Please Don't Do ECs

Looking back, I'm really glad I didn't invest time in doing what's referred to as "extracurricular" activities. Extracurriculars ("ECs") are usually a major thing which you're required to do for American colleges (a few other countries do require it, but colleges in the States give, by far, the most important to them). ECs refer to the activities you do outside the classroom - clubs, instruments, sports - anything which isn't required for in the preview of your high school.

College admissions this year have been a bloodbath, I've had friends with extremely well-done profiles get rejected from schools they deserved. But it also made me feel bad for the people who spent the last four years of high school (sometimes more) doing everything with one goal in mind, college admissions.

Holistic Profiles

Universities and colleges in the US are focusing on what they call "holistic profiles". What that effectively means is that they're not looking at a single data point to determine your candidacy.

Here's an excerpt from Stanford's website -

Each piece in your application is part of an integrated and comprehensive whole.

One piece tells us about your background and life experiences, another about your school and your academic achievement. We learn from others about your character and intellectual contributions. In your essays, we learn about your ideas and interests, and what is meaningful to you.

Each year we aim to enroll a class of diverse backgrounds and experiences, talents, academic interests, and ways of viewing the world.

In a holistic review, we seek to understand how you, as a whole person, would grow, contribute and thrive at Stanford, and how Stanford would, in turn, be changed by you.

What that effectively means is that there's no formula. Through the 21 pages of your Stanford application, you need to convince two admissions officers and then a couple of committees that you are the right fit for the school.

Trying To Game The System

The problem is that in today's day and age, the acceptance rates for these colleges are low enough to the point where it's extremely difficult to differentiate yourself and so what I've noticed is that people are trying to game the system. They're following pre-set rubrics to build what they consider to be a "good" profile. According to conventional wisdom, making a "good" profile is quite similar to making slime, you mix in a tad bit of everything in these set proportions and hope to god it sticks. If you want to verify what I'm saying, ask a couple of your seniors what sort of things they did for their college applications, you'll notice a cocktail of "volunteering", some sort of "business", a math/science club.

This all sounds great and gives an impression of polished well-roundedness but it's all a façade. It's a faux finish, kind of like the cheap leather alternative which they use on knock-off designer bags, very soon, it crumbles to the touch.

I've seen this happen with a lot of my seniors and peers, their college apps are portraying them as humanity's guardian angel, creating a non-profit helping thousands, raising tens of thousands of dollars but the second the admission letter of an Ivy League University graces their eyes, it all comes down. Today, all of us are giving into the college hype and running after what sounds cool to tell colleges you're "passionate" about. Yet, how come when you remove the media mentions you've desperately begged/paid for in a national daily, and when you've written essay after essay about it in your college application, you aren't any longer interested in it? It all comes tumbling down till there's nothing left anymore.

If you don't believe me, go back to these same seniors who wrote about these dozens of clubs, volunteering work, and internships and ask them how many of those they are still pursuing. If not those specific initiatives, are they working with similar initiatives on their campus? Probably not.

One Example - Research

A similar example is that of doing research in high school. In order for an individual to get their PhD, they must publish a minimum of one research paper in a journal or present at a conference. I fail to understand how every second teenager applying to top colleges has managed to publish research (alongside their 10 other ECs) which they portray in a manner as if it's of the same quality as the research of a PhD student who's spent every breathing moment for the last 4-6 years working on solving one of the world's biggest problems?

Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying a high schooler can't do it, I'm saying that it's statistically impossible that such a large number of high schoolers have done meaningful research in what most of them pen down on their Common App as "5 hours/week for 20 weeks/year" (= 100 hours).

Again, just to make my stance crystal clear - I'm not saying you shouldn't do research or work at a lab, but what I am saying is that you shouldn't be publishing research for the sake of publishing research. Your work should be of the calibre where it can stand up to scrutiny from academics in a peer-review journal. Publishing something for the sake of college admissions is like doing the academic community dirty and something nobody respects.

The end goal of a research paper is to document and share a meaningful discovery or invention with the members of the academic community; instead, for those applying to college, its only value is to mislead colleges into thinking they have (what Stanford calls) "intellectual curiosity". It sounds cool to say sure, but is it genuine? I speculate no.

Another Example - Non-Profits

Another over-used, cliché and quite frankly, quite tiring example are non-profits. It's genuinely alarming that every teenager these days is running a non-profit of some sort.

Again, to clarify, my intention is NOT to say that doing philanthropic work is bad or that giving back isn't something you should do, in fact, I strongly encourage everyone to do their bit but it shatters my heart to witness those without genuine altruistic intentions making headlines in countless national dailies and receiving international awards for their work.

I dare anyone who's putting these activities on their college profile to go and genuinely spend time helping people - going there once and getting your photo clicked talking to some underprivileged kids doesn't count.

On the other side of the spectrum, I'd like to take an example of someone who I've known since my childhood who loved dogs (which I totally approve of, dogs >>> cats) and she would spend HOURS every week working with rescues at nearby shelters. She's been doing this for years and hasn't had any media coverage, newspaper interviews, or any international awards. But despite not having a trophy, my respect for her is thousands of times more than I'd have for those who have that glass award on their mantle certifying them being a good human.

It's a tragic irony that those who seek personal gain through running non-profits are the ones receiving recognition, while the true heroes who are motivated by compassion and empathy remain unrecognized and unheard.

The One That Irks Me The Most - Startups

But the one which perhaps irks me the most out of any of the others is the teenagers claiming to run startups, perhaps because I've gone through the struggles of genuinely doing the things these people so easily mention on their college applications. Starting and running a successful business requires a great deal of hard work, determination, and perseverance. It's not something that can be achieved overnight, let alone by a high school student with no real-world experience.

Most teenagers who claim to run startups are merely using it as a buzzword to make themselves appear more impressive. They often have little to no business plan or model, and their idea is typically nothing more than a vague concept. They lack the necessary skills and resources to turn their idea into a viable business.

Furthermore, many of these so-called startup founders are not even aware of the basic principles of entrepreneurship. They have no idea how to manage finances, marketing, sales, or operations. They simply believe that having a good idea is enough to succeed.

The truth is that entrepreneurship is a difficult and often frustrating journey. It requires countless hours of hard work, late nights, and sacrifices. It involves taking risks and making tough decisions. It's not for everyone, and certainly not for those who are just looking to pad their college application.

I believe that true entrepreneurs are those who are passionate about their idea and willing to put in the hard work to make them a reality. They have a clear vision, a solid plan, and the determination to see it through. They understand that failure is a natural part of the process, and they are not afraid to learn from their mistakes.

Making a pitch deck is not the same as founding a startup.

So, instead of focusing on the latest buzzwords or trendy activities, I urge teenagers to spend their time pursuing things that genuinely interest them. Whether it's volunteering, working on a personal project, or learning a new skill, the key is to do it for the right reasons – not just to make yourself look good on paper.

Some Nuance

Some argue that despite students only doing this for colleges, there is some good which comes out of it. Even though these individuals are working on these initiatives for college admissions, it does lead to a net positive outcome (ie. more people volunteering/ starting a non-profit for example). This can lead to others trying out the activity and maybe, someone who's truly passionate about it can use it to make a real impact.

Sometimes the outcome is worth celebrating, even when the motive behind the good deed is not pure

The logic does follow, the more people have exposed to the activity ∝ the higher chance someone genuinely gives it a try ∝ and someone creates actual change.

But my perspective on this is that these activities, clubs, and opportunities are mainstream enough that people would be exposed to them anyway. We don't need high schoolers putting up a facade as a way of attracting

In my senior year of high school, I was the Outreach & Environment Coordinator (part of the student government) and one of my responsibilities was to coordinate the 25 hours/year of mandatory community service each junior and senior had to complete. From my personal experience, I found that despite there being a requirement and people's turning up due to necessity leads to their productivity is lower. In fact, I'd probably argue that their "service" made things worse. Having them around felt artificial - all the volunteers (from other grades) knew they weren't there on their own accord and that pulled down morale exponentially.

Becoming A Skeptic

I noticed that recently, I found myself becoming progressively more sceptical of impressive teenagers.

Every time I met a teenager with a startup, non-profit, internship at big-named companies, and research papers, I'd try to get an understanding of if they were doing lip service or if they were actually worth their salt. And while I wanted to believe what they were saying at face value but deep down I'd seen some of my closest friends being consumed by this very game.

Unfortunately, it became a precondition. A requirement for a relationship. A captcha for conversation.

I felt a tingling feeling of guilt every time I prodded a teen founder about their traction, deep down hoping they didn't mention a pre-product LLP with $500 in funding but with sales, pitches lined up for what can be presumed to be their parent's company.

Being Self-Made

Over the last few years, this has been the topic of debate between me and my friends.

I grew up with parents who both are entirely self-made. All my grandparents had armed my parents with before introducing them to the world outside their cocoon was an education and a crazy tolerance for spice.

Growing up, they tried to give me a similar upbringing, I was told that I should be solely responsible for what I'm worth. I had to build my own reputation, my own network, my own financials - I'd be taught how to fish, but I had to catch the fish on my own.

However, the environment I grew up in signalled something different. The school I went to was one of the more "elite" schools in the city and people coming here usually came from privilege.

Having seen this, motivated me, even more, to be responsible for my own accomplishments. The way I was raised made me feel uncomfortable taking introductions to VC funds from my parents - I longed for the feeling when one of the dozen cold emails I'd written finally garnered a response.

But this environment made me even more sceptical about ECs because I got to see how they were coordinated. I saw seniors whose college applications mentioned raising $50k for a charity but it was common knowledge that money was gathered by one message on the family WhatsApp chat. These family-funded donation drives and fake internship certificates from mom's-bestie's-company land students into T-10 US universities. Witnessing this, I gained a newfound respect for those who fished on their own.

I understand a lot of people disagree with this but I'd like to reiterate that this is solely my point of view. I understand that you might disagree with what I'm saying and I respect that however, I hope that you can understand where I'm coming from.

An Alternative

I've got on this long rant about how ECs, but I think there's a really solid alternative to be explored here. Instead of doing all these activities for the sake of college, I'd like to propose a better end goal. Find out what you want to do in life.

Here's why I say that - most people use college as their time to experiment. They sit down and make a list of things they may be interested in and spend time trying them out and figuring out if they see themselves doing those things long-term.

Some people don't do this even in college, they go down the cliché path and only when they come to realise in their 30s that they don't want to be a consultant, investment banker, et cetera do they realise that they try to figure out what they truly want to do.

But why wait till college? Instead of putting this experimentation off till college, do it right now. Start by making a list of the things you find yourself naturally gravitating to (if I left you alone for an entire day with no obligations, what would you end up doing?) or things you're interested in exploring. Then, figure out ways to try them out as a "trial period". For example, one of the items on your list is working as a software engineer, try and find an internship or mentorship program with a company with a strong engineering division (for a guide on how to find/get those, check out this article). Look for/create opportunities to do a ride-along, internship, shadowing, volunteering, training program, et cetera which gives you an understanding of the profession/path you're trying to evaluate and then decide if it's for you.

While this process is long and may take a while, it's worth it, because when you do figure out what you're good at, you're unbeatable. Finding something you're passionate about doing means that you're going to be working on it every second you get and that means the outcomes you'll be getting with them will be exponentially better than that of the people doing the same things just for college. That's why your "hook" would probably be better than the people who were trying to game the system.

In the best case, you get into the college of your dreams. The worst case, you don't get into that college but you'd still be better off than a very large number of adults out there because a) you know what you're passionate about and so it's easier for you to navigate yourself professionally and in the future, b) you've done substantial work in the area of your passion and so there's no better possible use of your time and c) you've already got a strong resume that people will respect you anyway.

While talking with a friend about this, they pointed me to a really wonderful article called 'Applying Sideways' by Chris Peterson who works with the admissions office at MIT which talks about the exact same thing. While over a decade old, it still remains one of my favourite pieces of content made by an admission officer (though this video by Yale comes extremely close). He writes (abridged for clarity) -

Do well in school. Be nice. Pursue your passion.

If you do these three things, you will be applying sideways to MIT.

If you get into MIT, it will be because you followed these steps. If you do well in school, you will be smart and prepared for an MIT education. If you are nice, then your letters of recommendation will convince us that MIT would be a wildly better place with you on campus. And if you pursue your passion, you will have developed a love for and skill at something that helps distinguish you from other applications – something that is your “hook.”

But what if you don’t get into MIT? Well, you may be disappointed. But you learned everything you could, so now you’re smarter; you were a positive member of your community, and you made people happy; and you spent high school doing not what you thought you had to do to get into a selective college, but what you wanted to do more than anything else in the world. In other words, you didn’t waste a single solitary second of your time.

To all my juniors, you'll probably ignore me when I say there's more to life than college. But optimise for life, not colleges. Much higher ROI in the long run. Be disruptive in life.

I would like to thank Ariv Gupta, Lucas Chu, Aditya Mittal and Anya Singh for reading early versions of this.

The viewpoints expressed in this article are solely that of Jai Relan (unless explicitly mentioned otherwise) and not in any way reflective of the views of any entities Jai is associated with in any professional capacity.