<p>it seems to me that cc doesn't have a lot of people who's in science olympiad. Either that or they just don't bother typing down something that appears to be incredibly insignificant (at least to a lot of people on cc...). Knowing that Science Olympiad and its gold metals at state are probably one of my more important ECs, how much weight should I really place on it?</p>
<p>I mean it's not like some single competition that you have to show up and ace it and then ur a finalist. nearly All my ECs are long term commitments, whether or not they might seem dull to some of you.</p>
<p>So basically: Science Olympiad - not as great as USAMO or USABO finalist, but is it really that bad?</p>
<p>its not too bad, I have a couple of golds myself especiall in state, but chances are, if its not nationals, its not <em>that</em> important.
You could explain in essay but to them, they dont know it and thus they will ignore it, with little consideration (I had an interview for MIT, the guy didnt know what USABO was....., let alone olympiad)</p>
<p>well in response to st aegis' comment about the MIT dude, here's another question</p>
<p>how do do admission officers weigh some of the ECs they get if they don't even know how much they are worth? especially for internationals, when the awards and stuff are probably completely foreign to them. when I visited china, my relatives asked bout my science olympiad tshirt and was completely amused in my <em>accomplishments</em> -.-</p>
<p>science olympiad is definitely not as good as an USAMO qualification or the like, but several gold medals could be thought of as equivalent to a high AIME score or a USABO/USAPHO semifinalist...</p>
<p>I'm pretty sure the point of most ECs is to show you're interested, involved, and a leader, not necessary a competitor at a national level, though that is obviously good as well.</p>
<p>^I agree. Most students applying have not competed at a national level, though anything competition/project at a national level will definitely put you up there for admissions. Mostly everyone isn't at that level though.</p>
<p>USAPHO semifinalist, you got to be kidding me, the questions for physics in SciOly are nowhere close, same goes for biology and math, I totally disagree DataBox</p>
<p>how do do admission officers weigh some of the ECs they get if they don't even know how much they are worth?
Well they wont know every competition, mine was a interviewer, he just interviewed with no awareness of the system.
However the admissions people would probably know some of the better competititons, I doubt they will know SciOly, because there are tons of national compeititions that carry real value</p>
<p>
[quote]
well we might as well talk about the people who are actually admitted rather than most of the people who are applying
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Okay. If you look at the populations of Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and their ilk, I think you would find that only a very small number of people actually competed on the national level in anything. That percentage is probably higher for engineering schools like MIT, because science extra-curriculars tend to be based on those types of competition. However, I totally reject the idea that you need to have competed at a national level in something in order to get into the best schools. Not only is that absolutely ludicrous in principle, but I don't think any of the dozens of people I know at those schools have ever actually competed nationally.</p>
<p>they dont know what it is, its like trying to teach someone a new language in 2 min, it cannot be done so easily, and they probably will try to understand, but wont see the significance in it</p>
<p>I still think you're a bit off the mark, st. aegis. While he may not be able to explain every detail of science olympiad on the common app or in an interview, it's not difficult to gave a very basic explanation of what it is and how time-consuming it is. And I think that gives a pretty darn good idea of "the significance in it."</p>
<p>I think the problem here is that people are talking about two kinds of extra-curriculars. People keep mentioning things like the USAMO. That's a test, not an extra-curricular. This guy isn't putting down science olympiad as a prestigious award in the same way he would put the USAMO, but he is putting it down as something academically-based that he spent a lot of time on. The inclusion of whatever medals he won is a validation of his effort and ability, not the demonstration of some sort of prestigious national recognition.</p>