I’ll let you know when I observe that a majority (let alone all) of incoming freshman have a reasonably developed engineering problem mindset. Don’t hold your breath.
Teaching that mindset is one of the primary tasks of an engineering program. Students aren’t expected to have it before they start.
You forget the gatekeepers, the filtering, up front. OP said “like UVa” You don’t walk into an admit just for saying you want engineering.
I believe we have conflicting experiences.
My experience I am citing is based on being in a position where my job is (in part) to educate undergraduate engineers, and let me tell you, the ones who have any sense of engineering problem solving skills as freshman are pretty heavily in the minority. The majority have to develop that over time.
I’m not talking about being fully formed as a freshman. I’m talking adcoms. In the extreme, we wouldn’t tell a kid who wants MIT that he or she needs no stem ECs, will learn everything in college. They need to be competitive, to get an admit. They need several factors and we know engineering isn’t a walk in the park.
Not every college, of course. But CYA beats blind. UVa isn’t MIT. But they’ll apply expectations.
Same for many majors.
You teach (and hire?) I review. Yes, we could trade tales.
I think the STEM EC angle is grossly overrated. Schools care about GPA, classes, primarily level of math achieved and standardized test scores (for some, including SAT II). There were quite a few students in my son’s class and a couple of years to either side of him that got into very competitive programs including MIT and Stanford and they had no engineering ECs. Why? Their school didn’t offer any with the exception of math club. Schools care about demonstrated horsepower. Then, and only then, do ECs make a difference at the extreme periphery (assuming the student doesn’t hold a patent). Predicting what those ECs are to the very few schools who might care is anyone’s guess.
When we visited Olin College of Engineering years ago, I asked if FIRST / Robotics was important because our son was really busy with other stuff (mostly music). They recommended he “Do what you Love”.
Note - I still do think that STEM EC can help students decide if they like that kind of thing. But in most cases it is probably not a major factor for college acceptances.
Yes, that is the main value of engineering ECs for a potential engineering student.
For most colleges (i.e. not super-selective), it is unlikely to be a deciding factor in admissions, unless the applicant is otherwise near the borderline and the college does a subjective review including ECs at least for applicants near the borderline. For super-selective colleges, obviously anything that helps make a good story for the admissions readers helps (although some may criticize engineering ECs for an intended engineering student as “too one dimensional” or “too unilateral”).
I completely concur and love the Olin advice of “Do what you love.”
The thing about using “engineering” ECs as a litmus test is that LOTS of schools don’t have them. My son’s didn’t until well after he’d graduated.
It’s also a bit of a false reassurance. FIRST is not engineering. FIRST is tinkering. Many students dropout of engineering when they encounter the brute intensity of the math and physics because they were misled into believing that FIRST was a accurate representation of day in and day out engineering. A few engineers get to do that sort of stuff, mainly those with mechatronics backgrounds. They are rare though and still typically have solid mechanics and/or EE foundations.
OP asked about stem ECs, which means math-sci. Not specifically “engineering.”
BIg difference between the interpretation that “stem” means specifically a sort “engineering” experience. So, right: “FIRST is not engineering.” But it IS a stem EC and collaborative. And tinkering/problem solving is good.
If only kids did learn what the “day in/day out” is about. Many don’t undersatnd it’s not all ‘invent and glory.’
And you’re not one-dimensional when you choose other activities, as well. No one can say getting some stem ECs in means nothing else.
OP said none. How will OP present as ‘ready,’ besides, let’s hope, some math and physics classwork and then having liked the chem class?
Very few, if any, HS level engineering ECs (including the ever popular robotics programs) are meaningful, if the benchmark is how well they predict college engineering success. Having a solid foundation for math and physics is a much better predictor.