<p>Hi,
I'm currently a sophomore in High School. I know it's probably a bit early, but I've looked at tons of colleges online and, hands down, Columbia is where I want to be. </p>
<p>My GPA in 9th grade was a 4.0, and I got a 184 on the PSAT that year (I have yet to take it this year.) I am in AP History this year and plan to take any and all AP classes that are available in the future.</p>
<p>Basically, I need advice on which factor (GPA, SAT, extra curriculars, etc.) is the most influential in getting into Columbia, and maybe just some general admittance advice. Thanks!</p>
<p>
[quote]
Basically, I need advice on which factor (GPA, SAT, extra curriculars, etc.) is the most influential in getting into Columbia, and maybe just some general admittance advice.
<p>That's kind of what I figured about the grades and SAT scores. What exactly do you mean by "interesting" EC's though?</p>
<p>I've won two writing contests in my Freshman year, and considering they have quite a few per year it's likely that I will have won a good deal more by the end of it. And of course, I'll have community service hours, tutoring, organizing the contests themselves (kind of nifty to be the one judging the winners of the contests I enter =p), published literary works in the school literary magazine, and other what I think are "usual" EC's.</p>
<p>My goal for an EC is to have a work of literature published in a prestigious literary magazine, such as the New Yorker (obviously not the New Yorker, for I hear it's quite hard to get something published in it, but similar magazines of comparable prestige). Is that a good goal to work towards, or would that not help my chances as much as I think it would?</p>
<p>Lastly, is it possible to "hurt" your chances by submitting an EC which they don't consider relevant. For example, I play the guitar and bass; but considering I play rock and blues, I'm not sure if that's really what they're looking for in an EC. . . .</p>
<p>Getting published in the New Yorker would get you in. I'd say. The Atlantic, Harper's, Paris Review, etc. I don't know how realistic that is, however.</p>
<p>I think your playing rock and blues is very interesting though. Playing in venues and writing about your experience in a compelling way...that would get you in. It certainly did it for me, I believe. (Substituting blues for stand-up comedy.)</p>
<p>I like the fact that you have literary interests (I do too) but it's super difficult to get in just on that basis. So take an alternate route, without giving up those interests.</p>
<p>Im in (practically) the same situation. I am a sophmore as well, visited Columbia during the summer, and after considering a lot of colleges I decided I'm applying ED to Columbia. </p>
<p>I have AP world this year, as well as AP Bio and Chem, 190 on PSAT last year, and really sort of banal ECs. I have been/am planning to run cross-country/track all four years and be Varsity for at least two. I want to become a surgeon and am getting into hospital volunteering and have been nursing home volunteering for 3 years. I shadow surgeons regularly (don't know how to reflect this on college app, so I'll probably write an essay on it.) Am also interested in philosophy/ethics and have already taken those classes at my community college-and starting philosophy club this year. I also enjoy writing, but have no ribbons or by-lines to show for it. What can I do to make my ECs more imppresive? Sorry for the rambling post!</p>
<p>I think that the more unusual and high level an EC is, the more impressive it is to schools. For instance, some of Vassar's student profile info: "The class of 2011 includes...five black belt holders in Karate or Tae Kwon Do, a hot-air balloon pilot, a winner of national awards for guinea-pig breeding, and a professional radio DJ, fashion model, and make-up artist" Things like NHS, hospital volunteering and soccer, unless on an extremely high level, would blend into the other thousands of applications. I guess the key is to show a great deal of dedication and a good amount of success in something you love (that hopefully is not something that every other applicant loves). High level academics is a given.</p>
<p>In my opinion, it's an unfortunate admissions policy, on par with the segments on the class let in for political reasons, but it ain't going away and it's best to take advantage of it.</p>
<p>How many people does Vassar take? 5 blackbelts doesn't seem to be on the same level as the guinea-pig breeder.</p>
<p>
[quote]
In my opinion, it's an unfortunate admissions policy, on par with the segments on the class let in for political reasons, but it ain't going away and it's best to take advantage of it.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Why is it unfortunate that Columbia would rather take someone interesting than some boring-ass kid from some fancy prep school who has almost the same application as every other boring-ass kid from his fancy prep school and every other fancy prep school?</p>
<p>Once you get to a certain level of academics (almost all A's in the hardest classes, mid-700s scores), everyone's the same and it's hard to say one guy is smarter than the next because he has a 0.1 point higher GPA from a totally different school or happened to get 1 or 2 more questions right on the SAT. So does Columbia or any other top school want to have a class full of NHS Presidents and Soccer Captains? No. And who would want to go to Columbia and be in a dorm but nothing but those types?</p>
<p>Well I am glad that people boring people in fancy prep schools don't have an automatic admittance here. However, those prep schools do most likely offer a lot more wooing EC's than, say, mine for example. My High School has only 250 people, and is very poor. Some of the applicants I've glanced at in the "Regular Decision Results" threads have more EC's than are even offered at my school. That's why I want to get something published in a well-known literary magazine. Other than that, I'm out of ideas for EC's.</p>
<p>
[quote]
However, those prep schools do most likely offer a lot more wooing EC's than, say, mine for example.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>not everything has to be thru school. start a company, spend time tutoring underprivileged children, etc. there are many many things you can do that arent thru school</p>
<p>Columbia2002- Because in my experience as an English major, most of these funky-EC students got in on the basis of their EC’s rather than (NOT in addition to) their academic record. Yeah, I’d rather shoot the breeze with them, but in seminars they contribute much less to discussion than fancy prep schoolers who have been trained to read texts closely and talk about them intelligently. I can go down to bars in the city to meet funky people. But when I’m in an Ivy league literature class, I want people who can say smart things about Pessoa. I don’t care whether they are competitive ice skaters or Irish cowboy dancers. That has no relevance inside the classroom. Now, if you’ll excuse me, I’m gonna go down to one of said bars.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Columbia2002- Because in my experience as an English major, most of these funky-EC students got in on the basis of their EC’s rather than (NOT in addition to) their academic record. Yeah, I’d rather shoot the breeze with them, but in seminars they contribute much less to discussion than fancy prep schoolers who have been trained to read texts closely and talk about them intelligently. I can go down to bars in the city to meet funky people. But when I’m in an Ivy league literature class, I want people who can say smart things about Pessoa. I don’t care whether they are competitive ice skaters or Irish cowboy dancers. That has no relevance inside the classroom. Now, if you’ll excuse me, I’m gonna go down to one of said bars.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It doesn't have to be funky to be different. And I think you're way overestimating the number of people who get in just based on their ECs. You can't just be a "competitive ice skater" -- you've gotta be Sarah Hughes.</p>
<p>Okay. You're nitpicking at my language now, but I take it you understand my general point. People with funky/different EC's can make for a more interesting social experience (and not always--I once lived with an "interpretive ice dancer"--one of the most boring people I've ever met), but the goal of admissions should be (but isn't) to create interesting experiences inside the classroom...and "boring" prep schoolers are more conducive to this, I've found.</p>
<p>I agree with one of the general premises you're making -- that the classroom experience is enhanced by different types of people. For one, I dispute the notion that racial/geographic/socioeconomic diversity automatically makes for a better classroom discussion. Similarly, I agree with you that someone's bizarre EC also doesn't make the classroom discussion any better.</p>
<p>But here's where we differ. As I posted in #9, it's my opinion that Columbia is looking for a certain academic standard that is met by way more than the 1500 kids who are accepted -- and once that standard is met, it's difficult to tell who's smarter than others. They accordingly look for different/interesting ECs as a means of choosing between many similar people. While I agree with you that they're going to lower the bar to let in someone with some amazing EC (maybe a Sarah Hughes type since we're talking skaters, but I have no idea what she got on her SAT), that's a rare circumstance.</p>
<p>i'd also like to make the point that the personality type of people who are truly exceptional in something is very different from 'normal' people. Someone with the commitment level to develop enough "talent" in a particular area has the kind of attitude that a school like Columbia wants. The assumption is that if they have the discipline and perfectionism that it takes to be a national-champion of anything, they are the sort that might use a Columbia education to greater gain, and thus deserve it more.</p>
<p>Obviously that is not true for all cases - i've known some boring people at columbia too - but perhaps even those are getting a lot out of being at columbia with those prep-school kids who know how to criticize Kant, even if they're not giving back in the same amount. And it's true for enough of those cases, I think, to defend Columbia's preference in taking them.</p>
<p>I've been thinking about this for a while, and I have one more question: </p>
<p>
[quote]
Getting published in the New Yorker would get you in. I'd say. The Atlantic, Harper's, Paris Review, etc. I don't know how realistic that is, however.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Although this is what I'm going to be shooting for, as mentioned before, it's a long shot. . . </p>
<p>However, let's say I submit 5 pieces of writing over the year and none are accepted. Could I then put under EC's that I submitted them, even know they were not published? And how much would that help? (i.e. would it be worth while, or would it be a better use of time to volunteer at a hospital, do community service, or other stereotypical EC's?)</p>
<p>I know every legit literary undergrad on campus (there are nine). None has been published in the N. Yorker, Harper's, et al. What I was trying to suggest to you is that you're not in a binary bind. There are other publications around. It's not New Yorker or Hospital for you. </p>
<p>Oh, and don't put "submitted stuff to pub XYZ," (can't any living soul submit work that's ultimately rejected?), but making a joke in your essay about being rejected would work well, if it turns out so.</p>
<p>i am a competitive skater whos been skating 4 days a week for over 11 years. im no sarah hughes, but i am dedicated, passionate, and i love my sport. i cant land a triple axel, but i hope that my involvement in this sport will help me in admissions. i just wanted to know if you think you need to be an olympic gold medalist to gain admissions to an ivy-league school?</p>