<p>What does it mean that the extracurricular activities stand out? Do students have to get international, national, or regional award in a certain extracurricular activity to make it outstanding? How about those studnet (such as me) who just don't have such abilities to get award?</p>
<p>"How about those studnet (such as me) who just don't have such abilities to get award?"</p>
<p>They usually get rejected.</p>
<p>Perhaps.</p>
<p>However, you don't NEED international/national awards to be admitted. I maxed out at regional.</p>
<p>If you read the many, many other threads here and in the Admissions forum, you will see that most people believe that what contributes to an outstanding EC are:</p>
<p>1) commitment: 2 years+; the longer, the better. This shows devotion and even maturity, because you chose an activity you liked and stuck with it.</p>
<p>2) excellence: if you did Science Olympiad, did you win anything? If you like to paint, have you won any competitions? If you ran track, did you do well compared to athletes from other schools?</p>
<p>3) leadership: this shows that you can take initiative, be responsible, and be creative. Demonstrating leadership is critical for admission to a top college.</p>
<p>4) personal growth: if you did an activity for so long, why? Has it changed you? Have you made exceptional contributions? Have you learned about, say, the many hardships that people in poor communities go through and that has made you keep your own issues in perspective?</p>
<p>Outstanding Extracurricular Activities include stuff like getting a silver medal at the IMO (International Math Olympiad) like one of the guys in my math class... </p>
<p>I had relatively weak ECs. I'd done piano and debate and MUN and all that in high school and got a few awards, nothing all that exciting (research awards in MUN, 2nd and 3rd place at small regional level debate tournaments, nothing actually that impressive). I also did research at UCLA in the psych department for a couple of years which I guess is the only activity I did that was in any way interesting/unique/etc., although even that probably wasn't <em>that</em> impressive. On my acceptance letter there was a handwritten note saying they hoped I'd continue research at Stanford so maybe they did think my research experience was interesting? Who knows.</p>
<p>Most people who get admitted to top schools don't have national or international awards..perhaps not even state. There just aren't that many national awards to go around for everybody.</p>