What Extra Curricular Activities (ECs) Top Schools REALLY want

taxguy · May 6, 2006, 9:20am

We had a meeting with some other parents from our high school. We discussed where are kids got into schools and what their stats and ECs were. There were some interesting observations that I wanted to share with parents of future college applicants.

Yes, the HYPS and top LACS usually wanted great GPAs and Stats. No one that I met got into a top ivy or top lac with under a 3.85 unweighted GPA and around 2100+ SATs. However, there were a number of kids with higher SATs and even GPAs that weren’t admitted to top schools yet some with slightly lower SATs and GPAs go into those same schools. Why? Here are my observations.

There seems to be some myth that if your kids have large number of ECs such as band, student newspaper, orchestra, school ambassador etc, you will have a better chance of admission. This doesn’t seem correct.

What schools seems to want are the right type of ECs. They want to see PASSION for the student’s major. Let me illustrate with some examples:

<li>For kids interested in art: they should take pre-college art courses, take tutoring, if possible, work at art related jobs, enter competitions,etc.</li>
<li>Music kids should strive not only to be in their school’s band but make statewide honors orchestra and enter competitions.</li>
<li>Science oriented kids should take summer jobs with firms doing research, entering science competitions such as intel competition, </li>
<li>Humanities or English oriented kids should submit opinion editorials for local newspapers,write short stories for publication, enter writing contests etc.</li>
<li>Leadership ECs: starting up a company, starting up a fund raising drive for an orphanage, Cheerleader captain, and other major types of leadership oriented ECs.</li>
</ol>

The bottom line is that top schools seem to want ECs related to the field of interest of the student. They seem to want passionate students.

I should note that there were one other major ECs that top schools seem to like. To me, it doesn’t make sense, but it was a persistant thread that seemed to permeate accepted students’ ECs: varsity sports and/or cheerleading and pom squad. Colleges seem to really like this. I don’t know why, but there is no question in my mind that varsity sports gives these kids an edge even if they are not specifically recruited students for that sport.

I should note one other observation: schools like to push kids into taking honors and AP courses. This is certainly essential for admission to Ivy schools and top lacs. Thus, if you are applying to one of the top 30-50 most selective schools, you should take top courses. However, for the VAST number of other schools, admission officers seem to use unweighted GPAs for admission. Thus, if your kids are capable of getting A’s in top honors and AP courses, they should take them. HOWEVER, if they are getting B’s or less in these top courses, they should focus on take regular courses. Thus a 3.7 GPA with regular courses will have a stronger chance of admission for most schools ( other than the top 30 schools or so) than a 3.4 student with all honors and AP courses. This may seem strange and not even make sense, but I have found this to be true.

I have asked some admission officers why they don’t give greater weight to top courses. They usually answer the question with “We can’t evaluate how different the top courses are from that of other courses from school to school. Likewise many schools, especially in poorer areas, don’t have access to as many top courses. Thus, using unweighted GPA levels the field.”

Obviously, my meetings are not based on statistical samplings. I am sure that you will find admitted kids to top schools without these ECs,but, from what I have seen, these will give your kids a clear edge!

Northstarmom · May 6, 2006, 11:17am

Basically, what the top schools want is students who are very talented and passionate about some area and who pursued that passion with creativity, independence and leadership in some kind of activity that demonstrates leadership (whether or not the activity led to the student’s having an office), creativity, ethics and independence.

Varsity sports is not an automatic door opener. If one is, however, excellent as in state-ranked or nationally ranked in a sport and has the stats to get into a top college, one will likely be ahead of most other applicants. Why? The top colleges with sports teams need students who can fill those teams – and who have the academic skills and intellectual interests to also want to attend a highly competitive college and to be able to graduate from one. The top schools have graduation rates ranging from 88%-96%, so they don’t have room for dumb, but highly skilled athletes.

If, however, one is not an exceptional athlete or particularly interested in sports, don’t get on a sports team only to try to get into a top college. Pursue sports only if you genuinely love sports. If not, use your energy doing what you love. If there are no clubs in one’s school that address your interests, create those clubs or get involved in community or professional groups/organizations that do.

Panhandlegal · May 6, 2006, 11:42am

Taxguy, you mention that you aren’t sure why varsity sports may offer a particular student a nod for admissions. I am also familiar with employers who prefer to hire athletes and seek them out through college career centers. Athletes often have the ability to work with others toward a common goal and have learned how to relate to other people in a sincere fashion. They know the value of hard work and are often intrinsically motivated to get a job completed. In the real world these are essential skills that aren’t really taught in other settings. I suspect that some admissions people consider this set of skills to be an asset as well. In any community–whether a college campus or a workplace–communication skills, leadership and teamwork are essential. My experience has been that academic over-achievers very often do not have these people skills. I know this sounds like an over-generalization (and perhaps it is only that) and I don’t mean to offend anyone, but I do believe athletes bring unique skills to the table.

Motherdear · May 6, 2006, 1:27pm

"I should note one other observation: schools like to push kids into taking honors and AP courses. This is certainly essential for admission to Ivy schools and top lacs. Thus, if you are applying to one of the top 30-50 most selective schools, you should take top courses. However, for the VAST number of other schools, admission officers seem to use unweighted GPAs for admission. Thus, if your kids are capable of getting A’s in top honors and AP courses, they should take them. HOWEVER, if they are getting B’s or less in these top courses, they should focus on take regular courses. Thus a 3.7 GPA with regular courses will have a stronger chance of admission for most schools ( other than the top 30 schools or so) than a 3.4 student with all honors and AP courses. This may seem strange and not even make sense, but I have found this to be true. "

Our family visited many, many colleges over the last 2 years. Every college information session that we attended said just the opposite. The admissions representatives said they wanted to see the applicants taking the most challenging courses offered at their schools AND that they would rather see a B/B+ in an Honors/AP/IB class than an A in the regular track.

chocolate · May 6, 2006, 1:39pm

Not about ec’s, but…
Taxguy,
Your point about getting A’s in regular classes and getting B’s in honors and AP classes is something I have observed as well. My son was pushed into some AP classes (Physics) that he struggled in. The teacher assured me that a C+ would not hurt him in college admissions, so he stuck in out. Some friends of his who applied to many of the same schools he did had all A’s in regular classes (with even lower Sat’s) and made out better with merit money. I have a friend with a son going throught the process now. He has an average in the high 90’s with NO ap’s or honors classes. He has gotten a number of merit scholarships. Granted, these are not the schools spoken of often on these boards, but they are in the top tier of regional rankings in us news.

xiggi · May 6, 2006, 1:41pm

Pinpointing the EC activities a school prefers to see is very hard. What is even harder is to predict what every school wants to see. I think that everyone will agree that Williams may not have the same “wishlist” than Smith and the UC-Davis is different from Reed.

However, my personal take -obviously not scientific one- one is that the keys words have become displays of leadership and teamwork by the most talented members. Gone are the days where solitary accomplishments were sufficient to drop the jaws of admission officers, and so are the days that being a member of a team counted for a whole lot.

Lastly, I also believe that the schools are getting a LOT smarter and will be more pressured to smell out the abusers in the growing trend of fake and embellished EC. There are sufficient stories of Siemens and Intel winners who at an entire laboratory of willing “mentors” at their disposal to ring the alarm bell. The prowess of young Chemistry or Biology prodigy who happened to make akk his discoveries at his mom’s or dad’s lab is bound to be scrutinized. Louis Bornstine got caught and got the publicity; hundreds of similar stories fall through the crack.

xiggi · May 6, 2006, 1:45pm

“Our family visited many, many colleges over the last 2 years. Every college information session that we attended said just the opposite. The admissions representatives said they wanted to see the applicants taking the most challenging courses offered at their schools AND that they would rather see a B/B+ in an Honors/AP/IB class than an A in the regular track.”

The obvious problem with that is that:

<ol>
<li>The information shared in “information” sessions is NOT necessarily the truth and traveling officers have been known to contradict their written policies over and over. Their word is not gospel.</li>
<li>The sole purpose of those meetings is to induce as many candidates to apply. </li>
</ol>

When it comes to GPA, there is one motto: MAXIMIZE the GPA at all costs.

Alumother · May 6, 2006, 1:45pm

I think taxguy has reported dispassionately and accurately on a dataset. It may not be the biggest dataset in the world, but since it corroborates the results from my dataset I would agree with him.

citygirlsmom · May 6, 2006, 2:02pm

It irks me that varisty sports is so weighted…what if you have a short kid who tries so hard, but was not genetically gifted in the physical field, so she dances or does horseback riding…and sometimes no matter how hard a kid tries, it won’t be enough to make a highschool team

And many kids are organized, have leadership skills, don’t need the “formatted” and “regimanted” group of a team in order to display those skills, and are diligent, hardworking and capable,

And some kids in varisty sports can show up, will do what it takes because they are told to, need the structure to succeed, need someone telling them where to go and when, while others can do that without a coach saying here at this time, be there…some kids have that internally

I think to generalize that most varisty sports kids are gifted leaders, team players, etc is a quick way to make a decisioon, not a real indication of capapbilites besides physical attributes

And it saddens me that is still the case

My D didn’t do V Soccer becasue the girls were shallow, cliques, snooty and did nothing at all but sports, sports, sports

Sure, they put down, this club and that, but it was all fluff

So colleges need to open their eyes a see that many wonderful capable kids do not do varsity sports, cause they have other passions, are not chosen even thought they tried, may have shin splints, may be short or too small to play in the big leagues, or don’t have a kid who is friends with the coach, so got cut

Seeing the awful behavior of many kids, many of which do varisty sports, the attitude by colleges that, wow they played varsity sports, they must be “all that” is too easy a way to decide, and really good kids may get missed cause they didn’t do the sport track

I am not knocking varisty sports, but knocking a system that thinks those skills can only be gained or are best gained only through sports…the team work, the discipline, the commitment can be gained with all kinds of different ecs, and many kids learn nothing through sports, but its assumed because they play well, and have a natural gift, they have the other attributes thrust upon them

Motherdear · May 6, 2006, 2:03pm

Just a general question, don’t you think that the hs gcs and the acs at the colleges should say what they “really” want? If they really want As in regular classes, then they should say that.

The colleges shouldn’t be deliberately giving out misinformation and the gcs (who hopefully have no interest in one college or another since they are working for the high school not a university) should know better and advise accordingly.

soozievt · May 6, 2006, 2:10pm

Taxguy…it is not that there are certain EC activities that top colleges want. What they want are students who are engaged outside the classroom in ANY activity that involves a long term commitment, dedication, leadership or signficant contribution, drive, initiative, significant achievement, and reveals passion…and ideally an area that the student might continue to participate in once in college and contribute to the campus community. There are no certain good ECs and bad ECs…though ones that are an hour a week for one year without significant contribution or achievement become inconsequential ones. But the area of the EC is not the big thing, but what I wrote about IS.

You wrote: “The bottom line is that top schools seem to want ECs related to the field of interest of the student.” I disagree. They don’t care if your ECs are related to your eventual field of study. Hey, I have a musician and athlete and she is not studying either of these areas in college but is participating in them as ECs. One can be a figure skater, newspaper editor, community service leader, bike mechanic, violinist, cheerleader, debator, and not plan to go into any college major related to those endeavors. Colleges want students who go beyond their academic interests and pursue areas of passion and who will contribute to the campus life and organizations once enrolled. They want students who excel both in the classroom and out of the classroom.

IF a student has an intended field of interest for a potential college major (and colleges are happy and willing to take "Undecided Major"s which is the most popular incoming major, btw, at many schools…they do like to see if the student has done things to explore that area of interest. I’m talking liberal arts degrees, not specialized degrees in art, performing arts, etc. So, if a student declares an intended major in the sciences or engineering, sure…it looks good to show how that interest developed and what one did to explore that area before college…IF the student does have an intended area of stufy. For instance, I have a kid who was thinking but not sure of, an intended major in architectural studies…had no obligation to declare that on the application but did have an intent/interest and said so and then how it developed. She had done things to explore further because she WANTED to see what the field was about…so she did intern with an architect one summer, did a year long supervised indep. study at her HS in architectural drawing, mechanical drawing, and AutoCad, and wrote several papers for other courses on architectural topics, and also took several art courses. But these were not really her ECs which were substantial ones that she had done her entire life, many of which were in athletics and the performing arts. So, it is good to explore and do things in an intended field of interest if you even have one, but that is not necessarily the same as engaging in significant EC endeavors. Sometimes, these are one and the same but do not HAVE to be. A kid can be interested in science and do research in HS, an internship, a summer program, tutor others…but still have totally unrelated EC passions…tennis, instrumental music, debate, etc. I’m talking of liberal arts applicants. It is a different story for a kid like yours who was applying to art schools/programs/degrees or my other kid who was applying/auditioning to BFA programs in Musical Theater…THEY had to have ECs related to those areas to stand a chance.

You wrote:
“for the VAST number of other schools, admission officers seem to use unweighted GPAs for admission. Thus, if your kids are capable of getting A’s in top honors and AP courses, they should take them. HOWEVER, if they are getting B’s or less in these top courses, they should focus on take regular courses.”

I disagree. Colleges do indeed use UNWEIGHTED GPA for admissions, as they should because EVERY student has an unweighted GPA but not every student has a weighted one because not all schools use weighted grades. For that matter, not all schools even offer AP or Honors level courses. So, unweighted GPA is used for GPA purposes. HOWEVER, schools look at the TRANSCRIPT and evaluate the strength of the course load that was taken in relation to what that particular school offered. The most selective colleges prefer to see students who took the most demanding or nearly most demanding coursework available at their high school. A student’s grades are evaluated in CONTEXT to what they chose to take. I’m evaluating a student today who I am working with and I am not just looking at her grades but at WHAT she took. The GPA is not looked at in a vacuum. Most selective schools prefer to see a B+ in the hardest track class than a A+ in the easier course. Of course, ideally an A+ in the hardest class is even better :). They want to see students who have challenged themselves. Of course, a lot of C’s will not look good even if the student took many of the hardest courses. But clearly a B in an AP level course is often seen as better than an A in the easiest courses, by many elite colleges. The only scenario where better grades in easier courses may be beneficial are with some scholarships that JUST look at the GPA alone and not in context as to what was taken. Also, for schools that rank using only unweighted GPA, a student in easier tracked classes has better odds of a higher ranking (was the case at our HS…a student with no Honors or AP could be val at our HS…though my own kid was val and took the most difficult courseload available and then some). Even so, selective colleges very much care about the rigor of the courses and in fact, ask guidance counselors to fill out the level of how rigorous the curriculum is that the student chose. If they did not care, they would not ask.

anxiousmom · May 6, 2006, 2:13pm

The top schools want the top grades in the top classes. The next rung down want top grades in any classes. I may be wrong - but I think it has to do with the gpa reporting in USNWR rankings, and on the college websites. The colleges list the percentage of students who graduated in top ten percent of their class. (I don’t know if they list this unweighted or weighted - it could make a difference.)

soozievt · May 6, 2006, 2:23pm

Citygirlsmom, I don’t quite agree with what you wrote in post #9 with regard to athletic ECs. I don’t think anyone is saying that athletic ECs are BETTER to have. I surely DO NOT think that at all. I also do not think you can just achieve those skills of collaboation, work ethic, determination, organization, self discipline, etc. ONLY through athletics. I think what Panhandlegal was discussing, and with which I agree, is that athletes have some attractive attributes that a college or employer might desire BEYOND athletic skill itself. Certain other skills and attributes are acquired when participating in varsity sports. HOWEVER, this doesn’t then follow that athletics are the only avenue to attain such characteristics that are appealing to adcoms or employers. MANY other ECs also involve utilizing such skills that can be applied in other setttings. I think he was saying that even if an athlete is not gonna do the sport or is not recruited at a college, an adcom might view the EC in a positive light due to all that the EC involved and the skills the person might have acquired through that EC. But that SAME thing can be applied to many EC pursuits. I have a great article that lists all the skills that a theater person acquires that make them appealing to employers. I think the same would be said for adcoms. Even if the student never does theater at college, someone who was heavily engaged in theater production work would bring a set of skills that are considered attractive attributes that could be applied to other situations.

So, athletic ECs are not seen as “better” ECs than other ones. But they are seen as a good EC that nurtures a set of skills and attributes that may be attractive. But this same thing can be said for a myraid of signficant EC endeavors.

xiggi · May 6, 2006, 2:36pm

CGMom, I am afraid that you see only one side of the coin. Students who emerge from the rank of high school sports to go on and play in college are not so common, and students who do it without the recognition from outside the school are even rarer.

What you may not seen are millions of kids who participated in varsity athletics, gave it their best, and did not have anything to show for, expect their love to participate and some souvenirs of friendship.

The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence!

Dostojevski · May 6, 2006, 2:43pm

Quote:
“To me, it doesn’t make sense, but it was a persistant thread that seemed to permeate accepted students’ ECs: varsity sports and/or cheerleading and pom squad. Colleges seem to really like this. I don’t know why, but there is no question in my mind that varsity sports gives these kids an edge even if they are not specifically recruited students for that sport.”

I would wager a guess that, for the most part, a Varsity Sport (or its athletic equivalent) is not the only EC listed on the application of these top students. In my opinion, these particular ECs have an incredible draw on admission committees because they show that all of these very academically talented students are able to manage their time and achieve highly not only in the classroom or on the editorial board of a school publication, but also on the playing field (or track, or pool or… etc.). Thereby, these student-athletes imply that they are self-disciplined, dedicated and well-prepared to aptly juxtapose their studies and extracurriculars in college.

Now, certainly, that is not to say that there exists no other way to portray these same qualities to the admission committees through different activities. The Common Application, for example, has a section following the EC listing where applicants are asked to describe their most meaningful activity and how/why it has impacted them. In addition, almost all applications have an end section labeled “Additional Information” where students are free to detail any experiences they believe have contributed to their development or to just further explicate their passions.

polo1A · May 6, 2006, 2:48pm

As a Varsity athlete, I would just like to show you how big a part of my life water polo and swimming are.

In the fall (water polo season), I will wake up at 5:30 to make morning practice and do swim work and conditioning until 7. After this I go to school and in the afternoon I will have another 2-2 and a half hour practice from 3 to about 5:30. I’ll get home, eat dinner, do my homework, and go to bed at about 10-11 so I can get enough sleep to wake up the next morning and still function at school. Saturdays aren’t free days either, as we’ll usually have all-day tournaments where we play anywhere from 3 to 5 games. This basically means that in the fall, I don’t have much of an opportunity to do any EC’s that aren’t related to my sports.

The winter is my “off-season”, where I volunteer at an animal shelter. We’ll still have a couple of practices, but nowhere near as intense as the practices we do during the season.

In the spring, I’ll do swimming, which consists of 2 and a half hour practices each day, and sometimes we’ll also have tournaments on Saturdays. Swimming isn’t as big a time commitment as water polo, so I still do a bit of volunteering.

In the summer, we have practices for water polo every morning as well as tournaments or the weekends. This basically means that I can’t attend any college summer programs or do any othe TASP, RSI, or other such programs.

Basically, what I’m trying to say is, Varsity athletics ARE a big deal and they’re a HUGE facet of the athletes’ life. I don’t think a person who has never played a sport in his life can have the same competitive nature, teamwork, leadership abilities, and dedication to a task than a true athlete can. I think the colleges DO recognize this, as even though I didn’t have many EC’s, I showed TREMENDOUS passion in the ones that I did pursue and was thus rewarded with a favorable outcome when I did my college apps.

surfette · May 6, 2006, 3:40pm

I agree with polo.

I am in a communiy tennis club as well as being on my school’s varsity team, and once tennis season started, I had to quit my part time job and my volunteering. I practice from 2-6 5 days a week, and play tournaments almost every weekend. When it isnt tennis season, I still play for the club, which keeps me busy for 2 hours, 3 days a week. This also puts lots of time constraints on things like a job and volunteering, because it all happens right after school.

Drwbrs · May 6, 2006, 4:01pm

While it makes sense they would want students who pursue their major interests as ECs, not everyone does that. What about students who pursue art or music as a passion for years, become very gifted in those areas, but don’t want to study them in college? I thought college was the time to branch out into new areas. If they are already prepared for a career, then theoretically, they wouldn’t need college. I see a different type of EC as a plus, not a negative. A friend’s daughter has cut several CDs, and is now in a major university (top tier) studying English and writing. She’s already done the music thing, very well, and wanted to try something more academic.

mini · May 6, 2006, 4:04pm

One that brings in enough money to pay for four years of school (roughly $190k). (Drug dealing won’t cut it, although “packaged well”…;))

soozievt · May 6, 2006, 5:20pm

Mini…frankly, if the EC brings in money, it is doubly as good! There is the Harvard girl who raked in a 500K book deal (OK, not the norm) but there are skating champions and all sorts of ECs where kids earn money that could go toward college (not counting regular jobs which my older D did but saved every cent to have spending money for four years of college). My younger one did some professional jobs in her field (her main EC passion and eventual college major) when younger and saved up all that she made and is now set for four years of college spending money. I realize that is not the 200K that her school costs, but is an example of how an EC can ALSO earn money toward college. Sometimes an EC passion, if one achieves highly in it, can qualify one for specialized private scholarships…one of my kids got a couple of those. That’s another way that an EC dovetailed into money though was NEVER the reason she did the EC…it is simply her passion and she’d do it even if no money was ever involved.

What Extra Curricular Activities (ECs) Top Schools REALLY want

CONNECT WITH US