<p>It seems quite clear from MIT blogs to Collage Confidential threads to some aliens I chatted up at a local restaurant the most competitive approach that an applicant can take is to be passionate about something specific, and to pursue that passion. I must ask, is it essential to love an obscure species of amphibian or love to erase countless hours studying for some math competition titled with a prestigious acronym? Or is enough just to love learning?</p>
<p>There are many things I like: math, computer science, physics, chess, writing, advocating violent overthrow of oppressive dictatorships that the United States government has been secretly supporting for years the usual. But I am not driven to pursue any one of those more so than the others.</p>
<p>So, from the standpoint of college admissions, would it be best to focus, very, very seriously on one topic, or is it alright to study broadly?</p>
<p>
Aw. :(</p>
<p>Anyway, MIT likes all sorts of smart people. Pointy, not pointy…just as long as you show that you can appreciate an MIT education without going insane or flunking out and put it to good use during and after your time here.</p>
<p>I like the way you write.</p>
<p>@randomnumber53
Can you think of any long-term projects or goals that might combine all your intellectual curiosities? Take, for example, writing an algorithm for a self-guiding missile. That would be relevant to every single thing you listed, provided you changed “chess” to something broader like “strategic and tactical insight.”</p>
<p>Think about what you might like to do with the interests you listed, and how MIT will help you get there.</p>
<p>You don’t have to sacrifice your other interests to pursue one. Personally, I didn’t have a huge capstone project or even really a focus in my high school career. I love music, math, science, literature, and art, so I did all of those: 4 years of band (leadership senior year), 3 years in National Art Honors Society, 4 years in lit mag (leadership 3 years, EIC 2 years), 4 years of math team, plus AP classes in multiple disciplines (math, science, English, US History, etc.).</p>
<p>So I didn’t focus my efforts on one subject in particular, but I did apply myself to everything I did and excelled in it all. I will say that this particular lifestyle weighed REALLY hard on me come junior/senior year, when band/chorus/lit mag/volunteering stuff all started demanding 3-5 hours a week and I was also working 2 jobs. Focusing on just one thing to a high level might be easier. But it’s possible to demonstrate your passion for everything as long as it’s real.</p>
<p>There is a big difference between being in lots of groups because you love being involved and have lots of different passions, and being in lots of groups because you think it’ll make you look good. That’s what people mean when they say have a focus – don’t force yourself to look well-rounded if you don’t like what you’re doing!</p>
<p>Edit: FWIW, I know of lots of kids who did huge independent projects and still got rejected. You want to be passionate, but not one-dimensional. It’s tricky.</p>
<p>I am in agreement with luisarose – you should be passionate. You do not need to be passionate about one and only one thing.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think this might not be “enough” in the sense that it strikes me first that this is a trait that brings a fit not very specific to any school, and additionally that it isn’t something that can be shown off (and I don’t mean that in a resume padding way, I mean exactly that it isn’t itself necessarily conducive to building an application, since on some level every applicant who is a serious candidate likes to learn).</p>
<p>As a comment:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You don’t have to throw away the others, but you’ll find that having a couple projects going on rather than 10-20 may work better. You can toy with 20 things in your head, but work more steadily on 2. </p>
<p>At the end of the day, this choice tends to have to be made to some extent, or the risk of never really getting started with anything might arise. And that affects admissions, jobs, a lot of things. </p>
<p>The advantage of something specific is that the choice is made for the applicant, and they might focus in and have something to really present as evidence for what they’ll contribute to the school.</p>
<p>You will run into many who might not have such a tangible piece of evidence for their fit. But then again, your question is already framed in such a way that you’re sort of asking about what tangibles presented could augment your case for admission.</p>
<p>I see little substitute to talking to people (on here or wherever) who got accepted with tangible evidence of competence but more intangible evidence of fit. Understanding what that entailed could inform you as to both what you can do and to accurately assess where you realistically stand.</p>
<p>There are other ways to look at “passion”</p>
<p>1) Do something with what interests you.
2) Do something that make you different from the other high gpa, 10 AP classes student.</p>
<p>Taking the most demanding classes you can is a given to get into the pool of candidates to be further reviewed. What you do with what you have learned is what distinguishes you from everyone else in the pool. That is not to say that there will be some kids that are brilliant and their academics put them into the top .0001%. But most kids are not likely to be in that group.</p>
<p>So, as part of the top 1%, what differentiates you? What can you do with the “usual” to make yourself “unusual”?</p>