<p>This topic comes up a lot in threads and I just wanted to see what people think about which one it is better to be when it comes to college applications. </p>
<p>For those unfamiliar with the term, an "angled" applicant is one that thrives and excels in 1 area, be that basketball, math, violin, or crew.</p>
<p>I've been doing some thinking and it seems that the well rounded applicant is overrated and the angled applicant fares significantly better in the college admissions process and in life. Looking over the recruited atheletes, Major science competition winners (USAMO, USNCO, USABO, Intel, Siemens), major music competitions, and published authors, it would be relatively hard to argue that colleges disdain angled applicants.</p>
<p>Ideally, you want a recruited athelete who spends his time Studying for SAT's, doing cancer research, and playing the pianio with his other hand at the same time. But thats just not realistic in terms of hours demanded by each activity. </p>
<p>Colleges EXPLICITLY tell applicants to follow their passions and it just doesnt make any sense why so many people still focus on the virtues of well rounded applicants.</p>
<p>A lot of factors depend on the individual and what the student is applying for. For example, if you’re applying for Juilliard, then you’re right, they’re really only going to care how strong your musical abilities are. However, if you’re applying to a small liberal arts college as an Undecided major, the admissions folks will care more about your overall contribution to the campus and student body than the MVP you got in varsity basketball. In other words, they’ll be looking for more well-rounded students than narrow-focused individuals.</p>
<p>One concern with taking the angled approach is that you’re relying on the admissions office to interpret your achievement and weight it as you are. What you may view as an enormous accomplishment, the school may see as a nice piece to an otherwise lacking puzzle. With a well-rounded approach, you’re offering admissions officers a complete look at all your talents and you’re showing them that you can conquer a diverse range of challenges.</p>
<p>Finally, I’d like to address your statement: “Ideally, you want a recruited athelete who spends his time Studying for SAT’s, doing cancer research, and playing the pianio with his other hand at the same time. But thats just not realistic in terms of hours demanded by each activity.”</p>
<p>While you paint a comical picture, I’d have to respectfully disagree. Using your combination of activities, say you practice piano for one hour a day during the week and two hours a day on the weekend…that’s 9 hours of practice a week; you will certainly accelerate improvement with that commitment. For cancer research, consider an internship where you work in a lab 4 hours a week. Finally, take an SAT course a couple hours per week, and incorporate SAT studying into your homework time. It’s important to remember that you don’t need to be the most accomplished student ever in the history of each of your activities. Colleges want to see that you’ve put effort into your interests, and pursued them inside and outside the classroom.</p>
<p>I think it is easier to be accomplished in one area than many–as Cal Newport says, you can become accomplished by becomming good at one thing and looking for “low-hanging fruit” (that is, things that come along naturally as you invest more time in/get better at a particular activity). Committing to many things more often, from what I’ve seen, leads to burnout.</p>
<p>As for which is better? Neither, but for the average student, becoming “pointy” would be the less stressful, more feasible option.</p>
<p>^^^ weird… I was just on studyhacks like a second ago (are you going to buy his new book??)</p>
<p>Also, if you think about it, diverse groups of well “angled” applicants make for a well rounded student body, right? You don’t necessarily need well rounded students for a well rounded student body.</p>
<p>The well rounded kids at ivies are the legacies, athletes and other hooked candidates. Those getting into HYPS and increasingly the others are primarily those with extrreme accomplishment in one area.</p>
<p>Why would legacies be less able or likely to excel in one area (rather than spreading themselves out) than your average candidate? Aren’t recruited athletes by definition pointy, and would need to commit extra time to other activities in order to round themselves out, which might be impossible given the demands of playing at a recruit-worthy level?</p>
<p>EC’s focusing on a certain theme such as helping kid’s at risk at ur school look better than EC’s that are all over the place (feeding homeless, hospital, library, camp counselor). This is because focusing on one issue really brings out what you are passionate about and devoted to.
When adcoms see well-rounded students who have done every possible club ,sport and community service event sometimes they feel that the student may be just trying to stack up volunteer hours and college app padding.
So all in all, you can still be well-rounded, but you should focus MOST of your volunteering in one area</p>
<p>^Well-rounded does not mean superficial involvement in many areas. The truly well-rounded are deeply involved and accomplished across many fields.</p>
<p>Impossible. Time demandments exceed time available. </p>
<p>To get Straight A’s, 2250+ SAT’s, practive piano already consumes I’d say 25hrs a week (2 hrs per night for HW, 1 hr studying SAT I& II). Now if you want to get “deeply involved and accomplished across many fields,” you’re looking at at least 7 hrs a week for an activity.</p>
<p>Sports? 10hrs+ a week (2hr practices week days and games- totals around 13-15 hrs a week). These are even worse if you go to away games and you have to wait until your Freshmen and Sophomore and JV team play their teams first before the Varsity gets to step up.</p>
<p>Research? AT THE MINIMUM, 25 hrs a week in the summer, to produce any type of useful data. People severely underestimate the ridiculous amount of waiting required for research.</p>
<p>Theater? 8 hrs a week close to production</p>
<p>Music? 7 hrs a week to be average, 14 hrs a week to be “deeply involved and accomplished.”</p>
<p>My point is that to be accomplished requires a ridiculous time requirement. And most applicants accepted at RIDICULOUSLY high rates are angled applicants- those with Intel’s, publications, recruited atheletes (41 div I sports teams Harvard? well well well aint that a lot of recruited atheletes), “recruited musician” (someone has to fill that lead violin seat), and other godly academic kids.</p>
well well well aint that a lot of recruited atheletes), “recruited musician” (someone has to fill that lead violin seat), and other godly academic kids.</p>