<p>In your opinion, is it better to know/be able to do a couple of things really well (quality) or to know/be able to do a variety of things but not be extremely good at them (quantity)? Like, let’s say a person can play four instruments fairly well and a person can play one instrument extremely well, like a couple levels lower than a professional. Who has the advantage in life, in general or when applying to colleges? Or let’s say a person knows three other languages aside from their native at a decent level (can have a casual conversation, order food, etc), but isn’t proficient. Then there’s a person who knows one language aside from their native language at a proficient level (can make a living, can write a novel from scratch, etc). Who has the advantage?</p>
<p>I’d say both are good in their own ways, but if I had to choose, then quality over quantity. Even though being versatile is good, it would have to be a well-rounded person in many disciplines: arts, sciences, humanities, athletics, volunteer, etc. (not merely ok at 4 instruments or 3 languages). But being talented at one thing, with some evidence of it, shows A LOT of dedication and makes you unique if few can reach that level of expertise.</p>
<p>I’m no expert, but I think the quality would be better. E.g. If a multinational company has hired someone who speaks fluent English and Japanese, they would have more success sending them over to a branch in Japan, than someone who speaks fluent English, and very basic Japanese, Spanish, and German.</p>
<p>With the instruments, if someone wants to join a band, they’d presumably be looking for proficiency in a certain instrument. (I don’t know, I’m not musical and most of my friends who are know multiple instruments.) If you show passion, dedication and skill for one thing, but maybe try out other hobbies (e.g. Grade 8 Piano and Grade 3 Flute), then it would show that you’re responsible for your own learning, can set and reach your own goals, and can spend years on a certain thing without abandoning it.</p>
<p>But it depends on your situation. If your school only offered one language, which you found difficult for whatever reason, then in junior year, you started self-teaching yourself a completely different language, gained progress in it, and even visited the country/made penfriends and practiced it, but only got up to an intermediate level, that may still say a lot to admissions staff. Would it be useful to your job? It depends what your job is.</p>
<p>There’s a big difference in skill and usefulness between playing four instruments “fairly well” and playing one “incredibly well,” and having basic language skills (casual conversation, ordering food) and being native-level in one language (can make a living, write a novel). With your examples, the instrument case would be ambiguous since both scenarios IMO require a similar amount of effort, but with the languages, learning one to proficiency and being able to use it with few problems outweighs knowing some phrases and grammar in a few languages. But it depends on your exposure to the foreign languages, and the opportunities you have (e.g. school does not offer certain language to AP; need to self-study; family is monolingual; vs. you’ve lived in the country for some time; grew up bilingual; access to courses; travel a lot).</p>
<p>A similar thing could be seen in IT. Someone who knows C++ very well, but nothing else, compared to someone who’s intermediate in most things: PHP, SQL, C, Python, Java, etc. It would depend on the company and what they do. And there’d be a lot of variance between job roles, candidate requirements, etc.</p>
<p>Basically if you find something you can do, and you try hard in it and seek out opportunities to practice and use it, you’re doing well. It depends whether people are looking for versatility or proficiency, and I’m not an admissions officer (obviously) but as long as you can show why you made these choices, I doubt any of these achievements would be seen detrimental. (Coming from a non-musical, only bilingual person, who would be impressed with any of these scenarios. xD)</p>
<p>I hope this wasn’t too long. |D</p>
<p>Can’t you have both? I mean, why are we assuming that people who are extremely talented in one area are completely at a loss to do anything else? These people are always depicted as idiot savants and I don’t think this is really the case most of the time.</p>
<p>^I don’t think the OP meant it that way…</p>
<p>^
There was still an assumption that you can only have it one way. I don’t see why you can’t be very good at one instrument and know a little about a few others, or why you can’t know two languages fluently and a couple others basically.</p>
<p>Personally I’d rather be a jack of all trades just because “oh I speak Russian, Croatian, and French proficiently, I play decent bassoon and piano, I’m a 2nd string in varsity football, basketball, and baseball, and am class secretary” seems more impressive than “I’m the number one chess player in the us.” (Not saying that any of those apply to me.) it’s just that diversity makes for a more interesting person in life.</p>
<p>^^I think the OP was being realistic. Not saying that you can only be good at a few things, but how many people do you know can play multiple instruments at a professional level? I mean, are YOU able to know multiple languages proficiently, play multiple instruments extremely well, or play several sports at a state/national level? I not many people can, even though this is CC.</p>
<p>I didn’t say multiple instruments at a professional level. I said one instrument at a high level and a couple others more basically. I know of several people who do this, probably because some instruments are somewhat similar to play (I don’t know music, but I assume).
Same with languages. The more you know of them, the more you can learn. If you know two languages fluently it’s easier to learn a third one more conversationally.
I can understand someone devoting their whole life to one thing if they were truly amazing and world-class at it, but most people never get to that level, so I think it’s probably ideal to be really good at one thing (maybe two) and have some basic skills in others.</p>
<p>It depends on the situation and your need. A person who knows many languages at a casual conversational level can travel to many countries and be able to converse with the natives and learn more. A person in the business realm will have more use of a language that they know proficiently. </p>
<p>If you are not pursuing a career in music, I think it is better to know how to play an instrument very well than how to play many instruments moderately well. If you want to be a great musician and composer, you better know how to play many instruments and at the same time be able to play them well. Many great music is not performed by only one instrument. </p>
<p>If you are a student who wants to join or run clubs for ECs, it will be better if you focus on a few clubs instead of joining many and doing nothing.</p>
<p>personally, I just think it’s a lot more fun to be really good at one or a few things. you can properly enjoy them</p>
<p>since the world is so specialized, you’ld probably be more successful being really good at a few things.</p>