Participation vs. achievement?

Applying to College
1

<p>Which appeals more to the admissions officer,
A. the highschool Black Belt who went to the Junior Olympics and got a medal, or
B. the highschool Black Belt who went to the Junior Olympics but didn’t medal, while doing a number of other activities which are focused on their intended major, but in which they have achieved only partial success (say, they’ve participated in 10 SpaceAndScience challenges and have won or placed in 3), and while having done something else impressive – like a book publication, founding a non-profit, winning a Congressional Award, etc.?</p>

<p>Are both Ivy-League tier?</p>

<p>Note: Karate, not Taekwondoe, isn’t in the regular Olympics yet. This applicant would not be an athletic recruitment and would have an intended major outside of Karate.</p>

<p>This all boils down to the big question:
Do admissions officers favor heavy, focused participation with sometimes limited success, or much more limited applications with success in one or maybe two events? </p>

<p>Are both of these applicants Ivy League level?</p>

2

<p>They’re Ivy League level if they’re at the top of their class and have top sat or act scores.</p>

3

<p>I’m also interested in knowing this… Here, I think this scenario is more clear (case B was sort of convoluted):</p>

<p>A. the highschool Black Belt who went to the Junior Olympics and got a gold medal
B. the highschool Black Belt who went to the National Karate Competition and medaled, while qualifying for AIME, being NHS President, and going on a mission trip to help impoverished people in Africa</p>

<p>Who is more desirable, more “interesting,” everything else being equal (ie assuming 2250ish and top 1% class rank but not outstanding enough to be admitted only on academics)?</p>

4

<p>If what you are asking is whether it’s more impressive to be extraordinary (world class) in one thing or just very good in several things, and everything else is equal (which of course never happens with two different people), then the answer is clearly that it’s more impressive to be extraordinary in one thing.</p>

5

<p>Yep that’s basically it M’s Mom. Any other opinions?</p>

6

<p>Colleges do like to see consistency and dedication–they basically like a student with a certain skill or “passion” that they’ve developed over the years, making situation A preferable. But of course if a student is great at 3 things instead of extraordinary at 1, they wouldn’t be written off completely.</p>

7

<p>I’m not asking if it’s better to be well rounded or if it’s better to be focused (breadth vs. depth), I’m asking if colleges appreciate participation which sometimes results in success as much as they appreciate more limited participation which often results in success.</p>

<p>New example:
Kid A goes to the big Science Fair and wins a gold.
Kid B participates in many science-related extracurriculars, wins in about 3/10 of them, attends the big Science Fair but doesn’t win.</p>

<p>Is kid B in a much worse scenario? Are they both at about the same level?</p>

8

<p>Oh, sorry, I misinterpreted your question. </p>

<p>In this case, I don’t think the Kid A scenario you give happens in practice. How would Kid A be able to win big Science Fair without any other science-related successes?</p>

9

<p>In your first example, it is partly going to depend on the school. Some schools are looking as much for students who will be active participants in their community as for students who are extraordinary. The student who didn’t go quite as far with the Karate, but spent time giving back to the community may value community more, and might be equally as talented - that other student’s success may have depended as much on good coaches as talent or drive. Student B may also have realized he didn’t quite have what it takes to reach that level, and instead placed priority where he could do some good.</p>

<p>In #7, your second student isn’t giving back to community in the same way. In that case, Kid A is likely to have the advantage, but again, it might depend on what those science related extracurriculars are. Were they activities where student B showed leadership? Did they involve teamwork? Could they possibly be better preparation for eventual work in the student’s eventual career choice, where teamwork might be necessary?</p>

10

<p>It’s all in your presentation. Your “whole.” The pattern. Since you said Ivy, here’s my scoop. Sort of idealized- </p>

<p>Think of 3 prongs: what you do to further your own interests and future goals; what you do for your group -hs, cultural, church, etc; and what you do for your community, because you can see a need and commit to trying to have some impact.</p>

<p>The Africa trips should be balanced by local, roll-up-your-sleeves vol work/community service, over time. Adcoms know they are expensive trips and not always entirely about service. They can look to see if you cared during the past few years.</p>

<p>Self-publishing is a matter of coming up with the costs. Founding a non-profit is depends on what you actually did- it’s not all about collecting money; they can look for the depth of your engagement. And, they know many kids rely on adult support and donations.</p>

<p>Karate competitions- not bad. They are based on skills acquired over time and, presumably, improvement- so it’s good, like music. </p>

<p>Math-sci competitions…well, if you want STEM, tops schools like to see you have experience beyond the classroom- that you understand the practical aspects and teamwork. Winning isn’t everything. Robotics, Math Bowl, Sci Olympiad…all good ECs. Outside research is good. Sci Fair- depends. </p>

<p>Sorry for the bluntness. In the end, it’s what your actvities, together and individually, show about the sort of kid you are. </p>

<p>I’d bet each of you who asked, actually has done more- it really is about the whole. So think about that. Good luck to all.</p>