<p>I'm sure this has been asked numerous times before, so please forgive my ignorance, but do ECs really make a difference?</p>
<p>For the past few years, I've really been working more and more outside of the realms of school, serving on a committee to improve my town's education system, increasing my involvement at my temple, getting involved in smaller grassroots movements, etc., all things I would not have done had I remained my same, pedantic self from 9th grade/middle school. It's taught me a lot of non-book skills and experiences.</p>
<p>But for colleges, will my ECs really make that much of a difference? In my school, the top academic 'achievers' (as a social group, whatever social things they do) seem to exclude me. The only seniors who have been accepted to their ED choices really are pedantic, stat-savvy people. No one seems to give anything about ECs at all, outside of joining clubs and becoming president of them.</p>
<p>Should I cut back my ECs and focus in on taking a 3.8 to a 4.0? A ~2100 to 2300? I feel more and more that what I'm doing for myself (personal and college stuff) is useless.</p>
<p>Are ECs really overrated? Can I really replace my real un-trite work with just one thing with a decent essay? Anyone?</p>
<p>Are you kidding me? I wish that would be the case.</p>
<p>I can only speak from observation, but at my school, the students that get into HYPS are not the 2400, 4.0 kids. Instead, it’s generally the students who get decent grades but are movers and shakers, thespians and poetry writers, etc. They may not be val or sal, but they are truly interesting people because of the things they do.</p>
<p>ECs are very important and helpful for admittance. I’ll give you the example from my school last year. Two 2400 and 4.0 kids applied to Stanford, they were all rejected. One 3.7, 1800 kid applied and was accepted. The difference: ECs.</p>
<p>I got into my top choice school (Stanford) early without a 4.0 or 2400. How much it affects your chances depends on the individual school, but ECs are always really important.</p>
<p>^Okay, but how to adcoms make the distinction between two equally involved applicants? I feel like the entire process is heavily arbitrary and no single factor can dictate the outcome of an admit/reject.</p>
<p>heartist- if applicants truly are equally involved in ECs, test scores, and gpa, then I would guess that adcoms would look at letters of rec, legacy etc. But its not just how involved they are, it’s also what the school has an opening for. If a school needs an oboe player, they will take the most qualified oboe player, even if that oboe player is not as academically qualified as a non-oboe player. </p>
<p>Colleges tell admissions what they need. Admissions are obligated to separate the applicants who can fill the needed spots and then pick the best one for those spots. Yes it can be arbitrary, yes there’s chance and luck involved, but most of it is in your hands. ECs are valuable, but doing a generic EC like soccer or playing piano (both awesome things to do, but the problem is that A LOT of people do them) will not help you as much as being a girl golfer or playing a rare instrument.</p>
<p>ECs are important for undergrad admissions but remember they are looking for leaders with a passion for their activity, not joiners padding their resume.</p>
<p>What were his EC’s, specifically? That describes me right now (although I’m expecting a higher SAT when I take it in March) and Stanford’s my top school. I’m just curious what EC’s he had.</p>
<p>Also, college confidential should really work on this quoting system, why do I have to type the quote tags whenever I want to quote something?</p>
<p>^lol, that’s why people don’t like CC. I also said I’m expecting a much higher score on the next SAT, probably a 2100+. I wasn’t trying last time and didn’t study/didn’t know how the test worked.</p>
<p>Hey, I’m just telling it as it is. I got a 1800 first time as well, but only managed a 1980 afterwards. And a 2100 will not guarantee anything for Stanford either; now a 2250+ will be enough to convince one’s competence. Then it is up to the rest of your application</p>
<p>I think you’re putting too much faith into the SAT. A 2400 isn’t going to guarantee admittance into Stanford either. I’d say it’s more dependent on the EC’s than the SAT’s, which is why I asked.</p>
<p>Don’t set up a false dichotomy: you can have high stats and an impressive extracurricular resume–and most admits to the top schools will have both of those things. They won’t all have 4.0’s and 2400’s, but they won’t have 3.7’s and 2000’s, either. </p>
<p>If you insist that it’s one or the other, however, you’re probably better off with a higher GPA/SAT. Why? Because it doesn’t look like you’ll be competitive for the very top schools, and you’ll stand a better chance at the tier below and public schools with higher raw stats. EC’s are unlikely to make a difference unless they’re particularly impressive, like a national award.</p>
<p>I don’t mean to insinuate that your EC’s are not valuable; it’s important to have a healthy, balance, happy life outside of school. But EC’s don’t “make up” for stats, and you’re likely to be a much stronger applicant with solid stats to back you up.</p>
<p>^glassesarechic: Would you say that national/international awards are enough to enforce an activity as “strong”?</p>
<p>Although I’ve won a few national awards in my two main activities, I lack leadership titles… I’ve always though that without leadership, ECs themselves aren’t great. (However, I did begin a project–later adopted by a statewide organization–in my area of expertise…but again, no leadership positions.)</p>
<p>My daughter is in a Math program at the local university and the program director invited the parents to a talk given by a local college prep advisor. The advisor specializes in ED and has a referenced 90% acceptance rate over 15 years.
The advisor’s top advice to us was GPA above all else. Drop all EC’s if it interferes getting your best possible GPA.</p>
<p>I do not particularly agree with her but you can’t argue with her success.</p>
<p>^I don’t care about her “success rate”, but that is just terrible advice for a high schooler to grow as a person. I can only imagine how boring and empty these students are if they drop all their activities and just study all day.</p>
<p>OP- what schools are you applying to? The thing about the top schools is there is an overabundance of applicants who have top GPAs/SATs AND substantial ECs. As another poster mentioned, it’s not either/or here- you’ve got to have both a strong academic profile and strong ECs.</p>