Relating Extra Curriculars to Major: How much does it matter?

Hey all,

I have a solid academic background and ECs as well. I will have a 4.35 Weighted when high school ends, I got a 2400, I’m the president of Speech and Debate and have won several tournaments, I’m our student body (ASB) Vice president, I’ve had leadership roles in both a US House of Representatives campaign and as an Intern at a law firm, and I’ll probably have pretty glowing letters of recommendation. That said, though most of my ECs have been in the humanities/politics, I recognize the futility of majoring in those fields when it comes to finding a job or advancing a career. My question is this: When I apply for STEM Majors (likely bio/chem related), how much is this going to hurt me? All I really have in these areas are A’s in AP Bio and AP Chem, and potentially an internship of some kind in those fields this summer.

I went to a college panel and they said it doesn’t really matter that much. Just demonstrate passion and interest in the ECs you did participate in and I don’t think it would be held against you.

Is there any sort of strategic way to seem competitive at the top schools with kids whose ECs are all related to those STEM fields?

What schools are you aiming for? It doesn’t sound like you’ll be applying for engineering, so I wouldn’t worry about this. Schools know that kids change majors all the time. My kid was very active in speech & debate and mock trial but applied as a prospective chemistry major. She had no STEM EC’s. She got into her top choice ED1. Her essay talked about how she loved science but also public policy. Ad coms know that the skills you learn in speech & debate (such as the ability to use evidence to support or refute an argument) help in any field. You might want to become a patent lawyer or go into public health. Your EC’s show you have passion and dedication and “extra bandwidth” (a phrase used by one of the reps we listened to).

I think it depends on the schools. Colleges like MIT, CalTech, and Harvey Mudd will be put off by the lack of STEM ECs. Other colleges, not as much.

I completely disagree with ^^.

The colleges will look at the strength of what you bring to the table, and the breadth and scope of the range of your activities. Lacking in STEM activities, particularly for someone who does not ‘appear’ to lean that way, is not a death knell to your chances.

I am aiming for the top schools (Berkeley and up).

Thanks for the feedback, helps a lot!

@Waiting2exhale, what do you disagree with? That the top ranked tech schools will care? Because they will.

I agree with intparent. For most schools, they just want to see varied interests but with depth. This can be anything from community service to student government to clubs to debate to music. It really doesn’t matter that much. However, very specific schools like MIT and Caltech seem to pull from an equally specific type of student. These universities seem to by and large expect involvement in some sort of STEM activities.

I agree with @intparent about tech schools, particularly Harvey Mudd and CalTech. MIT offers non-STEM majors, so I think there is a better chance there if an applicant can articulate “why MIT?” Actually the “extra bandwith” comment I related in my post above came at an MIT admissions event. My kid really didn’t have any further interest in MIT so she never seriously considered applying. But the OP is being deliberately vague about where he or she wants to apply so it’s hard to give a more focused answer. The only school specifically mentioned is Berkeley. At Berkeley you can get a BA in Chemistry from the College of Letters and Science or a BS in Chemistry from the College of Chemistry. I think getting into the College of Chemistry is much tougher. In general, The question in part is whether the target school admits by prospective freshman majors. LAC’s and the liberal arts colleges of research universities, where the bio and chem majors are usually admitted, are more fundamentally okay with the idea that a 17 year old may not have settled on a major. They know that for many kids, the proposed major on the application may well have been picked more or less at random.

Regardless of what some (former) presidential candidates have stated, majoring in a humanities field does not doom one to a future pouring lattes. Carly Fiorina’s undergrad studies in philosophy and medieval history did not stop her from later going on to earn an MBA and head a major tech company (wish she would have spoken up on that stage!). The majority of Supreme Court justices have degrees in humanities-related disciplines. The following link takes you to an article showing the varied degrees held by some major CEOs: http://www.investopedia.com/articles/professionals/102015/americas-top-ceos-and-their-college-degrees.asp

From Forbes.com: Just over half of Fortune 100 CEOs have a degree in business, economics, or accounting, while 27% studied engineering or science, and 14% law.

If you study biology or chemistry, realize the job potential with those degrees is limited unless you plan on graduate school. If science is not your passion, how will you handle the most difficult science courses such as Physical Chemistry? Will you truly enjoy a future in a science career? While it’s important to make a living wage, it’s miserable if you do so in a career field you hate.

Of course you could, like many CEOs, later go on and get an MBA or other graduate degree unrelated to your undergraduate major. But please look beyond the STEM=good non-STEM=no future mindset.

FWIW - My S is at Mudd. In high school the majority of his ECs were in music and volunteering (all non-stem stuff). He only had one actual STEM EC — but he did take a lot of STEM AP courses, great STEM test scores and had a passion for STEM subjects that probably came through in his app and interview.

YMMV

Looking at Corinthian’s comment at #3, I would sign on to that wholeheartedly regarding applying to tech-heavy schools, and encourage the OP to trust that a solid GPA and science pre-reqs will get him/her as good a read by adcoms as any other student - and maybe a push and nod in the ‘yes’ direction.

Reiterating that the OP really does not leave us much to work with regarding the intended field of study, I also know that a kid with a strong commitment and showing in areas outside of STEM can be accepted into a top tech school in the hard sciences.

The lack of STEM ECs is the opportunity to reveal what a strong, driven student has been investing time in - and the application and interview will help such a kid impress upon adcoms and interviewer that drive and commitment, no matter what the intended field of study.

Thats great advice- I should have clarified, I plan on eventually working in business or law. I feel a technical background (be it a hard science or bio/chemical engineering) would only provide me an advantage later on, given that no specific major leads to an MBA or Law school

I dont think that it’ll hurt you a lot, but at places where you aren’t bound to the major you list on your application, you should maybe apply for majors that are more in line with your entire profile

I’m a proponent of basic CYA. The OP, who has the stats to aim high, looks like a kid interested in poli sci or something pre-law or humanities. You want stem, get some math-sci activities. At the very least, they show your interest and expand you outside the classroom experience. How do you think adcoms cull through thousands of competitive applications? You think they just take you at your word that you want bio or chem or biochem, while all those other thousands of kids also took rigor, did well, and more?

And really, don’t fall into the shallow, knee-jerk thinking that only stem leads to a good career.

Adding: OK, see, I guessed right, maybe a law interest.

Hi guys, I have a similar question!

I’m an accomplished writer. Probably 75% of my time outside of school goes to my writing ECs. But I would like to major in business or economics with a possible minor in writing. Any thoughts?