<p>Everyone knows that a "laundry list" of extracurriculars is college admissions suicide, and that unless you have pursued a "passion" since the age of three you might as well stop dreaming about selective schools. I'm starting to wonder if this emphasis on "passion" is truly reasonable at an age where most kids are still struggling to figure themselves out. Most kids aren't fully formed individuals when they enter high school at 14 or 15, and a lot of them just don't know what they want to focus on yet. </p>
<p>Then there's the kid who does about a bit of everything, from rocketry to oil painting to basketball to Russian literature, and places equal importance on each commitment. I'm that kid. I'm as devoted to fine arts as I am to chemistry, but this really isn't about me.</p>
<p>I'm not trying to diminish the accomplishments of those who have pursued the same activity from early on. I admire their resilience. However, I have to question the wisdom of postulating that every kid needs a "passion" to be worth the time. Some kids need the time in high school to figure out what exactly they're trying to do; others want to do everything, and it breaks their heart to give up one activity in favor of increased commitment to another. Both could be an asset to a college campus. The first kind might actually have discovered a passion among the different ECs he pursued (this should come through in the essay); the second kind would be delighted to take advantage of every resource available on campus. If all academic factors are equal, I don't see why they should be overlooked.</p>
<p>I think there's a middle ground. To me, the most attractive candidates aren't those who've either single-mindedly dived into a single passion without some diversification, nor those who have (even wholeheartedly) "taken advantage of every resource available". To me, the most interesting kids are those who have several (maybe 3 or 4) activities that they are truly interested in and committed to, and have made part of their lives. It's not tunnel-vision and it's not "dabbling": it may mean sampling a bit for a couple years and then narrowing down to a few focused activities and interests. (And some of them may overlap: I can imagine how fascinating the chemistry of ceramic glazing might be, for instance! :) )</p>
<p>Of course, I'm not on a college admissions selection committee, but if I were, I think those are the students who would intrigue me the most.</p>
<p>Good point about finding a "happy medium". I think what's bothering me is that the "passion" element tends to be emphasized (especially on these boards) to the point where it seems as if the only people who get into decent colleges are the ones who have been obsessed with one thing since kindergarden. By the way, I meant "taking advantage of every opportunity" figuratively, in that some kids have interests in wildly different areas, and they tend to be more interesting people for it.</p>
<p>Both my kids got into their first choice school; neither had a single-minded passion, so don't worry about it.</p>
<p>However, the kids who seem to get sc^&* in the admissions process at competitive schools are the serial joiners-- emphasis on quantity of activities, being a leader in everything, putting together a 2 page attachment of "my most significant activities" in addition to the space on the application. I think Adcom's grow tired of wading through these bulky applications (the adcom at Stanford told us "the thicker the application the thicker the applicant").</p>
<p>Keep it simple. You don't need to be a world class skater or physics olympiad champ. It's fine to have several interests, but once you start describing yourself as a 17 year old renaissance man, the adcoms start to snooze. I don't remember which adcom made everyone laugh with the line, "make sure the honors and activities list doesn't make you look an inch deep and a mile wide", since I'm sure every parent there had been nagging their kid, "go join something, go join something, go join something".</p>
<p>
[quote]
"the thicker the application the thicker the applicant"
[/quote]
LOL! I love that.</p>
<p>I'm starting to agree with those who say that reading CC warps your mind in strange and terrible ways. Suddenly riding horses for eight years isn't enough; I'm supposed to be nationally renowned... (I don't show, for financial reasons. The lessons are expensive enough. :eek: )</p>
<p>I think Mootmom pretty much hit it on the head. </p>
<p>I'd also turn around the cause and effect about kids having "passions". It's not so much everyone should have a passion as mush as it is that kids who have a passion (or a few passions) often come across as stronger candidates. I have interviewed for my undergraduate school and it was great when an interviewee became animated and energetic discussing one of their passions ... I felt I understood who they were better and, perhaps more importantly, how they will add the my school's community beyond their school work. I can't think of a case (50 or so interviews) where a kid without passion created the same impression of "wow, we really want this kid to go to Undergrad U". There are tons of applicants with excellent academic records (I'd guess 45 of my 50 interviews had academic records that were fine for my undergrad school) ... the challenge is to stand out among the 45 qualified kids at receive one of the few admisions offers ... and passion(s) help a lot!</p>
<p>
[quote]
I can't think of a case (50 or so interviews) where a kid without passion created the same impression of "wow, we really want this kid to go to Undergrad U".
[/quote]
Did you ever have that experience with someone who had multiple passions, though? I'm not saying that kids who aren't passionate about anything should be admitted, but have you come across an applicant who was equally passionate about 2 or 3 things and didn't seem like a "laundry list" type of person?</p>
<p>Somehow "photography, writing, horses, plus a whole slew of secondary interests including psychology and chem and atheism and a lot of other random academic topics" doesn't exatly flow off the tongue. Yet, they are all things that I would consider myself "passionate" about.</p>
<p>thisyearsgirl,
Think about "packaging." If you were a character in a novel, what would be your primary motivations? your direction(s), your priorities, your challenges. An adcom (like all of us) recalls facts in context better than in an unrelated way. What is the story that is you? Where are you headed...what do you want to learn next? Are you integrating any of your interests/skills?</p>
<p>Think of it as "passion" singular. Meaning whatever you do, how little how much how many, what passion do you feel? Is your passion quietly analyzing the world? Shooting hoops in the backyard even though you don't play? Your best friends? Anagrams? Or is your passion just getting out of bed, brushing your teeth and facing every day?</p>
<p>It was explained to me that colleges want kids who will have an impact - at school and then on the world later. How will you have an impact? Almost always through passion, whether cerebral, physical, emotional, spiritual.</p>
<p>This is the other side of packaging, having a soul:). Not that packaging is bad, it's necessary, but soul doesn't hurt either.</p>
<p>Live your life with some passion. Write your application essays with some passion. Probably work better than big words...</p>
<p>I hear what you're saying, thisyearsgirl, and I agree that all you hear these days is that you have to have a passion and be able to back it up with accomplishment. It must be discouraging for kids who are sampling many interests, but who haven't yet decided in which direction they want to go. You're only 15, and already you're supposed to be focused and have goals and direction.</p>
<p>If it makes you feel any better, my older D sounded very much like you at 15, and she did get into many selective schools. I remember the agony she went through when having to choose among AP courses in high school (scheduling), and trying to decide which one not to take. It came down to science or history, and at that point she practically flipped a coin. Her ECs were also all over the map, from newspaper to sports to music to environmental work to community service, with heavy committment to each. I think if I had to name her passion back then, it would have been "life".</p>
<p>I still believe that kids can find themselves in college and, in fact, I think it's a healthy attitude to go in with somewhat of an open mind as to what you will eventually major in. Don't worry too much what the admissions officers will think. Do what you like and involve yourself in as many things as you can comfortably commit to. In some of your activities, you'll find that leadership positions will open up for you as the years pass, which will indicate to colleges that you have what they are looking for. When it comes time to apply to schools, those activities where you have gained leadership will be the ones you list first. That will dispell any notions that you're a "dabbler." This will all happen naturally while you are doing what you enjoy.
Just because you excel at certain things in high school and attain leadership positions doesn't mean that you must stick with these same activities in college, however. You may find that the ones you put further down your "list" become your true interests later on. That's ok. What you will have shown that you can commit to things and rise to leadership - what the particulars of the activities are don't matter all that much. </p>
<p>You sound like a very mature and interesting young woman already. I think you'll do very well. :)</p>
<p>I seem to recall a thread where someone who had worked in an admissions office said that if an applicant got a nickname that meant they were practically a shoo-in. I can't remember specifics but for example the adcoms at a school might start referring to a candidate who wrote about dissecting frogs in her essay, as "frog-girl". What that meant was that if the applicant could be "condensed" into one word--based on some positive memorable trait from their essays or ECs, they had a much better chance than someone who was a little harder to describe. So while you may have a bunch of different interests, it may help to be able to weave some kind of central theme that flows through all of them, that gives an evaluator a way to grasp what you're all about.</p>
<p>The only danger in this approach is that they may have too many "frog-girls" that year.:) Also, something like "photo girl" may not do you justice if narrows you down too much. I think this approach works best if your tag line is fairly unique, it's not forced, and it's not too limiting. See my pm, thisyearsgirl.</p>
<p>I agree with ASAP - you come across very well in print, articulate, thoughtful, authentic. Maybe you are photo girl precisely because you can't choose one thing - everything you see might be it. If you can capture that, that's a start. We are all in a funny way saying similar things.</p>
<p>As someone who likes writing and science in equal and vast parts, followed closely by performing arts and photography, I feel your pain, thisyearsgirl. In fact, I had been thinking about posting a topic on the same subject. Are you sure one of your passions isn't mind-reading? ;)
I've been given the advice to only emphasize my science passion when applying for college, but I can't do that. It's just not me. Do you think it would be possible to make a hook out of a lack of hooks- i.e., if one was truly talented in multiple areas, make that his or her hook?</p>
<p>My son is one of those kids with multiple passions (science research, debate, music-2 instruments, and tennis). We kept encouraging him to narrow down some, but he refused, even if it might hurt him in the college admissions process (it did not). What did happen is that he was incredibly busy, and short on sleep through most of high school. However, his commitement to all these activities did ultimately lead to major recognition in the first two, and regional/local in the other two. More importantly, he had a phenomenal high school experience, and came to meet and appreciate many different kinds of people in the process.l</p>
<p>willow_41z: I think that unless you have amazing ECs in science, you probably shouldn't make that your main "hook". There are so many kids with incredible accomplishments in research, competitions, and so on, that someone who just likes science (but hasn't won an Intel award or done original research) doesn't really stand out. Where do you feel that your main accomplishments are? Does anyone else have an opinion on this?</p>