Assuming top 10 pct grades from top school in state and 33-35 composite ACT range, what would be the level (quantity and quality) of EC involvement and leadership likely to gain admission at T20 schools? T50 schools? T30 LACs? Does it vary from school to school?
There was a thread at some point that had a listing of rankings of ECs. Things like winning National and international competitions were at the top of the list for impressive ECs.
Top schools practice holistic admission. They also try to balance out their incoming class based on all kinds of factors - geography, intended majors, diversity, economics, etc… What that looks like changes year to year even in the same school, let alone between schools.
IMO a student should pick ECs that they enjoy and feel a connection too. Even with the most impressive ECs, admission to top schools is still a crap shoot and nothing short of donating money for a building is going to make a student “likely” for admission.
Lastly, quality over quantity for sure.
Don’t try to fit a particular kind of school, pick a school that fits your kid.
I would not necessarily aim for the usual school EC’s and leadership positions (like NHS) just for the sake of having EC’s and leadership to list.
As always, following genuine interests (or interest) in and out of school is the best way to go.
Colleges are assembling a class and are interested in what you can contribute to the mix.
1 Like
Both parents and kids would like there to be a magic “to be done” list; if you did everything on the list you would get into the college of your choice. There’s no such list. Moreover, many things that matter are mostly beyond an applicant’s control–legacy status, geography, development case, URM --for that particular school, first generation, etc.
My own recommendation is to pursue your own interests, but, if possible, get outside “accreditation,” so to speak. As an example, if your thing is creative writing or art, enter the Scholastic contests. Winning a gold or silver key or “even” an honorable mention will verify the fact that your work is good beyond the context of your school. If you excel at math, take the AMC and AIME. If your school doesn’t offer these, you can still participate in the USA Mathematical Talent Search https://www.usamts.org/ on your own.
And, yes, how good you need to be varies based on how many students with that particular skill that college attracts. So, for example, you need to be a better swimmer to compete for Stanford than for Dartmouth. If you’re an actor, you have to be an extraordinarily good one to have that help you get into Yale. Being the star of every school play isn’t going to help much.
You don’t know who will be in the same applicant pool, though each college tends to attract a different mix of students. You might be the fourth best squash player of your gender in the US applying to college that year, but if 1, 2, and 3 are all applying early to your first choice college, it might not help–though, in those circumstances, it would probably help at every other college with a squash team.
The more outstanding your accomplishment in a field, the fewer other accomplishments you need. So, if you qualified for the US IMO team (math), you won’t need much else. If you competed in the Olympics, you won’t either. If you were third runner up in domestic extemporaneous speaking at your state speech championships, you’re probably going to need some other accomplishments too. Again, that’s a probably because it depends on what other things you bring to the table.
So, in a nutshell, I advocate doing what you want to do, but getting some outside accreditation if you can.
1 Like