<p>" So when it comes to evaluating ECs, the most selective colleges favor those who have devoted time to 1 or 2 areas and have excelled (awards, accomplishments, leadership, etc). For example Stanford says"</p>
<p>Not exactly true. Most of the successful Harvard applicants whom I've interviewed have had about 3 different activities (which could include a job, a sport, an art, volunteer work, a club) that they have had a longterm, deep involvement in and clearly are active in out of interest, not to impress Harvard.</p>
<p>Such colleges also are open to accepting the rare student who manages to have a deep, longterm involvement in, for example, 5 different activities while keeping up their grades. Most people aren't naturally that organized and well rounded nor do most people have a passion about doing so many things, but top colleges welcome the rare students who are like that.</p>
<p>^^^ But how would they KNOW? I mean, there are kids in my class who do absolutely EVERY club. They're not good at ALL of them (I used to debate and some of them were really pathetic; I'm also in the school paper and many of them miss deadlines, etc.). Some of them will be getting leadership positions too, only because they're well-liked by the other resume-padding peers. </p>
<p>I don't know, I think I respect the people who show a strong passion for one or two things and then do a few other activities to balance it out. For example, my friend did debate and was amazing. He was also an extraordinary guitarist (he had perfect pitch too!), and started a very successful band. Other than that, he was in some other clubs around school, but nothing major beyond those two. He got into Yale SCEA a year ago, so that's what I'm going by.</p>
<p>Megavortex7--I agree with you. A major pet peeve of mine is kids who try to be involved in a million things either out of ego, trying to impress colleges, or the inability to say "no". And as you point out, sometimes they even manage to obtain leadership positions in many of them despite being completely overscheduled. While this type of person may technically be a member of the club, I've seen the same thing you have--they don't show up when they should or don't follow through on obligations. Yet, they will have a large EC list on their application. By this point in hs, my D has narrowed herself to only a few things, and only one is a major involvement. Despite what it seems like after reading CCer's bios, I firmly believe that it's really hard to do more than a few things very well. I really hope colleges agree.</p>
<p>"^^^ But how would they KNOW? I mean, there are kids in my class who do absolutely EVERY club. They're not good at ALL of them (I used to debate and some of them were really pathetic; I'm also in the school paper and many of them miss deadlines, etc.). Some of them will be getting leadership positions too, only because they're well-liked by the other resume-padding peers. "</p>
<p>When I interview students for Harvard, I ask things like: "What was the most challenging situation that you faced when you were [fill in the blank of the leadership position that they claimed] and how did you solve that challenge? " </p>
<p>"What did you learn through your leadership position with [name organization]? What would you do differently if you could?"</p>
<p>If one only held office in order to decorate one's resume, one can't provide an impressive answer to such questions. When it comes to places like top colleges, most have admissions officers who either are alum of that college or of similar colleges. Those people know through their own experience what it means to be very involved in ECs while in h.s., and they can see through the b.s.</p>