<p>And if the comic book club EC involves writing and producing art for comic books and the student is going on in something creative - it might be more valuable EC. ECs should reflect your interests. My son only had academic contest type ECs. That's what he enjoyed doing. He was also very good at it. If he'd been very good at drama, I'd have advised him to do that. (Assuming he enjoyed acting.)</p>
<p>soozievt, I'm not certain exactly what you're disagreeing with in what I wrote. In fact, I agree with most of what you said. If you read what I said, even in the original post, it wasn't denigrating cheerleading at all (and in fact, compared cheerleading to other sports). What I meant, and still think, is that ECs are not the same in what they convey to an outside observer about what a student's strengths are. Obviously, if a kid involved in cheerleading becomes a genuine leader, that can be established. But that will not be obvious simply from the participation in that EC, as it might be if, for example, the student has earned the Gold Award in Girl Scouting. If a kid is in the Science or Robotics Club, or is on the Math Team, that tells you something about the kid's academic interests, and probably abilities. And with respect to the Comic Book Club vs. the Science Club--I would agree that the Comic Book Club might be better if the student wrote and published his own comic book, or published reviews, or organized an exhibition of comic book art, etc...as compared to "member" of the Science Club. But I continue to to think that if he's just going to be a "member" of one or the other, I would rather it be the Science Club, at least for college purposes.
(Note: I always find it interesting to see how many people decline to answer a hypothetical question on its own terms--i.e., I asked if the daughter said she liked both karate and cheerleading the same, which would look better to colleges? and the answer was "do both or do the one you like best.")</p>
<p><a href="Note:%20I%20always%20find%20it%20interesting%20to%20see%20how%20many%20people%20decline%20to%20answer%20a%20hypothetical%20question%20on%20its%20own%20terms--i.e.,%20I%20asked%20if%20the%20daughter%20said%20she%20liked%20both%20karate%20and%20cheerleading%20the%20same,%20which%20would%20look%20better%20to%20colleges?%20and%20the%20answer%20was" title="do both or do the one you like best.">quote=Hunt</a>
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The problem is that there isn't a set answer, because there are too many other factors that would go into that determination. Perhaps the one that would look better to college X would be the one they see fewer students participating in. Perhaps the one that would look better to college Y would be the one that inspired the student to write a beautiful essay. I think it's just impossible to categorically assert one activity would look better than another in the example you gave.</p>
<p>I get that, but it's not what I'm talking about. It's forming a hypothetical like: if you had to choose either A or B, which would you choose? And then somebody says, I would choose both. That's different from saying, you can't choose, or there is no basis to choose, etc.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I asked if the daughter said she liked both karate and cheerleading the same, which would look better to colleges?
[/quote]
The only real answer to that question, assuming all other variables regarding the student are equal, is "I don't know. I'm not on the admissions committee. And I don't know how many other karate black belts or cheerleaders are applying to each school, and whether a particular school needs more black belts or cheerleaders this year. If you really can't decide, flip a coin."</p>
<p><a href="Note:%20I%20always%20find%20it%20interesting%20to%20see%20how%20many%20people%20decline%20to%20answer%20a%20hypothetical%20question%20on%20its%20own%20terms--i.e.,%20I%20asked%20if%20the%20daughter%20said%20she%20liked%20both%20karate%20and%20cheerleading%20the%20same,%20which%20would%20look%20better%20to%20colleges?%20and%20the%20answer%20was" title="do both or do the one you like best.">quote</a>
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't get what you mean. An honest answer, on my end, would truly be to pick whichever one you liked the best. If you can't decide and have time for both, do both! I would not CARE which looked better for colleges! That concept would be unimportant to me. I'd say do your interests and achieve in them. </p>
<p>By the way, I had a client who was very into comic books and I recall one of his essays being all about that, in fact. He also wanted to go into computer animation. He had no comic book club but such an idea would be good if the student really accomplished something in that interest area, which in his case, related to what he wanted to pursue. </p>
<p>
[quote]
What I meant, and still think, is that ECs are not the same in what they convey to an outside observer about what a student's strengths are.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Some of a student's strengths are documented already in their academic record and recommendations. The ECs need documentation as to what their contribution and achievement was in that endeavor. My own children and all of my clients prepare an annotated resume that shows these things. So, just saying "cheerleading squad" or "X Club" doesn't reveal their level of participation, contributions, achievements. Some achievements are not an "award" either....such as being selected for a dance group by audition, or being cast as the lead in play. While the Gold Award in Girl Scouting is cool in that there is a named award, there are many achievements of note in an EC endeavor that are not always "named". EC achievements must be noted on the application, not just the name of the EC. Academic strengths are noted elsewhere in the application package.</p>
<p>What you said about Science or Robotics club about demonstrating an academic interest is also cool. But it is NOT necessary to have an EC connected to academic interests. My D is going into architecture. Her ECs were not about Architecture (though she did a short internship one summer in an architect's office....but that was the least amount of weeks and hours of any of her EC endeavors which were huge time commitments). Who cares if your ECs are related to academics? Colleges do NOT. You can demonstrate your abilities and interests in an academic field many ways and not through ECs! My D did an independent study related to architecture, for credit, for example. It was not an EC but during the school day as a course. Her ECs were NOT related to her intended major at all! She was very involved in lessons on two instruments, band, wind ensemble, jazz band, jazz dance, tap dance, hip hop dance, student government, soccer team, ski team, tennis team, assistant teaching at the elementary school, teaching a tap dance class to kids, French Club, Class Council, coaching a youth soccer team, travel groups, musical theater, etc. These EC endeavors were not related to academics or academic abilities. She showed academics in other documentation. Her traits through her ECs are ones that have continued all four years of college where she is a leader, a teacher, an athlete, etc. </p>
<p>If you have an academic interest you wish to pursue in college or for a career, you should demonstrate what you have done to develop that interest. I know my D did that. But that was NOT related to her actual EC activities. She demonstrated interest and abilities related to her intended major and what she had done to explore that field, but this was separate from her lifelong EC activities which had nothing to do with her intended major. She happens to attend a highly selective college and so obviously this is fine.</p>
<p>You mention about which activity to be a "member" of. What sets kids apart is NOT WHICH ACTIVITY they pick but what they DO in it....and not just being a "member." That's the key, not the name of the activity itself.</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>Note: I always find it interesting to see how many people decline to answer a hypothetical question on its own terms--i.e., I asked if the daughter said she liked both karate and cheerleading the same, which would look better to colleges?<<</p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>I'm not afraid to answer that. IMO, in <em>most</em> cases (which accommodates nceph's valid point above) karate would look better on an app than cheerleading. I accept all the positives claimed for cheer as an endeavor, but it still hasn't fully lived down its reputation as frivolous activity undertaken in high school largely to enhance popularity of the girls lucky enough to get chosen. That reputation may not be fully justified, but I think it persists nevertheless.</p>
<p>Coureur, that is true that an image of cheerleading DOES exist. However, today there are cheer squads that are like competitive athletic or dance teams. My eyes were opened when seeing competitions on TV and it was nothing like the old fashioned imagine of cheerleading where if you were popular or pretty you made the squad. So, I think the image has shifted and hopefully a student involved in the endeavor, as well as recs can speak to achievements, leadership, etc. in this group activity. Also, being part of a collaborative group has value and is different than all solo endeavors. The fact that colleges have cheer squads means they are interested in filling them and so I would imagine such an EC on an app means they will want some kids to fulfill that grouping at the college. I would think that a strong candidate would likely be involved in other endeavors besides just this one, however.</p>
<p>By the way, I don't think karate looks better than cheerleading to colleges. I think both would be looked at as worthwhile endeavors but what the student achieved and contributed would be more the point than what the actual activity was.</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>Well, presumably the discussion group showed academic interest, at least.>> Nope. It was about discussing contentious issues among high schoolers: diversity, sexual identity, etc... and learning to agree to disagree.</p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>If I had a kid trying to choose between karate and cheerleading, I'd say choose which you like best, and which fits your academic schedule and other activities best (oh, and which involves less effort on the part of the parental units).</p>
<p>"I don't get what you mean. An honest answer, on my end, would truly be to pick whichever one you liked the best. If you can't decide and have time for both, do both!"</p>
<p>What I mean is that the hypothetical question provided that the kid doesn't like one the best. The whole point of the hypo is to eliminate "do the one you like best" from the potential answers. (The idea you couldn't do both was, I think, implicit, although not explicit.) Have you ever had one of those conversations where somebody asks, "If you could only save one of your three children from death, which would you choose?" I've noticed that some people will say, "I'd find some way to save all of them."
I have no problem with Chedva's answer, which essentially explicitly rejects the premise of the hypo. It's like saying, "I don't know which of my children I'd save--the situation is not one that I can reason out hypothetically."</p>
<p>Marite, I would argue that the discussion group did show academic interest--not in a particular subject, but in approach. It is an intellectual (if I dare use that word) activity. Again, being in a discussion group in itself says something different about a person than being involved in a sport.<br>
And soozievt, your D's list of ECs shows a great deal of diversity, and many of them show academic interest (i.e., French, assistant teaching) and leadership (coaching, student government). I certainly agree that it's not essential that they relate to the student's intended major. (Although I guess for some intended majors--i.e., music--it would probably be questionable if no ECs related to it.)</p>
<p>But French Club is the LEAST important and least "impressive" EC, in my view, on her record. It involved far less time than her other ECs. She did go on the French trip to France and did fund raising events. But this was so minor that I almost forgot to mention it in my post, compared to her much more heavily committed ECs which had nothing to do with academics. She IS interested in French and accelerated and did an independent study French 6 in senior year, assisted in the French classes at her elementary school senior year and now in college has chosen to take French all four years, worked one summer in France teaching children English in an Englism immersion camp and one summer in Paris working in an architectural firm. However, her ECs for the most part, had very little to do with her academic interests. French club was quite minor. She was able to show French ability in her acceleration, independent study, French teacher of five years' rec, SAT II, and travel experiences. </p>
<p>While it is true she was a leader in student government, though not by a title but by her initiation of a policy development which the School Board passed (an example of how leadership was not by title but had to be documented on the activity resume and in recs), and did coach or teach children, I think of her athletic endeavors as having a bunch of leadership involvement. It may not be what you define as leadership or what is readily observable as leadership, but the ECs that were not academically related actually involved a bunch of leadership traits. The ECs that you are pointing out that she did were her most minor ECs of the entire resume. I am not discounting them as she loved those activities and chose to do them, but her BIGGEST activities were not those things....they were sports and performing arts. </p>
<p>As far as the hypothetical question of karate vs cheerleading and if the kid didn't like one best.....and which looks better for college....I'd say neither looks better....it is what you achieve in the endeavor. Do either one, it doesn't matter. Who cares what colleges think? Pick one you want to do. Do both if you want. If you can only do one, flip a coin. Most kids would have some preference to some degree and I'd say pick the one you have an inkling of prefering or maybe it works better in your schedule. I would say who cares which looks best to colleges? I think they look the same on paper but it is a matter of your contribution to the endeavor and your achievements. Try one.....if it isn't your thing, do the other. ECs are for yourself, not for the application. The application is simply a documentation of what you've done in your life.</p>
<p>My D is a varsity cheerleader at her hs. Cheerleaders do more than practice and perform routines and stunts at sports games. At Ds hs the squad is responsible for all scheduled and impromptu pep assemblies, freshman and new student orientation, assisting the PTA with fundraisers, volunteering or finding volunteers for chamber of commerce events, giving cheer and pep clinics for the middle and elementary students, serving as an ambassador for the hs and school district when needed and much more. They make sure the academic endeavors as well as sports are recognized and supported. Although, the team functions as a well-oiled machine when performing (essential for stunts) each member has additional responsibilities. There is a team captain but others are responsible for organizing the visiting squads gift bags, coordinating with the AD and coach on travel arrangements, ordering and selling of logo wear, choreographing new routines, etc.</p>
<p>To answer the OPs question - these qualities may not be what an IVY is looking for in a student, but many other good schools would be happy to accept a student who is a hs cheerleader.</p>
<p>Oh, My D is also a class officer, ASB officer and French Club president. Cheer is far more time consuming and requires far more of her leadership skills.</p>
<p>
I don't think Ivy League schools are "looking for" cheerleaders, but given my daughter's experiences, I'd say they sure don't seem to mind accepting them.</p>
<p>from a mom whose d has a black belt in karate and is attending an Ivy I just want to add a bit to this discussion-
(Honestly- let a kid do what a kid wants to do)</p>
<p>First and formost, my kid had the "basic Ivy credentials" re: SAT scores- class rank-etc. etc. What I think showed up on her application was that she did not join every club or do activities just to impress the Admissions Officer.</p>
<p>Her main activities were Karate (she taught special Ed kids Karate- she was employed Teaching Karate) and summer camp ( swimming- nature- cook-outs-- not one of those Educational camps or summer pre-law programs)
She joined a few school clubs and was in orchestra.
but she certainly did not have a whole array of scholastic activities from Editor of newspaper, science research, robotics club etc. etc. etc. </p>
<p>Maybe her individuality came through and it was refreshing to get an application from someone who did not list all the usual "cookie cutter activities"
and yes I also know of a fellow Long Island girl who got into Columbia with her main EC being a cheerleader. The family felt her activity also played a big role in her acceptance.
Not to sound sexist but even the Ivy Leagues want and need "cute" and competent cheerleaders. It's probably a good marketing tool. These games are televised. and the image of the school will be conveyed in this venue too.</p>
<p>I think a kids individuality and maturity comes across when it is obvious they choose activities based on their OWN preferences and not what they think looks good to a college admission officer.</p>
<p>The kids in my Long Island district who were most successful with Ivy League admission were the ones who showed independance and a backbone in choosing outside activities. Having an after school job and NOT participating in numerous "academic" endeavors seemed to impress admission counselors too. </p>
<p>As the saying goes , LESS IS MORE!!</p>
<p>"Not to sound sexist but even the Ivy Leagues want and need "cute" and competent cheerleaders."</p>
<p>Well, that is another quality that is suggested by participation in cheerleading, but it's not one I would have mentioned!
To be serious for a second, there are certain types of activities and achievements that schools are actively looking for. For example, they are obviously looking for recruitable athletes, winners of major science prizes, etc. They may, at some times, be looking for people who play certain musical instruments (i.e., the oboe), or for people who want to go into particular majors. Most ECs, no matter how much the student has achieved, do not fit into this category. Thus, while being the editor of the school paper is a very excellent EC, top schools get enough applicants who do this that they don't have to go out and look for them. I think probably the same thing is true for cheerleading at selective schools like the Ivies. (Note that Harvard, for example, only has 18 cheerleaders). I'll bet there are schools, though, where cheerleading is a recruited activity.</p>
<p>Hunt:</p>
<p>The discussion group showed many things. But leadership? Nope. He did not found it or lead it. Not my kid.</p>
<p>I think I opined that it showed academic interest...like participation in almost any discussion group would show. I agree it doesn't show leadership. But it shows something. If a kid is in the Comedy Improv Club, he's probably funny, or at least thinks he is.</p>
<p>
[quote]
"Not to sound sexist but even the Ivy Leagues want and need "cute" and competent cheerleaders."
Well, that is another quality that is suggested by participation in cheerleading, but it's not one I would have mentioned!
[/quote]
Nor would I, especially considering many h.s. and college cheerleaders are male (some cute, some not -- hopefully all competent, since they serve as bases).</p>
<p><a href="Note%20that%20Harvard,%20for%20example,%20only%20has%2018%20cheerleaders">quote</a>.
[/quote]
I am pretty sure they have tryouts, so more than 18 tried out. My D did not try out for cheerleading at Harvard, and neither did her friends there who were also former h.s. cheerleaders, so I suspect that there were a lot more than 18 h.s. cheerleaders accepted into that class. The class also has a surprisingly high (surprising to me at least) number of homecoming queens and pageant winners. I think the key with all of these seemingly (to some) non-Ivy League activities is that they are merely part of a much more complex person. Just to use my own D as an example, while she wasn't nearly as accomplished and involved as SoozieVT's Ds, in addition to cheerleading, mine also was one of the top performers on math team, was in the honors vocal ensemble, the local youth symphony, and a number of other somewhat less time-consuming activities (and yes, she had leadership roles in almost all of those). I doubt there are many students getting in whose only activity was cheerleading. I also doubt there are many getting in who only had one activity at all. These kids are multifaceted, and it's impossible in most cases, to attribute their admissions success to any one activity (with the exception of recruited athletes, of course.)</p>
<p>nceph, your D sounds mighty accomplished to me!~ But you make a good point....most kids I know at highly selective schools often are not one dimensional. They are great at academics but are engaged in a few other endeavors. My guess is like yours that there are many students at a school like Harvard who were cheerleaders in HS but may not be on Harvard's squad. </p>
<p>An activity is worthy to adcoms even if the student is not recruited for the activity. You don't have ot have played oboe and they need an oboist. My D was heavily involved in music but played two common instruments...piano and clarinet...and was not accepted, I'm sure, so they would have members of their music groups (as there are some way more accomplished musicians than she for sure...who have made this their primary EC), but I still think colleges would value her heavy commitment to her instruments, band, select wind ensemble, jazz band, All States, etc. etc. They are looking for people to admit and not necessarily that the people they admit are going to play that instrument at college or cheer for the cheer team at college. They still value the commitments these kids made to their areas of EC interest. At college, my D cannot do every single one of her EC passions from HS as it is impossible on the college level. I'm sure she'd like to though. Just her varsity sport at college alone involves umpteen hours per week and weekend. She does more ECs than that in college but for example, can't be on three varsity sports there like she was in HS. I still think colleges valued her commitments to those other ECs that can't all be done at college. I agree with nceph that strong candidates are multi-faceted and I could never attribute one factor to why my own kid was admitted but I think it was the sum of the parts. Funny, but her main personal essay was on her multi-faceted self!</p>