I’ve been hearing a lot about how being “well-rounded” is bad. My guess was that colleges like to see someone who is really good at one thing rather than an applicant who is just okay at everything. Is that true?
I just explained on another thread that is is not bad to be well rounded. However it’s is better to be strong in all areas with demonstrated intrest in one. Is MIT going to accept someone who got 100’s in math and science but failed their English and history classes? Probably not.
Being “well-rounded” isn’t bad. Dabbling in a plethora of different clubs and activities – perhaps for the sole purpose of filling up certain portions of your app – is bad.
it’s not bad at all, idk who told you that but they’re wrong. Although it would be nice to show that you are more skilled in one area than others.
I agree with post #2.
I think that some high school students confuse “well rounded” with “constant dabbling.”
Well rounded is wonderful. But being a dabbler means being a jack of all trades and master of none. It makes you seem flighty, as though you don’t know what you want to do, so you’re going to try to do everything–and as a result, to do nothing well or thoroughly.
Being well-rounded is inherently good. It’s just that competitive schools receive applications from a gazillion other well-rounded students, too. Therefore, simply being well-rounded doesn’t make u stand out from the pack.
Being well-rounded is a good thing because it allows you to score higher on certain broad-spectrum tests like the SAT and ACT. You should thinking about what you would like to major in and what you are best at. When you say well-rounded it probably does not mean that you like and have abilities in every subject equally.