<p>“residential colleges need students doing extra things to maintain the kind of community that creates a quality college experience”</p>
<p>Actually, JHS said it better than I.</p>
<p>OP, my kids know I only have a couple of expectations: “good” grades and plenty of sleep. As long as those two things are met, I let the kids decide how much they can handle. Dh and I have had to talk to ds2 a couple of times as he was juggling too much and counseled him that perhaps he needs to let something go. But mostly, they were really involved and handled it just fine.</p>
<p>I love ECs and encourage my kids to develop all parts of their being. Its easily as valuable as sitting in a classroom doing traditional mental learning!</p>
<p>But the idea of ‘holistic’ admissions was designed for, and I would contend still maintained, to let schools pick and choose whoever they want to put in their classes- regardless of whether we think this is a good idea or not. Today, some of the reasons may be noble, other reasons may be suspect. </p>
<p><a href=“http://www.gladwell.com/2005/2005_10_10_a_admissions.html[/url]”>http://www.gladwell.com/2005/2005_10_10_a_admissions.html</a></p>
<p>if the general public can not pre-determine who will get in based on test scores…it gives the university has 100% discretion (almost…see earlier reference to lawsuits). It was the reason holistic methods were introduced to begin with and why this method persists. </p>
<p>It is not because universities can not differentiate between students on test scores alone…they could more simply just use a different test. As is done in almost all other countries. </p>
<p>It is not because this way you ensure more interesting kids or a better campus community. I live and teach in a country that relies almost entirely on numbers for admissions, just like many public schools in the US. These schools are no less diverse, no less full of kids doing all kinds of very interesting things outside the classroom (both during their time in university and after they graduate).</p>
<p>I know kids are more impressed with doing tons of clubs at school than colleges are with them. It’s the mile wide inch deep vs commitment to a few particular things.</p>
<p>When I see the stats of some kids, I can tell the school had tons of clubs during the school day, so they joined all of them.</p>
<p>What is more impressive is a passion for something, makes for more interesting essays as well.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not necessarily. Many college students choose to continue their high school ECs. For example, one of my kids, who had been heavily involved in instrumental music from 4th grade on, played in a college ensemble all four years.</p>
<p>I really don’t think the colleges look at ECs so much as an extra mark of distinction or accomplishment, or that they think ECs in any way indicate who is most likely to succeed in college. (Please, people, stop being so narcissistic!) They just want to have an interesting mix of students who have real skills, talents, and interests beyond studying, playing video games, and watching television, because that makes the college a better, more interesting, livelier place for everyone. Would you rather be at a college where everyone just studied and spent all their spare time in their rooms playing video games, or at a school where some students were musicians, some dancers, some actors, some taking on leadership roles in student government or community service, and on and on? I think the latter will be the livelier, more interesting, and more fun place to spend 4 years, and also the one where the students will learn the most from each other outside the classroom. And then they’ll go on to be the “do-ers” in their chosen professions and in their communities.</p>
<p>Agentninetynine. EC’s are an American thing. My D applied to schools in Canada (McGill and UBC) and England (Kings College, UCL). She got accepted to all and they did not care about EC’s, only grades. Their schools are about getting an education. Yet, Europeans, at least those I have met, are very well rounded. Have one take you to a museum and you would be surprised how much they tell you. Those that enjoy sports really are passionate about it and they travel and know how to enjoy life. You can have a very interesting conversation with one.</p>
<p>I hate that there is so much emphasis on making kids do these things for college. There is also so much competition of what is a good EC. The quality of the EC versus the quantity. What if you have a child that enjoys trying different things vs one that is really good at one thing and so on. If they enjoy an EC, it is one thing but otherwise, it can become overwhelming and a chore. My younger D wanted to play a sport in HS but that meant she could do nothing else due to the mandatory daily practices plus the games that ran into the evening. Older D did some EC’s , had some leadership roles (another mandatory thing) and played a sport in HS. By the time she got to college, she enjoyed the free time for about a good year and half, just learning and meeting people. I am surprised that this year, she chose to volunteer at the local HS to tutor kids. However, this is a small fraction of her time but she enjoys it.</p>
<p>“I hate that there is so much emphasis on making kids do these things for college.”</p>
<p>If that’s why kids are involved in these activities, then that’s the problem.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I feel sorry for any kids choosing ECs just so they can put them on college apps. </p>
<p>Music, sports, clubs, charity work, a part time job…these should be done because the kid loves doing them, or sees a community need and wants to fill it. Or, in the last case, needs the $.</p>
<p>I don’t know any kids who spend 15-20 hours a week working on a sport or practicing an instrument or whatever who don’t love doing it. How sad if they hate it and feel they have to do it to get into college :(</p>
<p>PS: Two kids with the same grades and scores, one spends 15 hours a week playing violin, one doesn’t…it seems logical that the musician can handle his/her time better than the kid who uses all that time to study.</p>
<p>If college is unexpectedly challenging, the kid with the EC can cut back on that as needed. The kid who was studying all day doesn’t have that option.</p>
<p>Maybe, just thinking out loud.</p>
<p>Starbright, I really enjoyed reading the article in the link you posted. I’m a social scientist, and I found that history of admissions criteria very thought provoking. No doubt many schools DO use their screens and perceptions of “balance” in ways that lead to discrimination… and they should at least be aware of it. Making these implications conscious really helps to combat unintended consequences, since I really think most admissions officers are very well meaning.</p>
<p>One explanation of the desire for students to have good EC’s that I received from an admissions officer made sense to me… and it sort of goes along with the idea that it helps distinguish among those with just high grades etc.</p>
<p>The officer said it takes a higher level of energy and organizational skills to succeed academically while also carrying a heavy load of EC’s - and thus to not take that into account would mean they could not really fairly compare two students with the same grades and scores - if one had those and worked or participated 20 hours plus a week in EC in addition to schoolwork, and the other ONLY did schoolwork and studied for tests. </p>
<p>My daughter is a dancer with about 15-20 hours a week of practice since age 3-4 and also in HS was in theater doing quite a few plays that required a lot of time after school and also managed to keep her grades and scores up. She had a smattering of community service, but obviously that wasn’t her major thing and she didn’t have time to do too much of it… but others would have their own activities. My daughter was doing this without even thinking about how it would “look” to colleges at the time… it was just what she wanted to be doing and had always done, but it does reflect a bit on her energy, passion, and time management skills that she was able to juggle it.</p>
<p>So I guess I think our holistic appraisals in this society are valuable to some extent, but I wouldn’t expect them to necessarily lead to choosing better students - than a selection on pure academic would.</p>
<p>Some EC’s from high school turn into academic college majors later on. </p>
<p>My D, active as a performer and in h.s. synagogue youth groups, later chose Religion as her college major. That department provided two concentrations: the history of various religions, or the use of rituals in various religions. She chose the latter, which had everything to do with performance art. </p>
<p>S-1, who performed on stage and film during high school, later declared a double major in Theater and Music at his LAC. Both departments were small and appreciated a major.</p>
<p>It sounds so neat and smooth, writing about it years later, as if it was some kind of admissions strategy. It wasn’t. It just unfolded as their EC interests connected with academic offerings at college.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I know plenty of such kids.</p>
<p>What are they supposed to do? Should they say to themselves, “I haven’t found an EC that I truly love. Therefore, I should accept the reality that I won’t get into a highly competitive college.”</p>
<p>Or should they pursue their ECs, even though they don’t especially enjoy them, so that they will be candidates for those colleges?</p>
<p>Sometimes, people get too carried away with the concept of “passions.” This can create problems for young people who haven’t found a passion. I think society is doing these young people a disservice if we tell them that they’re doing something wrong by pursuing activities primarily to meet a requirement. After all, their only alternative is not to pursue the activity and therefore not to meet the requirement.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>kayf – I wasn’t questioning your ethnicity. I was questioning why every issue has to devolve into a discussion of discrimination against Asian-Americans. And it is extremely insulting for you to imply that you are the only person who stands against discrimination. So do I. But US colleges have been emphasizing ECs since long before they had enough Asian-American applicants even to count as a category, and as far as I can tell Asian-American students are perfectly competitive in the EC department. </p></li>
<li><p>We have run a couple of controlled studies in EC emphasis. For years, the University of Chicago paid no attention to ECs in its admissions. And, despite being extremely well-regarded worldwide as a research and intellectual hub, its undergraduate college became so unpopular that the university thought seriously about closing it down. Student life was impoverished, and graduates felt very ambivalent about their experience, despite being fiercely proud of the education they received. Applications and yield trailed its academic reputation significantly. So 15 years ago or so it started to pay attention to ECs, and guess what? Applications have soared, popularity has soared, and I think most people believe that the academic quality of the student body has improved substantially. Students don’t want to attend colleges that don’t pay attention to ECs.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>The other experiment is Caltech vs. MIT. That’s a closer call, but I don’t think there’s much question that MIT is the more popular institution with applicants, and that the richness of student culture there is a big part of the reason.</p>
<p>^^ sad, as I said, to have no interests beyond schoolwork at all. A kid playing a sport/music just to increase college chances probably doesn’t bring much joy to the team or musical group.</p>
<p>I guess if kids aren’t drawn to ANYTHING except getting into a good college, then finding a charity to support or getting a job (to help pay for the college they are doing the EC for?) are decent options. Perhaps through doing, they’d find some personal satisfaction they didn’t think they’d find.</p>
<p>Telling a child without passions that the only activities they should feel entitled to do are charity work and jobs seems unduly restrictive.</p>
<p>Why shouldn’t these kids have the same options as everyone else – including chances to excel if they happen to have a natural talent for the activity?</p>
<p>For example, it’s possible for a child who happens to be tall and well coordinated to be a good basketball player even though he doesn’t especially like basketball. Should this child be excluded from basketball teams because he doesn’t love the sport?</p>
<p>Of course not. If the child wants to play then this is not a child doing it “just to get into college”.</p>
<p>I thought we were talking about kids who haven’t found any ECs they enjoy doing.</p>
<p>I was. I was talking about a child who is good at basketball but doesn’t like it. The child also hasn’t found any other EC that he likes. Is it wrong for that child to play basketball so that he will have an EC for college admissions purposes?</p>
<p>Or consider this situation: There is a family in our neighborhood in which the parents require the children to participate in a sport and play a musical instrument. The parents feel that these activities are essential to the children’s development. The only choice the kids have are which sport and which instrument. Should these children put their sports and music activities on their college applications only if they actually enjoy them (as some of the kids in this family do)? Or are all the kids – including those who don’t like the activities – entitled to count them as ECs?</p>
<p>JHS: Thanks for that interesting tidbit regarding University of Chicago. I can see that EC’s do make a student far more well rounded and interesting thus providing a rich campus life. It just seems a bit much sometimes. Surely there has to be a healthy balance.</p>
<p>We have a kid who claims not to like doing anything. We make her do stuff. Not for college applications, but because it’s important to get off the couch and out of the house and do stuff. She’s very talented, but she wouldn’t go out to auditions if we didn’t make her. She’s usually glad we made her when the performances roll around.</p>