<p>Soccer: again, what is unfair? Let’s say someone told us she wanted to be a fashion designer. However, she has very few drawings in her portfolio and is frankly, self absorbed and hasn’t looked deeply into the industry, what will be required of her in Fashion school, etc. Then she applies to some prestigious programs and is dumbfounded when others, who have a history of accomplishment in fashion, can verbalize their desires and can point to tangibles, get admitted over her.</p>
<p>Like I said before: there are plenty (~8000) colleges in the US willing to educate you. But if you’re asking why you don’t have a leg up on these uber-achievers and their desire to go to top tier schools who see themselves as educators for tomorrow’s leaders, then you should re-examine the facts here.</p>
<p>How is your complaint different than the guy who parties all through HS, squeaks by with a 3.4GPA, has no academic ambition to speak of and solely hangs out w/friends. Should top schools and LACs *reserve *spots for this type of kid? I’m not saying these kids don’t deserve a chance at a great education. However, look to the middle tier public school, not at an Ivy.</p>
<p>How about this: one day you may be in a situation to review resumes for job applicants. *What are you going to look for? * Honestly?</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Well things aren’t that simple. Point is: There are far fewer applicants with truly outstanding ECs then there are with nice stats. Harvard Adcoms have stated before that virtually half of the applicants they get would be able to manage the coursework. If you get in with below <2000 you probably have ECs or something that truly makes you stand out. However 2200SATs and 3.9 GPAs don’t make you something special at HYPSM.
You have to realize that Ivy-Admission is cherry-picking. </p></li>
<li><p>Highly selective insitutions (acceptance rate <10-30% depending on your view) with great academic programs and an abundance of good applicants. Generally the top 75 on rankings.</p></li>
<li><p>If you’re commited and it’s part of who you are then it’s a great EC. Again it’s not about quantity but quality. If you spend 15h then that is a great dedication. Shows that you aren’t a slacker and will contribute to a campus community.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>" Harvard Adcoms have stated before that virtually half of the applicants they get would be able to manage the coursework."</p>
<p>The competition is even fiercer than that. The dean of admission actually has said 85-90% of their applicants could manage the coursework!</p>
<p>“. To what extent is a sport considered an EC? If, for instance, I devote about 15 hours to a sport per week but am just short of a college’s recruiting standards, am I essentially out of luck?”</p>
<p>When it comes to top colleges, one has to be good enough at a sport to be a recruited athlete. What matters is how good you are, not how many hours a week you dedicate to the sport. It can be hard for the very top colleges to find excellent athletes who have the stats to qualify for admission who also are interested in going to Ivies instead of schools that are tops in their sports.</p>
<p>It’s only fair that EC’s are a factor in admissions (for top colleges). EC’s show interest and they take up a lot of time. A person who goes to Science club and gets great marks in Science shows more interest in Science. Also, EC’s show that you don’t study 12 hours a day. It shows the colleges that you can get great marks and spend a lot of time on other stuff at the same time. Besides, top colleges want to have an active community; they don’t want just people hanging out with their friends all day.</p>
<p>By no means do you have to–or should you–join every club at your school. Colleges are not looking for well-rounded (which has become a euphemism for overextended) students but for well-rounded student bodies. This is where the quality versus quantity argument comes in. Keep in mind that at the most competitive schools, quality means achievement, not just passion. For example, and interest in writing not backed up by lit mag or newspaper editor, competition awards, or camps is fairly worthless. </p>
<p>But I feel like CC really hypes up the importance of ECs. They are important, undoubtedly, but not when paired with unimpressive stats. School should come first. Low SAT scores and GPA are rarely redeemed by ECs, unless we’re talking about a recruited athlete or a world renowned actress (and even Emma Watson did phenomenally well on her British A-levels). An applicant has to look good on paper before he can rise off the paper with the intangibles (essay, recs, ECs).</p>