that COMPLETE package. And I think adcoms see that when they look at someone’s application…</p>
<p>I think a large part of me being admitted to Yale early was my debate awards/participation. Another friend of mine who was admitted to Harvard two years ago was also a Policy debater and our President - so personal anecdotes confirm this trend, to me at least.</p>
<p>I highly doubt that Yale intrinsically values debaters (a definition of this is imperative - a debater here is simply to be defined as someone who participates in debate) more than, to use you guys’ previous example, violinists. Any attempt to do this would be making the mistake of assuming that correlation implies causality (causality is nearly impossible to find given the nature of admissions to elite universities nowadays because unless one is given the values of all variables in play, including a certain applicant’s relation to the rest of the applicant pool, then one cannot definitely conclude anything). However, I simply want to add that I think the debate that will ensue should be on whether colleges prefer the ideal debater or the ideal violinist. That is, if the applicant participates in debate and, in the other parts of the application, shows that s/he possesses the qualities of the perfect or ideal debater (assume s/he gets some debate awards, if you wish), then would there be a better chance that person would be admitted than, say, the ideal violinist? If there were a statistic (god knows how one would actually come up with it) that showed how much of a boost the ideal debater or the ideal violinist got in admissions, then perhaps we would be able to come up with something that could be relatively close to a definitive conclusion on the issue.</p>
:)</p>