<p>I'd like to look at this objectively, no emotions or ideals of amusement involved, OK?</p>
<p>Which EC does Harvard look more favorabley on? Track or Forensics ( Debate) I only have time to do one next year, I'm not exceptional in track, and this would be my first year of forensics ( as a sophomore,) so I don't know if I would excel.</p>
<p>Unless you are a good enough athlete to get recruited or such a talented musician or author or whatever to actually become famous for it, I don't think any one EC is particularly more valuable than any other. </p>
<p>The key thing is to do whatever ECs <em>you</em> like best, not the ones you think Harvard likes best. The point is that you need make something of your EC -- to take it to another level beyond what most ordinary students do. That's what will set you apart far more than the nature of EC itself. And for that to happen it better be something you actually like. It's hard to fake or force the level of interest and involvement needed to impress Harvard.</p>
<p>Follow your heart mate. That's what Harvard wants to see, not just some superficial EC done to 'impress' adcoms.</p>
<p>perm: do both</p>
<p>He only has time to do one.</p>
<p>She, I am a girl. Sorry, that was bothering me.</p>
<p>Shot in the dark: I would say debate team. Harvard already has a lot of athletes applying and unless you're really good and getting recruited, I doubt it would make much of a difference (not to say that forensics would upscale your application either). Debate also shows that you can express yourself and are quick-thinker. </p>
<p>Just a guess though. My advice would be for you to aim for variety. If you already have dozens of tracks and sports listed in your history go for the forensics. Otherwise if you're a school politics, model UN student go for the track.</p>