On the Value of Extracurriculars

Applying to College
1

<p>Well, the NY Times decided to "moderate" (read: censor) my comment on Jacques Steinberg's article "Fill in the Blanks" (<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/07/education/07choice-t.html?ref=education%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/07/education/07choice-t.html?ref=education&lt;/a&gt;), so I guess I'll post my thoughts here.</p>

<p>The article isn't anything new, but this paragraph caught my eye:</p>

<p>
[quote]
“The perception is that you have to fill in all the blanks,” Jennifer Delahunty, the dean of admissions at Kenyon College in Ohio, told me recently. “What we hate to see,” she said, “is when students do things like check ‘9th, 10th, 11th and 12th grades’ and then write ‘personal reading.’ Yes, we’re glad you’re a reader. But it looks decidedly like filler.”

[/quote]
</p>

<p>This seems like a rather cynical attitude. I get her point, but I don't like her choice of example. Does Ms. Delahunty think that all teens waste their time on popcorn like Twilight and Harry Potter? Should I be spending less time on "filler" and more time doing substantial things like, I don't know, showing up for 10-minute NHS meetings?</p>

2

<p>I don’t think adcoms want you to spend less time reading substantial literature. But that doesn’t mean it’s relevant on an application. Besides, reading will impact your application positively in other ways–your CR/W scores on your SAT, SAT II’s (if you take Lit), recommendations, reading lists (on applications that require them), etc. </p>

<p>I imagine adcoms also think being a member of a club without making any significant impact is a filler.</p>

3

<p>Fair enough. I guess it just miffs me that someone reading my application might see “reading” listed as an activity and think “oh you pathetic schmuck.” I’m not padding my application; that’s why I listed extracurriculars that actually matter to me.</p>