<p>I'm a sophomore and I'm wondering would it be better to totally devote my time to math and science(internships, classes at a local college, olympiads, etc ), whic is what I love or would it be better to have EC's that show "well-roundedness"?</p>
<p>I think you should do what you love. Half-hearted EC’s are not worthwhile. I think the comments in many threads support this.</p>
<p>They would like to see that you’re female.
They don’t have enough female applicants. So girls get in easier. Fact.</p>
<p>i think you should do EC’s that you have a passion and loving doing.</p>
<p>and make sure you reflect those in your application.</p>
<p>I though so, but all the accepted posts I see have people who do like a million things while I have about 6 things that take up all my time.</p>
<p>MIT only gives you room to list 5 activities anyways 
How’s that for a clue.</p>
<p>Commonapp, used by most other colleges, has 7 spots. So unless you want to attach a list of everything else, I think 6 activities where you’re spending a lot of time is a good way to go.</p>
<p>In high school, I only had two major activities: canoeing and Science Olympiad. I also helped teach canoe camps, and in my senior year (I left high school to go to a local university full-time) I started doing research and tutoring small children in computer science. I think I listed those five, all of which I did just for fun, and I got in.</p>
<p>Also, being female does about double your chances of getting in statistically, but I’ve heard that the girls that apply are much more qualified. ;)</p>
<p>Do what you love </p>
<ul>
<li>Chris Peterson
MIT Admissions Officer</li>
</ul>
<p>Thanks, I guess I’ll go with being a super nerd :). And alas, I’m a guy but I’m also black so maybe it balances lol.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m sure you have also seen rejected people who do a million things. At that, many of them. Even if MIT were to expect you to do a million things, if your heart isn’t in it, chances are you would not do those things whole-heartedly enough for them to be meaningful. Which would mean a fair waste of 4 years, and less concentration on fundamentals. Which would most likely mean not getting that much out of MIT anyway once you get there, if by sheer chance you got admitted.</p>
<p>Point is, if you follow these things to conclusion for several years, you should be able to see a good future coming out with decent certainty. Regardless, unless you’re weighing two simple choices, and one is clearly preferred by a school, you should never make the choice that doesn’t bring intrinsic merit, i.e. outside of admission. </p>
<p>Becoming strong at maths and science if you like them is certainly more important than admission to MIT, and anyway now you have the added assurance from an admissions officer that MIT encourages doing what you love. :)</p>