Why Do Colleges Care So Much About Extracurriculars?

Applying to College
41

<p>

Note that I listed the first 10 private universities ranked after #100 USNWR in my earlier post. I chose private universities because public universities are more likely to focus on stats than private universities. For public universities, the acceptance criteria varies significantly by state . Some less selective public colleges list ECs as important in their CDS, some considered, and some not considered. This doesn’t change my point that it’s not just highly selective colleges that treat ECs as important, as was stated in some of the earlier posts of this thread. Sure, it’s not every college, but it’s enough to take notice.</p>

<p>

I believe all the colleges I listed accept the majority of apps. Some of the colleges I listed have acceptance rates as high as 80-90%. In a typical less selective college app pool, it is impossible to accept the vast majority while requiring that each accepted app do well in all of the criteria you consider important. Instead it’s more a matter of determining who is among the minority of apps that are worst, according to a combination of the criteria you consider important. A higher stat app without ECs is unlikely to be among the bottom of the application pool group who gets rejected, but this doesn’t mean that the college doesn’t consider ECs important .</p>

42

<p>Re: Princeton’s chemistry major at [Undergraduate</a> Announcement 2013-14](<a href=“http://www.princeton.edu/ua/departmentsprograms/chm/]Undergraduate”>http://www.princeton.edu/ua/departmentsprograms/chm/)</p>

<p>While Princeton’s chemistry major appears to be an outlier in not requiring math beyond frosh calculus, it does indicate that more advanced math is required for American Chemical Society certification (which is standard for chemistry major degree programs in most other schools and is recommended for those who want to pursue graduate study or work in chemistry). Without taking the additional math (or other specified courses), the chemistry major may be seen as a “chemistry lite” major which may be perfectly fine for those whose real goal is investment banking or consulting or who choose the major out of convenience in fulfilling pre-med course requirements.</p>

43

<p>I was not a chemistry major, but it would be a very poor idea to take physical chemistry, chemical kinetics, or quantum mechanics without having first taken multivariable calculus and differential equations. </p>

<p>You could do it, I guess, but you wouldn’t really be getting the math that is necessary to do the work.</p>

44

<br>

<br>

<p>I am not a chemistry major either. But I don’t recall needing multi-variable calculus in my quantum class. I must have gone to the wrong college :slight_smile: (In Princeton Review this year, my alma mater ranked in the top five for party school - ouch)
I took multi-variable calculus and differential eqns in my freshman year (around the time when dinosaurs still roamed the earth) - I have not used it since.
Last year, in the staff meeting, I asked my colleagues about a calculus proof question (I was tutoring my daughter with her BC Calc). None of them could remotely answer it (couple of Stanford Ph. D, one MIT grad, and one Waterloo). So I guess I am not the only one not needing any “stinking” calculus since highschool/college days. :)</p>

<p>My niece is doing CS in the College of Liberal Arts at Berkeley. She had minimal Calc, Chemistry, and Physics requirements. I think that’s the way to do it. Why would a CS major needs to know Maxwell’s equations or how to compute the wavelength generated by Jim Brown when he was making a touchdown. They should learn how to code well and how to communicate effectively with colleagues.</p>

45

<p>I think they don’t weigh ECs enough to be honest…</p>

46

<p>

Yes, but the wording used in the Chemistry undergrad announcement is the same as that used in MolBio advising. Multi and linear are not required but we recommend it. In fact, we’ll go so far as to give you departmental credit if you take it. That’s essentially it. Trust me, I was an intended chemistry major, so I familiarized myself with all of my available options. </p>

<p>Additionally, you are right that if you want to pursue a graduate program, certification is an unspoken must. It will not make or break you when you enter chem grad school, but all other factors aside, a grad school will accept the certified guy because of the extra rigorous coursework. However, certification is not necessarily required for anything, including jobs in the pharmaceutical industry. Yes, it would help, but it is not explicitly required for any job I know of.</p>

47

<p>“I mean, isn’t the whole point of college to prepare us for a career? And once we’re in a career, no employer gives a crap about you being captain of the Daddy Soccer League or how many times a month you volunteer at a soup kitchen; they just want to see you do your job and do it well. Why this push for us to be ‘well-rounded’?” </p>

<p>Those are the questions of the day, and they go back at least 2500 years. Here are my answers: (1) NO. That’s the purpose of trade schools. (2) WRONG. Many Employers DO care about those things for management prospects. Clerk level: Not so much. I am a 25-year recruiter working in management, finance, and technical. (3) Because it is tied into the history of our country. It is what literally made America.</p>

<p>Humans, I suppose, always contemplated the nature of their world. But then came a group that considered that the world might be not about the acts of capricious gods. Then came Socrates, who was viewed as the wisest man in the world not because he knew anything (he denied knowing anything), but because, through questioning, he demonstrated that the “wise men” knew less. For that, he was sentenced to death.</p>

<p>Plato and Aristotle were among his students, both of whom created academies that taught thought. They were “polyglots” who showed that critical thinking can apply to any profession, and improve “know-how” to “know better”. That was good enough for Greece and Rome for awhile, but soon armies of oligarchs and “holy men” took over. with rigid “black-or-white, you’re with us or against us” ideology. Questioning was literally a death sentence. Those were called the Dark Ages.</p>

<p>Philosophy returned during the Renaissance, disappeared again in another Dark Age, then returned about 300 years later with the Enlightenment. The Enlightenment was a western European movement that returned to the thinking of Socrates, Aristotle, Plato, and others in matters such as Purpose, Justice, Virtue, and Nature. Jefferson, Adams, Madison, and Franklin, all products of Enlightenment thinking, used it to form a country, complete with a Declaration and a Preamble. And in their spare time were “polyglots”, especially Franklin and Jefferson, because their ability to think made them great businessmen, architects, farmers, inventors, diplomats, etc. “Philosophy Clubs” in Philadelphia were the Starbucks of their time, and where the real debating was done before they took their agreements to Independence Hall. So, here we are.</p>

<p>“Higher Education” doesn’t mean Grade 13. It means a higher-level of knowledge seeking. That’s what colleges are for; to make the next generation of polyglots. Unfortunately, the cost of college being what it’s become, there’s been a need for Return-on-Investment. And philosophy has a lower direct ROI than know-how. Sad.</p>

<p>The highest level of education is still the Ph.D. (doctor of philosophy), but peoples’
eyes glaze with this stuff. Computer graphics class is more fun, and finance pays more. But neither would be possible without philosophy.</p>

<p>The true purpose of college is to think better. A little bit of knowing some answers and, hopefully, more about asking the right questions. If that purpose is lost, history has shown that we will return to the savage Dark Ages.</p>

48

<p>Because colleges have tubas that need to be played, podiums that need to be staffed, balls that need to be used. Colleges are filling their need for these positions. Sounds good to me.</p>

49

<p>

</p>

<p>Oh boy, this is going to be fun.</p>

<p>Because:</p>

<p>1) In the real world, employers don’t just care about if you can do the job. That may work if you’re the only applicant. If you’re one of the 1000 other applicants applying for 1 job opening, likely 50% of the other applicants are able to do the job as well as you. Now it comes down to how much the employer likes you as a person, how interesting they find you, rapport, etc. Several of my jobs in the past I’ve received not because of my major or GPA or whatever, but because the interviewer was also a former athlete like me and we bonded over that. Colleges want their graduates to do well - and someone who is more social/involved will do better than some nerd who just studies. </p>

<p>2) People on campus want to have fun. That’s one of the main reasons for college - if you just want job training then go to a trade school or community college. Someone who has no life outside of schoolwork won’t contribute to a fun, intellectually stimulating, and exciting campus. Therefore these campuses won’t, and shouldn’t, let them in. That’s why the Valedictorian who has no EC’s gets rejected while the person ranked at the lower end of the top 5% but is a triathlete, on the student council, and volunteers gets in instead.</p>

<p>I could go on, but this point seems pretty moot already.</p>

50

<p>Some may argue that too much EC involvement in college (or HS sometimes), depending on what the popular ECs are, could actually take away from having an intellectually stimulating environment. It could also be less exciting if most students are essentially doing the same types of ECs which is very common at very pre-professionally oriented universities, even selective ones; At such institutions, ECs will often be too geared toward intentional resume padding and “pre-professional development”. As in, ECs will be more representative of students jumping through hoops than trying to “have fun” or “make a meaningful contribution”. In addition, to jump through such hoops, students at many places may likely put academics in a distant second or 3rd place and do things like intentionally create the easiest course schedule possible and certainly will not choose courses and opps. that seem outside their career track or comfort zone (again, this will hardly contribute to an intellectually stimulating environment. The students are not engaged in their academics beyond doing what is needed to make an A and are often avoiding a challenge). This sort of thing makes many colleges grade 13. They will certainly appear “exciting” in a superficial sense though. Sometimes I just worry how many people are truly interested in what they are involved in. I’m sure most are, but I worry too many aren’t. </p>

<p>I view valuing one of the two sides over the other with a lot of cynicism. The academic standards at many places (even selective schools) nearly suggests that its mainly about the ECs. Academic engagement is not expected or desired so much as the students ability to make decent grades and contribute to campus life, and perhaps do something interesting enough during their 4 years, so that the U can claim to have “produced” that person. This sort of thing makes a school marketable. Normally much more so than academic opps. and intellectual engagement. The latter 2 are far over-rated in this sort of economy. A place that creates a “fun” and “successful” 4 years leading directly toward a path creating job security seems ideal among most now (lesser so among the very well off, as another poster mentioned).</p>

51

<p>

</p>

<p>One can argue that the highly selective private schools want someone who will achieve something after graduation, in order to bring glory to the school when such achievements are reported. Off the scale (even by their standards) academic achievement is just one category of such people (where they are looking for potential Nobel Prize winners and the like, rather than common physicians and investment bankers). Others include those who have achieved, in high school, some very high level of achievement in some EC (sports, music, etc.). Yet still others include ascribed rather than achieved factors, like being family of a prominent politician or some such, where that can lead to significant advantages from name recognition (think of people named Rockefeller, Kennedy, Bush, Clinton, Paul in the US, but foreign politicians may also be included here).</p>

<p>Of course, even if most graduates become investment bankers instead of super-achievers of some sort, that still at least means more potential donation money.</p>

52

<p>

</p>

<p>Very valid points. Certainly there are few if any ‘universal generalizations’ in such a complex system with so many different colleges and different combinations/variations.</p>

53

<p>So, since we probably can’t generalize , how 'bout we quit speculating, too?</p>

54

<p>uc: I think that’s what I was trying to go in some sense. It appears to me that institutions (mainly selective) that look for those who may eventually achieve a Nobel, Fields Medal, some big sports accomplishment, etc are a bit different in atmosphere from those that primarily recruit future ibankers and physicians. I’m sure both pools had lots of ECs in HS, but the latter crowd is often the hoop jumping types. The latter crowd “can” be interesting and can certainly contribute in terms of alumni donations, but in general, places with an abundance of these sorts of students don’t have the stereotypical or expected feel of a selective institution and also are less reputable because their alumni don’t go on to be represented in academia in high numbers. </p>

<p>Particularly, these places are usually known for having very high stats. students without much intellectual curiousity or interest in scholarship (no I don’t count doing scientific research to enhance a pre-health competitiveness as particularly scholarly, though there are cases where it is). My alma mater can be considered some weird hybrid of this sort of culture and the former (some say it’s like WashU which is very pre-professionally oriented, however, Emory is actually quite different because it doesn’t have many undergraduate professional entities. Only business and nursing. We don’t have engineering, architecture, etc. Emory is kind of like Chicago with a lax curriculum, less rigor, and a larger pre-prof. population. It’s kind of weird…). Retention of a strong social sciences and humanities scene (likely because of the faculty members we have and their engagement with the students and community at large) keeps the place somewhat interesting intellectually (as in more interesting than some similarly ranked peers), but the intense pre-professional culture coming from primarily the pre-business and pre-med crowd dampens what could otherwise be a somewhat scholarly type of atmosphere (and a more interesting one. Most of these typically only join organizations or get involved in opps. directly related to their career path). I’m sure that if Emory had D-1 sports, Emory would no longer be such a hybrid because actual academic engagement would decline across the board and we would look exactly like some of our peers (It would be a high caliber pre-professional country club with top notch faculty and traditional outlets of fun. Hardly no easily visible intellectual vitality at all). </p>

<p>Given that you’re associated with Cal (right?), I guess I should throw in that places like Berkeley are probably good at maintaining or inspire high intellectual vitality (regardless of the number of science majors and pre-healths and other pre-profs) partially because it doesn’t appear to manipulate its curriculum to specifically cater to those crowds (it uses its education to do it and relies less on soft factors in admissions). Doing this sort of internal regulation seems like a way to circumvent any imbalance in recruitment. For example, advanced science courses at Berkeley will not likely be watered down or taught differently to ensure success or “satisfaction” (too often determined by course difficulty) of certain students. You would need to actually be at least somewhat interested in the material or course to do decently in it. At Emory, I’ve noticed that many advanced courses in biology have actually turned into service courses that are actually easier than the general biology sequence. The goal of these courses is so clearly not geared toward encouraging deep learning of the subject, but to simply claim that “we exposed you to Y material before you took X entrance exam. Even if it was a shallow exposure, it was an exposure, and we kept your GPA up while doing it!”. Given that, it seems the secret to maintaining a higher caliber intellectual environment with an abundance such students is to avoid giving power to such students beyond advising services availed to them. As in, they should have no ability to pressure the curriculum or pedagogy used (for example, research has shown how natural science students respond to flipped classrooms…usually not well, but in general, they are better for learning outcomes despite the discomfort. A school that cares would value the outcome over the comfort…just saying). Bottomline: if you can’t fix recruiting, fix the education.</p>

<p>As for speculating: In this sort of situation, it’s difficult to avoid speculation as I’m sure most of us are not admissions officers.</p>

55

<p>Yeah, but.</p>

<p>What I said earlier, the short version: your ECs show a lot about how you think, your vision, perspective and judgment, energy and willingness, curiosity. It’s either there or not. </p>

<p>Frankly, we don’t look for kids we think will get a Nobel or be fabulously wealthy IBs who donate big bucks. The focus is on what they may contribute to the whole, during their four years in college, in classrooms and labs- and during their non-academic time. After all, these applications come from 17 year olds. And the U environment is a community.</p>

<p>Don’t know where you get the idea that “these places are usually known for having very high stats. students without much intellectual curiosity or interest in scholarship.” Or some of the rest you say.</p>

56

<p>Lookingforward: It’s clear where I get it from. It’s pretty well-known that there are selective institutions known for a lot of intellectual vitality and some that are not. Likely, a lot of it has to do with recruiting. For example, if a place like Harvard can get winners of international science and math olympiads (which it does), those types are more likely to go into academia and perhaps win some major prize or recognition in the academic world. Places like Harvard aren’t dumb. They can probably differentiate which students are primarily those who will go on to become the i-bankers and physicians that uc mentions and those who have a very high potential for doing something different that will really keep and put them on the map. They will recruit both, but they don’t expect the same outcomes and contribution from both. All people who do lots of EC’s are not likely to viewed equally by these schools. I will agree that ultimately ECs do what you said, but I’m saying its a little more complex than simply having them or not in the admissions process. Some schools are more likely to appreciate some sorts of ECs over others and it may not matter if your resume is filled with them so much as having 1-2 really good quality ones. Other schools may indeed primarily look for a crap ton of them as they primarily want “engagement” (whether it manifests itself superficial/hoop jumping engagement at the college level or not).</p>

57

<p>You overrate the predictability, based on what a 17 year old has done, to date. Very, very few kids can present themselves as destined for any certain greatness. Not worth arguing. I try to describe based on my experience. I am involved.</p>

<p>So be it.</p>

58

<p>The problem with the idea that colleges want students with extracurriculars because they want them to be well-rounded is that they much prefer students with ONE or maybe two extracurriculars at a high level, not a few at “meh” levels. That’s not well-rounded; that’s angled.</p>

59

<p>I’m not personally over-rating the predictability, but you can definitely imagine that this is what adcoms at certain schools think when they see an applicant. I personally could care less if they choose people with or without ECs who are academically qualified. However, the whole process at selective schools appears to be about a mixture of “class-shaping” (as in creating a class that will make the campus interesting) and “prestige shaping” to some extent at some schools, but to a larger extent at others. It’s kind of like hedging a bet on who will contribute to one, the other, or both. I mean, Chicago’s old system of admissions essays was likely not for fun, and just happened to coincide with the types of students they got. They were likely looking for a greater share of academic/intellectual types. I would imagine that they also screened the EC accomplishments to get a feel as well. While you can’t predict these things, who is to stop them from trying? For example, the international olympiad winner at the age of 16-18 is perhaps smarter and more creative than many of the adults who occupy and have had success in those specific fields now (or at least much smarter than those people when they were that age). Would you blame them for hedging a bet on such people contributing much more to the school than merely “campus vibrancy and intellectual vitality”? This is another way of me saying, that I imagine many schools (especially the super selective ones) thinking beyond what the student will directly contribute to campus life. Some may flat out be choosing those who can hone their current abilities through the programs they offer (as in a very math oriented person can be pushed to another level by Harvard or Princeton physics or mathematics. This has alternative implications for the school that goes beyond the students ability to contribute to campus life in more traditional ways). Certain EC’s can be used as some sort of signal. Whether these predictions are right or wrong, who knows? And in the end, at the very least, the school can claim, “we are good enough to pull in X,Y, and Z academic prize winners and X number of national merit scholars…blah, blah”. Student caliber beyond incoming stats. as marketing tool never hurts.</p>

60

<p>I honestly think that ECs have less of an impact than many people realize. At the same time, I think that recommendations and essays have much more of an impact than people realize. While there are many benefits from being heavily involved in ECs, a lot of kids just do them for college applications or because they feel like they have to. At the opposite of the spectrum, there are people who do very few ECs but will become very involved in their interests at college. </p>

<p>When I applied, I thought my ECs were terrible compared to what I read on here. I played violin in orchestra/did other music activities and was on Science Olympiad just like every other student applying who wanted to pursue a science major at a top schools. Furthermore, I had absolutely no “leadership positions”. </p>

<p>It may have seemed that admissions was taking a risk admitting someone like me, who hadn’t really done much in high school. However, now that I am at College, it has become easier for me to be involved in things I like. I do research fifteen hours a week (and have won awards and submitted a first author paper), help organize things for Physics Club, am a student advisor for the physics major, play in a chamber group, and have done some volunteer work. The two reasons I am able to do more in college are that I am in class less and it is easier to find things that suit my personality. I am not really into clubs, I get the most satisfaction of working on things on my own and also prefer to be in a very small group. Additionally, I can relate to professors very well because I plan to go into academia.</p>

<p>While colleges need to have leaders and organizers who contribute to the more visible parts of campus life, they also need people like me who prefer to operate under the radar. For this type of person, I don’t think high school ECs a good predictor of success.</p>