What dictates whether an E.C. is "good" enough...

Applying to College
1

<p>Upon joining these forums, I've realized countless times that members will tell posters that their E.C.'s are "not good enough" or "boring" or "scattered" or numerous other adjectives/descriptions. However, I have also noticed that oftentimes people will advise others, saying that "good" E.C.'s are those that one has interest in, commitment to, and achievement in. I am not saying that each and every interest qualifies as a "good" E.C. Certain activities, such as intense gaming (being like the national champion in so & so is obviously not a revered E.C.), but certain activities that are academic in nature such as speech & debate and quiz bowl (in my case) are still seen as bland and boring.</p>

<p>Aren't E.C.'s about doing what you enjoy and trying new things and staying committed to the activities that you enjoy? If your community/the confines of your school prevent you from doing certain E.C.'s such as Math/Science Olympiads and etc, should you really be punished for not having "interest" in your major or being an "exciting" applicant.</p>

<p>Yes, I do understand that many and many applicants have the same E.C.'s, but that doesn't qualify certain activities as automatically boring and bland. I'll admit that, personally, my activities are scattered in different subject areas. I have science, math, athletic E.C.'s and some in the humanities, but that by no means makes me a scattered and directionless person. I happened to find interest in a variety of subject areas and happened to commit myself to those activities. Despite having years of commitment, along with leadership and achievement, my activities still seem to be "boring" and "not good enough". It may just be me, but I find it odd that people have now dictated what a "good" E.C. should be.</p>

<p>I guess E.C.'s are no longer about trying a variety of activities and doing things that interest you, but rather are all about choosing very specific, major-based activities and doing really well to show "interest". I somehow find that narrow-minded. Again, I'm not trying to be offensive to those who show a genuine interest in only the maths and sciences, but I have interests in all subjects, but happen to find my niche in biology and want to pursue it. While my activities don't show this interest in biology, this doesn't disqualify me from wanting to pursue such a career.</p>

<p>So, in summation, I'd like to pose a question to everyone. What dictates whether an E.C. is "good" enough or not? Is it purely commitment, leadership, and achievement or do they have now have to show direction and high interest as well.</p>

<p>I'm sure many people will disagree with me, but I just want to know what everyone else thinks about this.</p>

2

<p>I definitely agree with you…as to what colleges are looking for, I think I got the best advice at a Dartmouth info session. The admissions rep said that nothing is ‘boring’ so long as you try and make a difference. He used track as an example; it’s a fairly common sport, and while you might think it’s impressive that you’re captain, there are thousands of track captains who apply to Dartmouth/X Top College every year. In order to stand out, you need to demonstrate that you tried to make an impact. The example he used was seeing that people on your team are struggling with their homework and you start up team tutoring sessions.</p>

3

<p>It is all about what you achieved. Whether it is winning or fundraising, if you do it well, it will be good.</p>

4

<p>OP
You make great points. </p>

<p>Many moons ago when I applied to schools–adcomms wanted “diverse intrests/well rounded” —now we hear how they want to see commitment and passion.</p>

<p>I gather that AdComms read so many apps that they can spot whether there was true passion for the ECs or if it was resume padding/strategy.</p>

<p>Clear as mud?</p>

5

<p>

I have no idea how you came to that conclusion… In a post a while back from a Harvard alum interviewer she listed the following as “outstanding” ECs

The</a> post goes on to list “strong” ECs a step down, 2 or 3 of which combined make you a competitive applicant at the most selective schools.</p>

<p>Note how most of these are not school sanctioned actitivies or involve a pre-professional focus, contrary to your claim about “major-based activities”? </p>

<p>What your whining really reflects is a limited view of the world. You look around your HS and you’re one of the best; why isn’t that enough to get into a top school? But this is a big country, with a million kids graduating each year. While you only see the waters around you, top colleges take a look at the ocean of applicants and find some amazing ones out there. At the national level kids like you that have tried this and that are a dime-a-dozen.</p>

<p>I’m sorry you never had the curiosity or drive to find something and really push at it to achieve at a stand-out level.</p>

6

<p>@mikemac</p>

<p>I suppose you make a good point in indicating that many of these activities aren’t school sanctioned activities and aren’t necessarily “major-specific”, but a decent amount of them are (e.g. science/math-specific activities for a prospective math/science major). I’m not debasing your claim, because I do realize the truth behind your argument. </p>

<p>However, I find it slightly offensive that you refer to my presentation as “whiny” and you claim that I never had the “curiosity” or “drive” to achieve at a stand-out level. I was merely pointing out an idea shared by many people that I have discussed this with. I am, in no way, saying that these “dime-a-dozen” kids should be on the level as anyone else of the same “commitment” or “passion” in a sense. However, commitment, passion, and achievement are relative terms that vary from person to person. While a person might not necessarily be achieved in a certain activity, that by no means disqualifies them from having passion and commitment…In another note, I personally have had activities that have allowed me to achieve at a stand-out level, in a sense, but possibly not in activities that are viewed more highly than say…USAMO or Intel ISEF. </p>

<p>I am certainly not discrediting the policies of higher-tier colleges in choosing their students…otherwise, I’d be questioning why these schools are as good as they are. I’m merely posing the question of what exactly determines whether a person has enough “passion”, “leadership”, or “achievement” if you may.</p>

<p>I mean…I could have a passion for ballroom dancing and absolutely have no talent for it. A lack of achievement and talent doesn’t warrant my not having passion. I’m just putting that out there.</p>

<p>While I do agree with what you have to say, I’d very much prefer that you not automatically classify me as a narrow-minded individual. Just because I present a common viewpoint does not immediately present me as this narrow-minded and inexorable person…</p>

<p>@lw21, sanguinity, and fogfog
I can understand what you guys are trying to put forth and it makes sense.</p>