<p>I read a quote somewhere by UChicago's Admissions Dean where he said he would prefer to see a student write that they spent a summer sitting under tree reading 50 books than doing some contrived activity to build up EC's. Plenty of time left this summer.</p>
<p>I have a job because my family is really poor and I live in SD (South dakota, not san diego.) There isn't anything here to do for ecs other than a job and or sports... it sucks. :(</p>
<p>pyroclastic's Post #13 is exactly on the money.</p>
<p>"If you're poor and need to work for money, that's fine."</p>
<p>There's more to working than just whether you need the money or not. If you have never held any kind of job by the time you go to college, I think that's pretty sad. And that's coming from me, someone whose parents make enough money so that I didn't get any financial aid on a $43k/year tuition.</p>
<p>Kevin, it's a matter of degree. If by outstanding you mean perfect (or nearly perfect) scores and grades, top rank, glowing academic references, stunning essay -- then yes, ECs can take a back seat. If you mean pretty darn good, then you may need ECs to make you a more appealing candidate, someone who will contribute to the campus community.</p>
<p>Colleges are looking for interesting kids who do interesting things. The types of activities that are "interesting" to adcoms are as varied as the world is wide. Community service certainly qualifies if you are sincerely and actively involved.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I read a quote somewhere by UChicago's Admissions Dean where he said he would prefer to see a student write that they spent a summer sitting under tree reading 50 books than doing some contrived activity to build up EC's. Plenty of time left this summer.
[/quote]
Hurrah, reading is practically my life! (I borrow 24 books from two libraries every week. Having six family members with two library cards each is a real boon.) <em>makes note to apply to U of Chicago</em></p>
<p>Harvard2111: From an article about UChicago admissions:</p>
<p>"Chicago aggressively recruits small-town kids, often waiving their application fees, even though on entering, their academic skills can trail those of top private-school grads by two years. Why are they often desirable? Peter Chemery, an associate admissions director, explains that small-town kids tend to be well developed as individuals. Like big-city kids, they've had a wider range of experiences than sheltered suburbanites. By that measure, the truly disadvantaged student is the child of a soccer mom, shuttling from one scheduled activity to another. 'This image of 'well-rounded' suburban students with long lists of extracurriculars is an utter fiction created by the college-admissions industry,' Chemery says."</p>
<p>The Adcoms at Chicago, and I would bet almost everywhere, know what is going on in the EC business. Sounds like your background may be an advantage of sorts.</p>
<p>I have a similar problem. My freshman and sophmore years in high school the only thing i've done was math league, and volunterring at a non profit community organization. I really didn't know that much about EC's because my parents and brother went to college in ukraine, so they did not the american process , and my guidance counselor changed like 5 times during those 2 years. then junior year, i got more involved in EC's, while still volunteering. My grades are good and i'm 1/300 in my class, and my SAT's are good, but i know that so are everybody's else. now i'm worried if i even have a chance at any at the top schools.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, this is the result of the "recentering" of the SATs about 10 years ago and grade inflation. 25 years ago, when I applied to college, if a student really had straight A's (4.0 unweighted GPA) and a 1600 SAT-I (back when the average at MIT and other top schools was only about 1350, compared to 1530 or so, now) he could easily get into many top universities. There is now no way for a college to use grades and test scores alone to identify the truly brilliant students, because current SATs are too easy and high grades are handed out too frequently, in order to raise "self esteem."</p>
<p>The best situation:</p>
<p>Nationally moderated classrooms, same homework, tests, everything. Minimal teacher influence.</p>
<p>A very hard SAT, with an avg score being around 30% correct.</p>
<p>THIS would distinguish people.</p>
<p>Also, U of Chicago is a bit eccentric regarding their admissions. Essays are heavily weighted there. But I still agree that colleges know what EC loading is and what it isn't.</p>
<p>ECs are always good to do Unless you are at a big disadvantage and it is noticeable YOU MUST HAVE SOME FORM OF ECs</p>
<p>Now wait a second don't just write off Harvard and MIT. You have said that you have some ECs, and you work. Work is generally considered a substitute for many ECs. You are just as well off as the Tri-captain class prez person.</p>
<p>Not only is EC essential, it's getting more ridiculous in that the common EC's (volunteering at hospital,library,Red Cross...) are almost summarily discarded as well. Someone calculates the peak birth yrs of baby boomers having children reaching college admission age to continue until the year 2008. Until then (no of apps decline) it gets harder every year. So to answer your question, no EC or easy filler EC's are frown upon by top tier schools. Also the no of schools joinning the common app parade are increasing, that would also make common EC's not the ticket they once were.</p>
<p>wow the guy who said the best situation is having a nationalized test where the standard is 30% wrong</p>
<p>do you enjoy staying inside all day and studying so that you can tell everyone how you beat all those kids at school on some stupid test</p>
<p>i wouldn't want to go to any college, never mind a school where tuition is 40k a year, to be with people who just want to sit memorize and do nothing.</p>
<p>"MIT cares somewhat more about ECs than GPA and test scores, simply because ECs are almost the only way to differentiate between members of a very well-qualified, highly self-selecting applicant pool."</p>
<p>Um, you can have the most amazing ec in the world, but if you don't ALSO have the GPA and test scores, you're not getting in. Conversely, you could have great GPA and test scores and only average EC and get in, if you have good recs and essays. But that transcript and those scores are necessary.</p>
<p>That's true to a degree. My point was that the MIT applicant pool tends to self-select -- that is, the people who apply already have high scores and good grades. But it is true that MIT won't pick one person over another simply because one has perfect SAT scores and one has merely good SAT scores.</p>
<p>Not to get anecdotal, but I have a friend who got into MIT with something like a 1300 on his SAT I -- because he had a pretty impressive slate of ECs. MIT is looking for people who can survive the MIT pressure cooker, rather than merely people with perfect statistics.</p>
<p>nevermind, doo doo doo</p>
<p>ack double post!!!</p>
<p>4.0, 2400, 800x2 and no EC's still won't do it, why?</p>
<p>Because there are more 4.0, 2400, 800x2 out there who actually do something worthwhile in their free time. That's why no EC's, regardless of your numbers, will NEVER get you into an elite school (yes, even if you're poor, Native American, Black, etc.)</p>
<p>TTG</p>
<p>how does a school determine if you are EC loading or not?</p>