<p>Would an Ivy school/prestigious LAC favor a student who was well-rounded in their extracurricular activities, or would they favor a student who was EXTREMELY talented in one activity?</p>
<p>they want some of each</p>
<p>I’m going to go with extreme talent and dedication in one area, if a student’s base is large but shallow they may be labelled a “serial joiner” but not much of a contributor and if I were an adcom I may be weary that many such sctivities were done for the sole purpose of getting into University X. Whereas talent and accomplishment in one area would lead me to believe that the student is dedicated in this field and will continue to be dedicated if he/she attends this university and talented enough to seriously contribute to it.</p>
<p>The few colleges that factor ECs into admission-- and those are the most competitive colleges, which get so many academically stellar applicants that those colleges can use ECs to choose from among those stellar students – don’t have a preference. What they do like are students who have pursued their passions with depth, creativity and independence. Whether the students are well rounded or well lopsided is of no consequence.</p>
<p>The important thing is that your ECs show that you are passionate about something other than simply coming to school and getting As. If you do that well, it doesn’t matter much how well-rounded the ECs are.</p>
<p>I read a quote on this topic recently - can’t remember where - but the gist was that colleges want a well-rounded student body composed of students with unique qualities. So, I think demionstrating depth of involvement and passion for one or two areas is best. It will also make you stand out more to be unique rather than well-rounded.</p>
<p>We recently visited Duke and the admission’s rep said that they understand that if you are a swimmer (for example) most of your time will be spent in the pool and that your other activities may be limited. They did not seem as interested in that ever-elusive “well-rounded” description and more interested in committment and passion - which can be both specific and broad.</p>
<p>One day on CC someone posted MIT’s opinion. It cracked me up: </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>tee hee</p>
<p>The Stanford rep who visited our high school 3 years ago said that they were less interested in well-rounded students than in creating a well-rounded class. Not unequivically negative about being well-rounded, but you get the drift.</p>
<p>What has changed, or so I’ve heard from someone with an ear in admissions (rumor time), is that top schools have discovered that having a student body composed entirely of ‘edgy’ types doesn’t make for a very cohesive class, so amidst all the focused, single-minded passionate types, admissions also looks for a few ‘social glue’ types-students who excel at building relationships, making teams function well, and generally creating a sense of fun and belonging. </p>
<p>So, I guess the answer really is, you can go either way. Personally, I’d go for a lot of focus on those few things that really interest me-but if you are interested in trying out lots of things and don’t know what you love yet, I say be who you really are. It’s a lot more compelling than faking passions you don’t have.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, I am not blessed with a relevant passion that I would be <em>extremely</em> in depth with. However, I have several activites that I am involved to a decent degree in and do plenty of community activities/service which I really enjoy doing… I hope that I won’t get pushed aside too much…</p>