Common App: EC list review and counseling

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here's why this matters:
https://www.reddit.com/r/ApplyingToCollege/comments/1lntuj1/admitium_dont_sleep_on_your_activities_page/

I'll just offer three reasons, but there are more:

(1) In the age of ChatGPT, what you do matters more than what you say. A really impressive activity--one that is objective and verifiable--can carry more weight than the best personal essay.

(2) AOs usually read your Activities Page before they hit your essays. So, it's an opportunity to separate from most kids who don't think of this as "writing." If your writing here is killer--descriptions that are fun, interesting, show impact--your AO will like you. And if you have the goods, they're thinking you're a contender now and reading your essays carefully because they view you as a possible admit. If the activities aren't there, your reader is probably skimming.

(3) If AOs want to advocate for you, they have to convince their colleagues in committee. If you do an excellent job with your Activities Page, that's often the key doc we'll pull up in committee a few months later to remember you and rattle off why you're amazing. The other AOs will see the ratings showing your testing and rigor and grades are good enough. So, sometimes all it takes is talking about your top three activities and people are like: "OK, OK, we've heard enough. Ready to vote?" You don't even get to talk about their amazing essay or activity 4 or that killer LOR.

So, don't spend all summer on the Personal Essay. Give your Activities Page some love.
--Admitium

Really??????

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, if you really want a line by line edit of ECs, save your money and run it through AI.

This isn’t going to make or break the application. These aren’t even verified unless your kid had some huge nationally recognized published thing.

It actually can be a huge miss. Our CCO showed us 2 - one was a very tippy top student who did Student Govt, MUN, debate, Math, research, soccer, a passion project, and it was a scattered hot mess of 10 entries and 5 honors. All of the parents were confused too, bc it seemed like the kid threw everything they did in (and they were all great things) but none of them matched the major.

Then showed us one for a top 25% student who was very purposeful in only showcasing certain things which supported their story/major or whatever you want to call it. Only had 8 entries and 4 honors. The 2nd one was so much stronger.

There's a lot written online about how to do this well.

Why is it bad that a high school student -- a child -- tried a variety of activities and didn't hone in on a major at age 14? Why would not mentioning some of these great things have made a stronger application?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, if you really want a line by line edit of ECs, save your money and run it through AI.

This isn’t going to make or break the application. These aren’t even verified unless your kid had some huge nationally recognized published thing.

It actually can be a huge miss. Our CCO showed us 2 - one was a very tippy top student who did Student Govt, MUN, debate, Math, research, soccer, a passion project, and it was a scattered hot mess of 10 entries and 5 honors. All of the parents were confused too, bc it seemed like the kid threw everything they did in (and they were all great things) but none of them matched the major.

Then showed us one for a top 25% student who was very purposeful in only showcasing certain things which supported their story/major or whatever you want to call it. Only had 8 entries and 4 honors. The 2nd one was so much stronger.

There's a lot written online about how to do this well.

Why is it bad that a high school student -- a child -- tried a variety of activities and didn't hone in on a major at age 14? Why would not mentioning some of these great things have made a stronger application?

That's a great strategy for most schools OUTSIDE the most selective. The top 20 or 25 schools in the country aren't looking for well-rounded kids who try lots of things but don't go deep on anything. They are looking for probing kids brimming with intellectual curiosity who are puzzled by something and do something about it - not random unrelated activities that look like they are just gathering trophies from a lot of the top clubs.

The Yale podcast does an excellent job of explaining why it matters to them. Being well-rounded isn't a bad thing - if it's cohesive. It's a problem if it's not cohesive and scattered, and you can't explain why you do the things you do.

Most kids need to be reminded to look at all their activities and see if there's a common thread that connects them, be it a value (like community), a goal (overcoming social anxiety), or something else. then tie that back to you and your story. AOs want to know WHY you do the things you do and what motivates you, not simply that you did them.

Note, the Dartmouth podcast will tell you that they don't remember the well-rounded kids. They really like the spikes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, if you really want a line by line edit of ECs, save your money and run it through AI.

This isn’t going to make or break the application. These aren’t even verified unless your kid had some huge nationally recognized published thing.

It actually can be a huge miss. Our CCO showed us 2 - one was a very tippy top student who did Student Govt, MUN, debate, Math, research, soccer, a passion project, and it was a scattered hot mess of 10 entries and 5 honors. All of the parents were confused too, bc it seemed like the kid threw everything they did in (and they were all great things) but none of them matched the major.

Then showed us one for a top 25% student who was very purposeful in only showcasing certain things which supported their story/major or whatever you want to call it. Only had 8 entries and 4 honors. The 2nd one was so much stronger.

There's a lot written online about how to do this well.

Why is it bad that a high school student -- a child -- tried a variety of activities and didn't hone in on a major at age 14? Why would not mentioning some of these great things have made a stronger application?

Bc you end up like this kid? #2 in class and no spike or niche or match to major?
https://www.reddit.com/r/collegeresults/comments/1lmbqqb/comment/n06jbug/

[Anonymous]

What Dartmouth says they value on their podcast (tell your story! let your light shine!) and the kids they take from our HS (full pay, sporty, bullshit parent driven ECs, wanna be finance bros) is hard to reconcile.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Are there any normal people left on this forum?

My sentiment exactly. Seems like there are a lot of anxious parents on here who have fully lost the plot. I can't believe people are considering paying other people to write their list of 10 ECs.

[Anonymous]

Genuine question:

Some people say parents have lost their minds. But is it the parents or the newish requirements?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, if you really want a line by line edit of ECs, save your money and run it through AI.

This isn’t going to make or break the application. These aren’t even verified unless your kid had some huge nationally recognized published thing.

It actually can be a huge miss. Our CCO showed us 2 - one was a very tippy top student who did Student Govt, MUN, debate, Math, research, soccer, a passion project, and it was a scattered hot mess of 10 entries and 5 honors. All of the parents were confused too, bc it seemed like the kid threw everything they did in (and they were all great things) but none of them matched the major.

Then showed us one for a top 25% student who was very purposeful in only showcasing certain things which supported their story/major or whatever you want to call it. Only had 8 entries and 4 honors. The 2nd one was so much stronger.

There's a lot written online about how to do this well.

Why is it bad that a high school student -- a child -- tried a variety of activities and didn't hone in on a major at age 14? Why would not mentioning some of these great things have made a stronger application?

My ‘24 kid used all 10 slots, has top leadership on all activities. Essays were where story came together with one of their EC’s. This was less talked about then or I at least didn’t know. Worked out fine, got into a few ivies and top schools. Had they just been a participant perhaps would have left off.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Genuine question:

Some people say parents have lost their minds. But is it the parents or the newish requirements?

Things got materially harder the last two cycles with the number of students applying.

Next year should be easier.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, if you really want a line by line edit of ECs, save your money and run it through AI.

This isn’t going to make or break the application. These aren’t even verified unless your kid had some huge nationally recognized published thing.

It actually can be a huge miss. Our CCO showed us 2 - one was a very tippy top student who did Student Govt, MUN, debate, Math, research, soccer, a passion project, and it was a scattered hot mess of 10 entries and 5 honors. All of the parents were confused too, bc it seemed like the kid threw everything they did in (and they were all great things) but none of them matched the major.

Then showed us one for a top 25% student who was very purposeful in only showcasing certain things which supported their story/major or whatever you want to call it. Only had 8 entries and 4 honors. The 2nd one was so much stronger.

There's a lot written online about how to do this well.

Why is it bad that a high school student -- a child -- tried a variety of activities and didn't hone in on a major at age 14? Why would not mentioning some of these great things have made a stronger application?

My ‘24 kid used all 10 slots, has top leadership on all activities. Essays were where story came together with one of their EC’s. This was less talked about then or I at least didn’t know. Worked out fine, got into a few ivies and top schools. Had they just been a participant perhaps would have left off.

Did any ECs tie to major?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Genuine question:

Some people say parents have lost their minds. But is it the parents or the newish requirements?

Things got materially harder the last two cycles with the number of students applying.

Next year should be easier.

Well, last two cycles were generally kids born in 2005 and 2004.

2006 had more births than 2005.

CDC says birth year 2006 (rising seniors now) had 4,265,996, which was a 3% increase, or 127,647 more births than in 2005.

So, this cycle is the worst bc 2006 had the most births. It starts going down for 2007 births.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Genuine question:

Some people say parents have lost their minds. But is it the parents or the newish requirements?

Things got materially harder the last two cycles with the number of students applying.

Next year should be easier.

Well, last two cycles were generally kids born in 2005 and 2004.

2006 had more births than 2005.

CDC says birth year 2006 (rising seniors now) had 4,265,996, which was a 3% increase, or 127,647 more births than in 2005.

So, this cycle is the worst bc 2006 had the most births. It starts going down for 2007 births.

What?
2006 just finished freshmen year of college.
My summer 2007 will be an entering freshman this fall.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Genuine question:

Some people say parents have lost their minds. But is it the parents or the newish requirements?

Things got materially harder the last two cycles with the number of students applying.

Next year should be easier.

Well, last two cycles were generally kids born in 2005 and 2004.

2006 had more births than 2005.

CDC says birth year 2006 (rising seniors now) had 4,265,996, which was a 3% increase, or 127,647 more births than in 2005.

So, this cycle is the worst bc 2006 had the most births. It starts going down for 2007 births.

These kids are 2007 and 2008

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Genuine question:

Some people say parents have lost their minds. But is it the parents or the newish requirements?

Things got materially harder the last two cycles with the number of students applying.

Next year should be easier.

Well, last two cycles were generally kids born in 2005 and 2004.

2006 had more births than 2005.

CDC says birth year 2006 (rising seniors now) had 4,265,996, which was a 3% increase, or 127,647 more births than in 2005.

So, this cycle is the worst bc 2006 had the most births. It starts going down for 2007 births.

These kids are 2007 and 2008

Sorry, yes, but they will still have a huge number of competitors for very limited spots

[Anonymous]

Rising seniors now were born in 2007 or 2008. For example, my rising Senior was born in November 2007. Many of her classmates were born in 2008.