Do colleges prefer an extracurricular that you’ve gotten good at in a short period of time or one that you’ve gotten just as good at in a longer period of time?
For example, let’s say someone got into competitive rubik’s cubing (idk what it’s called). Would an AO like to see that they got the world record after spending their time on cubing since 12th grade or since 9th? In one scenario, they got very good very fast. In the other, they got very good slowly.
There are a lot of parameters here that should be specified, so I’ll narrow further. In one scenario, they got the world record, achieving the same level of skill with the same amount of hours, but in the span of one year. In the other, they got the world record, again achieving the same level of skill with the same amount of hours, but in a broader span of time.
Or in even more colloquial terms, would the applicant look better if they checked the 9th-12th boxes on the extracurricular or just the 12th grade box on the commonapp (without changing anything else but quadrupling the hours so they match in both cases)
Basically, do colleges look for commitment or skill? (asking for T20)
The answer to virtually every question you’ve asked is “None of the above”.
Taking care of an elderly family member after school every day if that’s what your family needs- that’s the “best” extra-curricular.
Taking photos of local sporting events for the local newspaper/website because you are passionate about sports but aren’t good enough to make the team at your HS- that’s the “best” EC. Starting a salsa dancing club in your town’s community center because you love to dance… and it gives the folks who attend the citizenship class at the center something social to do afterwards- that’s the best EC. Teaching bread-baking at an assisted living facility, collecting stamps, cleaning up a civil war era cemetery in your town for your Eagle Scout project-- all of these are the “best”.
Why? Because it’s something you love. Trying to figure out how to position a non-interest as commitment vs. skill? Who cares???
You need to first ask why EC’s are important to a college. IMO, after meeting academic qualifications, the AO’s are trying to form a view on (1) how will this applicant contribute to the school’s community and (2) what type of desirable personal qualities are exhibited through the EC’s? The more an EC involves active participation, perseverance, selflessness in either leadership or teamwork, accomplishment, the more it will enhance the applicant’s prospects. Time by itself is not what is important, it is what you have done during the time you have participated.
Based on what I have read, advice from our son’s GC, conversations with admissions officers, and our son’s experience schools are looking for commitment and advancement or achievement. AOs would rather see a student who does a sport for four years, and makes varsity, and is in a club all through school and holds leadership positions like treasurer and president than a student who tries three different sports, but only does each for a season or two, and belongs to four clubs, but has no responsibility.
So, applied to your hypothetical, I think schools would like to see a student join the rubiks cube team, and stick with it for four years. If they excel their first year, they could become team captain or help coach other team members as an upper classman.
I was surprised at how universities view ECs when my kids started applying to colleges. I always assumed that schools wanted a well-rounded applicant. That is not the case. They want a well-rounded student body. They would rather see that you applied yourself to one thing (and succeeded at a high level) than that you belonged to a lot of clubs and were in a lot of activities. Whether it is being an all-state swimmer for a few years or winning a national piano competition or being a champion in debate, they want to see that you can dedicate yourself to something, work hard and come out near the top.
Adding to what you wrote, though, is the fact that AO’s are also looking for kids that are the “glue” (that’s what they call them). Kids that will be active and engaged and join clubs and participate in activities. So sometimes doing a lot of different things is a successful path.
Basically, there isn’t a formula, or one best path for selective admissions. If there were, someone would be making a fortune selling the answer!
I have also heard admissions officers say that they look to create a well-rounded student body. BUT as that was explained a well-rounded student body will include BOTH students who excel in one disciple/activity AS WELL AS individuals who are well-rounded.
IMO for ECs students should do things they enjoy/care about and work towards meaningful contributions/achievements in whatever they pursue.
To the OP – just be honest about how long you pursued an activity as well as your achievements.
I would just do EC’s that interest you, work to develop real interests, and not worry about this kind of thing. If, for example, you love Rubik cubes and want to spend 4 years on them, do so, regardless of competitions (by all means compete if you enjoy it). If you are a senior and just starting, great. Basically, try not to let college admissions guide these decisions at all, in my view (especially at this micro level: every heard the saying “dancing on the head of a pin?”)
I think schools are onto the students who pad their applications with 10 different activities or clubs where the student just shows up for a couple meetings for each and shows no advancement, achievement or leadership. I think they are also onto the moral vanity projects where students go to Costa Rica to spend two days helping build a school then seven days lying on the beach and surfing.
Reaching a world record in one year versus four is really a different scenario than whether a person does an EC for one or four years, if the emphasis is on the world record, I think. The OP is really discussing talent w/ a short term commitment versus long term commitment w/less impressive talent- at least with a Rubik cube. I don’t think there is a good answer or that it matters.
Admissions officers will probably prize commitment over precociousness, for the same reason they favor GPA (aptitude and hard work) over SAT (mostly aptitude and socioeconomic). The only quasi-exception I can think of is that for some sports, there are some coaches who MAY claim to favor someone with “room to grow” or untapped potential, or “coachability” over static level of talent at a given time. But keep in mind that real collegiate recruiting for most sports isn’t really in range for kids starting their sport for the first time in mid-high school (doesn’t apply to rowing and a couple of others, but generally applies to Div I major sports).
Do what you love and what is meaningful to you. The joy of being a quick study at something is its own reward. Yet there is also something wonderful about making slow and steady gains in an area that isn’t a natural aptitude.
Find what interests you and try that out. Learn and grow from that experience. That authentic engagement may come through in various ways in your application with mentions in LORs or essays. Your interests may evolve over four years, just be able to explain the shift from HOSA treasurer to climate change activist.
Do not fabricate a portfolio of ECs and accomplishments with the goal to impress an AO at a highly selective college. It will not impress them and it will not bring you joy.