<p>A lot of people on CC like to talk about how important "passion" is. Obviously colleges would rather have focused applicants who excel in a couple of areas than the average student who is master of nothing. I really think that "passion" is a misleading term, though. It's kind of like saying that as long as you like something and put a lot of effort into it you'll be rewarded in college admissions. </p>
<p>Hypothetical Example #1
Student A: 1000+ hrs. community service, did it because he loves helping people.
Student B: president of a statewide community service organization that organizes one successful event a year, did it for college.</p>
<p>Victor: B. </p>
<p>Hypothetical Example #2
A: President of Math Club, AMC school winner but didn't qualify for AIME, reads books on math in spare time, future math major. Writes essay about how much he loves math.<br>
B: USAMO qualifier. Undecided major. Writes essay about how much he loves chocolate. </p>
<p>Victor: B. </p>
<p>I think what matters is whether you're good at what you do, not whether you like it, or even how much effort you put into it.</p>
<p>Being good at something is obviously good. o__o those with exceptional talent are rare for obvious reasons</p>
<p>but if you aren't good at that thing, showing passion and commitment is also good. those who are willing to put large amounts of time and effort into something are uncommon, but not rare.</p>
<p>I'm a little doubtful that student B in example 1 would win. 1000 hrs of community service is still very impressive.</p>
<p>I think passion and competence have a relation. Typically, when someone's passionate about something, he/she spends a lot of time on it and ends up very competent as well. Are you asking what if someone's competent but not passionate?</p>
<p>I don't know if there's any real ground for these assumptions. Besides, if you're winning awards, chances are you enjoy what you're doing anyway.</p>
<p>I doubt Hypothetical Example #2 is very likely. Qualifying for the USAMO without having the desire to actually learn that much mathematics on your own doesn't really make sense.</p>
<p>Option #1 is a little more interesting. Adcoms are supposed to be able to ferret out students like B, though.</p>
<p>Though I guess "Undecided" doesn't mean he has no desire to learn math -- he may just be a well-rounded (intellectually speaking) person. And maybe the chocolate essay is brilliant.</p>
<p>It is very hard to be good at something unless you have the passion. You could have a natural talent for ballet, but if you do not spend hours on it you could never be good at it.</p>
<p>^Agreed. Passion and achievement are very very correlated (I don't think I shocked anyone with that statement).</p>
<p>Your examples are a bit off. For example, if person B manages to organize a statewide organization and yet only has 1 yearly event, I assume that's a big event and it would take a lot of time and effort to plan. Hence, person B would show both leadership and altruistic qualities. </p>
<p>Let's look at your other example: I'd not so sure person B would win. Why did person B even do USAMO if he wasn't interested? My dad's a mathematician and I'm pretty good at math but I did absolutely no math-related EC's in HS. I simply wasn't interested. The fact he was successful at USAMO is important not because schools value competence over passion but because those skills are easily transferable to many other disciplines. The critical thinking skills that made him a good math student will also make him a good bio or physics or engineering student.</p>
<p>Not sure I agree with Oldfort ^, without a lot more of the kind of data adcoms are supposedly analyzing from the whole application package. Student B is consistent, but how do we know -- with no other data -- that s/he is a hard worker? Maybe a less rigorous schedule? Or maybe just a naturally talented learner who is solid, but not necessarily a "hard worker"? </p>
<p>On the other hand I wouldn't want to brand Student B as a slacker just because of a B+ with no other info. Again, what is the nature of the course schedule? The school's reputation for rigor?</p>
<p>These examples illustrate why one or two data points alone are never enough to paint a full picture.</p>
<p>It is also possible to be talented and good at something, work hard and put in hours, and NOT be passionate about it. For example, the lack of passion -- not the level of commitment or accomplishment -- is OFTEN what sends many artistic types in a different direction. I suspect it is the same in other fields of activity and training.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I think what matters is whether you're good at what you do, not whether you like it, or even how much effort you put into it.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Not really. If you're an average cross-country runner (for example), but you've been putting 10-20 hours/week into it for four years, it still shows work ethic, ability to focus, perseverance - all things that admissions officers like to see. Unless they're recruiting you for the activity/considering you for a scholarship for the activity, or the activity is an academic one that indicates something about whether you're likely to succeed at the school academically, there's not that much reason for them to care whether you're good at it or not.</p>
<p>Well, that statement's kinda extreme. Certain things don't have many opportunities for recognition other than a few regional awards. If you enjoy doing those things, and commit yourself to it but don't have many awards, it's fine. However, if you do something like USABO, Science Olympiad, USNCO, AMC, and you've never even made AIME or semi's, but you "committed" yourself, you'll get some credit for being passionate but i personally don't feel it'll impress them. Passion is one part, but competence and level of accomplishment probably is another part as well.</p>
<p>Orchestramom - My example of student B is a very hard worker because it's very hard to maintain a 4.0 GPA, no matter how smart you are. Some students may be very good in math, but not history or english. It takes a lot of disciplin and willingness to work hard to get As in subjects that you are not as good at. 3.7 -3.9 are still good GPA, but it means you got occasional Bs. When you are taking the most difficult courses in all areas, then getting As in every course, it shows very hard work. That is also being consistant for 4 years, taking into acct of occasional illness, family/relationship problems, any of that could impact your tests/grades. My hat off to anyone that could get straight As in high school.</p>