Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums General Discussion What colleges look for in extracurriculars

@ playandlearn — Even if it is true that college admissions officers have preferences concerning the nature of the activities, if one doesn't know what they are, one might as well that they have no preferences.

I should clarify that in my original post, I wasn't just reporting what they said at a literal level, I was also reporting on my subjective impressions based on the whole of my conversations with them

My interest in this subject is that a lot of students sign up for lots of extracurricular activities that they're not interested in because they think that it will look better for colleges. I think that they probably have an inaccurate model of the situation, and that they would do better from the point of view of personal satisfaction, from the point of view of building skills for using later on, and from the point of view of securing admissions if they did what they were interested in.

It's not the case that one has arbitrary freedom – getting high grades in ostensibly challenging courses and high test scores is nonnegotiable, but on the dimension of extracurriculars, it seems that one has a lot of freedom.

@ HowlerKarma — I spoke with admissions officers at the top 15 ranked schools because those are the ones that people are most interested in. I believe that the same facts are true for lower ranked schools as well. The subjective sense that I got as I went down the list is that for lower ranked ones, the preferences concerning extracurricular activities are still weaker, with indifference not only to the nature activities, but also to some extent with respect to depth of involvement / commitment, etc.

... and see, I have the distinct sense that depth and commitment very definitely matter-- even at regional public institutions-- when it comes to more elite opportunities, such as merit scholarships and admission to more prestigious programs within those campuses.
That three things are needed:

1. time of commitment (can't start in your junior year)

2. NATURE of commitment-- can't be all about "me-me-me"

3. additional bonus points for unusual array of interests that paint a coherent picture of who the individual actually is.



Also necessary-- volunteering that seems long-term and genuinely about intrinsic altruism, and leadership experience of some kind.

That seems to be what separates my DD from her peers who have not gotten the kind of merit awards that she has.

So it matters. Not just at the Ivies-- this just cut my DD's undergraduate costs by 90% at a state flagship.


With all due respect, maybe "people" isn't all of us here, because my level of interest in the Ivies is pretty low, and DD's was even LOWER, if that were possible.

I honestly believe that in her case in particular, 4-H (one of the "least favored" activities in Bostonian's quote-- which is deliberately cherry-picked data, btw, for anyone who is curious-- it's a SPECULATION that this might be so via extrapolation-- there's not data behind it) was probably distinctly helpful... and her involvement in it was sufficient to have picked up several thousand more in merit scholarships from THAT, too. But this is institution specific; land grant public institutions are going to view 4H and FFA favorably, and private schools probably less so.

If only the parents of 4th graders actually had crystal balls to know exactly what those kids are going to WANT when they are 12th graders... but nobody really does. Some very particular engineering disciplines in particular, the public land-grant schools may well BE the "best" school at any price. Personally, I would not "groom" my child for an Ivy admission by steering him or her away from otherwise positive and wholesome activities in favor of things that were less meaningful, but which might be viewed more favorably by an admissions committee in ten years.

The honest truth is that there IS no way to game the system with elite schools, because by the time someone figures it out with enough time to IMPLEMENT that "plan" the tactical advantage evaporates and the applicant looks just like everyone else that thought it was a "sure thing" five to seven years ago.

So in that sense, I agree. It doesn't matter-- because even if it did, and even if you knew... it wouldn't matter in the time-frame that you have.

What I disagree with is the idea that one shouldn't worry about anything BUT the Ivies. THAT, I think is wrong, even for PG children. I'm not alone in thinking that the system is broken here.

For highly gifted young people, consider letting them stay in the area where they are comfortable (geographic region) for a built in support system if they are undertaking years of study in a particular field.

Anything that is very traditional or is some sort of already set path might not be the best for highly gifted students.

When you study their histories, they are often the ones that reject very structured environments. They are the innovators.

They might be less likely to complete a traditional program, whereas they may have if they had the program more on their terms.

The group looking for the traditional path might be more likely to be the very smart (and maybe wealthy group) and doing what is expected group, rather than the highly gifted group.

I am remembering a friend in college who wanted desperately to be a librarian, but thought it was below her intellectual level and family expectations. She totally omitted her passion in her college applications mainly because she was afraid to speak her truth.

After college, she had to be honest with herself and go for the librarian training. I encourage students to be honsest, free to be who they want to be. Please do not do activities because it looks good to some college administrator. That is a huge time waster for gifted people.

Everyone benefits when any person follows their true passion and inside instincts - these may be less likely to be found in an after school club. Also, I have noticed that the highly gifted students can end up spending a lot of time alone developing their gifts which is another reason you might not find them in a club and it might be extremely helpful to have them stay in the geographic area where they are surrounded by people who know and love them and hopefully understand and support them.

As an aside, to the extent a percentage of this group may be more cost aware or even downright frugal, the highly gifted student might go in an entirely different direction in school-choice. When you know that schooling for your career overall will take years, the overall cost has to be considered.

Whenever I was on full scholarship, I always felt a responsibility to the school footing the bill. When you pay out of pocket, you are freer to have the experience on your own terms and not worry about your transcript.

For gifted people, they might develop their gifts better, quicker without all of the conventional trappings.

I think I'm nore of a purist then. I would encourage my kids to pursue ECs that are important to their growth, NOT because elite colleges allow it, BUT regardless of how elite colleges look at them.

For all I've read, and what I understand about top universities (never left once I entered), though, I think colleges do care about the specific types of ECs. It's not that they prefer some over others for no readon, but it's more about building their strengths as an institution and using resources in a focused way. They do look for students who are a "good fit" at the institution--it's not just that students look for a university that is a "good fit" for the students.

It could be a little dangerous to think too much about what elite colleges like or don't like. Obviously plenty of people do so, and to each his own. Even "stellar performance" in rigorous academic courses could be a dangerous idea if carried too far. Plenty of high school students choose safe courses, lenient teachers, safe projects, and become very risk-averse in their intellectual pursuit, for the sake of building a stellar record for college applications. There are plenty of undergrads and grad students alike who maintain straight As in many courses yet have no clue how to use the knowledge that they learned in a situation outside of the classroom.

But in the end, it's really to each his own.

Free education is basically my target.

Since an Ivy still drains your accumulated savings, particularly with the current financial repression model being used in the U.S. (meaning interest is 0%).

I would probably also accept Duke (or other schools) at 75% off, which is what I consider "effectively free" meaning "not taking all of my savings".

You seem to be using my business model for funding, which is "free room and board" plus "additional scholarship funds." This model works just fine.

As a parent of a kindergartener it is funny to think about how his current interests would look on college applications.

DS6 is our environmentalist / urban agriculture enthusiast. He has written our city council about allowing backyard goats, wants to create a chicken and food growers club that donates the eggs from their backyard chickens and fruits and veggies from their gardens to the local food bank.
He's talked to local police officers and judges about lowering or enforcing the speed limits in areas with lots of squirrels.
He's organized neighborhood trash clean ups among the kids playing outside.
He also enjoys drama and musical theatre. Particularly using drama to raise awareness about environmental issues.

His interests have stayed within these themes of the environment, food production and health since he was about three. When he was really into learning about the human body, he was really interested in the role of nutrition.

So when we look for extras, we are going toward what we think he'd like. Things like a science club, drama classes, camps at the zoo, and 4H. And if he changes interests, we'd look at other activities.

The idea of limiting his activities in these extras because they aren't the "right"" ones seems wrong.

KJP-- your DS sounds much like my DD at that age. She never grew "out" of her community-oriented outlook, and has chosen a lot of community service and leadership roles that make sense to her in light of those interests.

It's all very personal to her. One of the reasons that she wanted to stay local for college was that she has spent the better part of a decade getting the NPO organizers here to understand that she's AUTHENTIC, and she's not "just a little kid" but has real passion for the work-- she'd have been starting over somewhere else.

One of the things she is most pleased about after being named a Presidential Scholar is that this comes with opportunities for leadership and community service-- which to her is almost as wonderful as the $$.

The essay I cited discussed the data behind it:

The main problem with Espenshade and Radford's survey data is that it is too old at this point to be realistic as a picture of current practices at elite institutions, though:


Unfortunately, the characterization of "4H" for example, as a monolithic large market-animal production thing is extremely dated. A good many modern 4-H participants don't have that kind of profile at all, and just as many of them are likely to be involved in Model UN, debate, and robotics competitions as they are FFA.


Presumably those aren't the kids who are "disadvantaged" by participating, though.

Which of course argues that there may be something inherently flawed in the analysis of 4-H participation per se being a "negative" at elite institutions. Maybe some KINDS of kids aren't considered a good fit for those institutions-- but really, if you consider a kid that has a series of agrarian-like interests and extracurriculars, and an interest in forestry management or ROTC, then maybe Princeton isn't the right place for reasons that have little to do with how "elite" the student looks as a result of the extracurriculars, n'est pas?

Lots of BLUE STATE kids are involved in some of those activities, as well.

http://blog.speakupmovement.org/uni...efense-of-the-future-farmers-of-america/

This is (IMO, of course) a good summation of the substance of the remarks about, criticism of, and clarifications regarding the statements made by Espenshade and Radford in that study-- and where they make certain assumptions (evidently without parsing effect or causation too much):

http://facultyblog.law.ucdavis.edu/...-Office-Bias-Against-Rural-Students.aspx



I have in fact bothered to look up the original study-- and read that section of the discussion (and Espenshade/Radford's rebuttals/clarifications) with some interest, given my DD's extracurriculars.

This pretty much sums up my own conclusions:

http://legalruralism.blogspot.com/2011/04/college-admission-bias-against-rural.html


Also-- it's reported variously that this particular gem was derived from either "8" or "10" elite institutions' ad-coms, via confidential communications with those individual ad-coms, apparently, during the late 80's through mid-90's. Or is it late 90's? That's also been variously reported.

@ HowlerKarma — We haven't looked into merit scholarships and honors programs at public schools – thanks for pointing them out as things to investigate. Where do your impressions about the extracurriculars that they look for come from, aside from the anecdotal evidence that your daughter got in whereas her peers didn't?

@ Wesupportgifted — I'm sympathetic to a lot of your points, but I don't understand why they favor going to a local school? How are local schools less traditional and structured than elite schools are?

@ playandlearn — You might be interested by my article High School, Human Capital, Signaling and College Admissions, which touches on some of the same things

@ JonLaw — It's worth noting that depending on your income bracket and savings going to Harvard can be cheaper than going to Berkeley after financial aid is considered

@ KJP — That sounds great. I don't know if you were responding to me or somebody else, but I wasn't arguing that one should choose one's activities based on how they look for colleges, rather, I was reporting on finding that it doesn't seem to matter, so that doesn't seem like something that one should worry about even if one is concerned about college admissions.

@HowlerKarma — If you feel like sharing, what kind of community service is she involved in?

@Bostonian — How did authors show a causal relationship? The correlation could be spurious.