<p>Agree, things like Model UN and service club not serious commitments, in terms of time anyway, and could be missed if necessary. My point was that these were the types of “other” commitments my son could make. Really hard to see how he could have had two serious commitments, at least as serious as soccer was. During high school season, was more than 20 hours per week all in. Practice every day from after school, he did not get home until almost 6:00. Away games were from after school until even later, he would not be home until 7 or later. Away night games even wose, essentially he had an hour or two after school until the bus left, not home until 9:30 or 10:00. Again, saw kids that had another serious commitment, but they were not seriously committed to the soccer team.</p>
<p>^But your son migh have enough as it is already. There is no reason to worry beforehand. Need to apply widely (this is the key) and see what happens. My D. had success rate 50% for both UG and Med. School. From what I can see looking back. 50% is reasonable. It was achieved because of wide range of programs/schools that she had applied both times. Smart list is what it takes to have choices at the end. I repeat, she never ever done anything in her life to impress anybody. When people do it, it backfires, it would be way too evident during her interviews.<br>
So, kid should match his list to whatever he has, he should not be creating a college list and match his activity to it, it is not a good idea.</p>
<p>nepop, I think your description of your son’s friend’s soccer vs. band conflicts will resonate with lots of people where the EC’s in the local schools tend to be intense. </p>
<p>It is too bad that the activities are run that way. I don’t think it is at all unreasonable for a student to want to participate in one sport + band, and to have playing time in the sport (if the student makes the team).</p>
<p>I don’t think it is unreasonable for a kid to WANT to do more than one thing. My limited, anecdotal experience is that it is tough to fully commit to more than one, and kid’s should recognize there may be nagative consequnces to not fully committing. I do not believe that a kid who chooses to do more than one thing, and is not able to fully commit, should in any sense be given a “pass” because they are involved in some other school EC. In the sports context, if a kid falls behind others as a result of less than full commitment, whether in fitness, technique or tactical understanding, the kid should expect to lose playing time. Why would that kid be given playing time over a kid who is fully committed to a sport and performs at a higher level? I saw this every year–some kids would work hard all Summer to be in shape, others would not, they always had something else going on. The ones not in shape would fall hopelessly behind once the season started because they could not keep up with the guys that had put in all of the work, and they really would never recover in terms of playing time. Always seemed like their parents were the ones that screamed the loudest about their kid’s playing time. I remember conversations with unhappy parents that went something like: Other parent: “I’m not happy my kid isn’t playing.” Me: “Your kid is out of shape and can’t run hard for more than 5 minutes.” Other parent: “Yeah, I know, but he had [fill in other activity] all Summer.” And, from the parent’s perspective, that was a sufficient explanation.</p>
<p>Hi, nepop, while I see your point of view, I think the question is: What is the appropriate level of time required for a full commitment, to a high school team sport? </p>
<p>I can see traveling teams requiring an exclusive commitment. I could also see that a high-school sport where the team repeatedly makes the state play-offs might anticipate an essentially exclusive commitment, especially if it’s a recruitable sport.</p>
<p>In terms of keeping in shape, that seems to me to be something that a student could be expected to do in the summer on his/her own schedule. So I agree that the “other parent” seems to have unreasonable expectations. </p>
<p>On the other hand, a coach of a typical high school that might finish in the top third of its local league is out of line to require an exclusive commitment, in my opinion. There ought to be an opportunity for students to pursue more than one interest at a semi-intense level, in high school. It’s part of the student’s finding out where his/her real interests lie.</p>
<p>On my high-school debate team (during the early Cretaceous), we had one student who never brought evidence cards to a debate. He had a single card, which read “Smile.” He won a very large number of debates on the strength of sheer logic. He couldn’t be on the varsity team (4 people in that era and place), though, and he understood that.</p>
<p>Now, there are high school debate teams who have multiple students just working on the research on a topic (but not actually debating), to support varsity-team members who typically spend 30 hours a week on debate. It’s no longer an amateur undertaking.</p>
<p>HS students should do what they love (as long as it allows time for academics too). </p>
<p>That will allow them to complete hs having thoroughly enjoyed the experience… regardless of whether it yielded admission to one of the top “lottery” schools.</p>
<p>^The same applicable to UG’s. UG is to try things, many change their goals in UG.</p>
<p>“There ought to be an opportunity for students to pursue more than one interest at a semi-intense level, in high school.” Maybe there ought to be, but in many places there is not. Just to take sports as an example, at my son’s high school there were very, very few multi-sport athletes, something that there were many of in my day. If a kid wanted to excel in a a sport, or with some of the teams even have a chance to be on the team and/or play, it really was a year around commitment. There are just too many kids making that level of commitment, if a kid chooses not to they may well get left behind. I think it starts even earlier than high school. At my son’s school, the 6 or 7 guys who were going to be varsity players and see playing time was pretty much a done deal by high school, those kids had made a significant commitment to soccer years before–travel team 9 months a year, Summer camps, etc. The kids who came to high school not having made that kind of commitment really had no chance, they just were not as good and could not catch up. I’m not saying I like this, but this is the reality. Generally the hard work and commitment for those 6 or 7 guys was not an issue, they already had been doing it before they got to high school. The guys it was an issue for were the guys that through elementary and middle school had been involved in many things and were still involved in many things. I don’t know the answer–well rounded vs. really good at one thing. I do know that at many high schools, and certainly at most colleges, being pretty good at a number of things may mean that you don’t get to participate in anything at the level you want to, e.g., you never get playing time on a sports team. Back to the op’s question–it was my experience with my first two that went to college, and I have been told by friends who interview for elite colleges, that what the colleges really want is kids who are good enough at one EC to do that EC at their school, they want to fill their boxes. Multiple ECs for a kid who is maybe more well rounded, but not good enough at one EC to be able to do it at the college, really may not help very much.</p>
<p>I consider participating in a sport to be an EC. I never knew it wasn’t and my son listed his sports on his CV along with his other EC’s.</p>
<p>I feel the need to say that threads like this can create a lot of anxiety in parents. So many CCers’ kids appear to be super-human in their ability to do so many EC’s and at such a high level. They are either geniuses who can warp time or true Renaissance men and women. What ordinary mortal children could possibly compete with them?</p>
<p>Well, I’ve been around the block a few times and I’m here to tell you it just ain’t so. If it sounds too good to be true, that’s because it is. So please don’t fret about it. A jack of all trades is a master of none. If a student appears to be a jack of all trades and master of all, it’s only because the pool he swims in is very tiny and the kid is the big fish. No one achieves a high level of proficiency in a sport or in much of anything else in life without a HUGE investment of time and energy. Read Outliers by Gladwell if you don’t believe me.</p>
<p>I used to hear parental tales around my town of these multi-talented prodigies and would worry my kids were inadequate compared to these classmates, since my kids couldn’t seem to figure out how to “do it all.” Well, ask me now whose kids got into the top schools–mine or theirs?</p>
<p>Look, there are some really stellar kids out there who achieve amazing things, but even they need to eat, sleep, shower, and do some homework now and then.</p>