Image by Getty Images on Unsplash
The bell rings on a Friday at school, and you are finally free on the weekend to do whatever you please, such as hanging out with your friends. However, when you ask them, they all say, “I’m busy.” Their answers start sounding less like hobbies they enjoy, and more like resume entries: nonprofit founder, research intern, club president, team captain. Activities that still express, but only once represented curiosity, do not function as strategic steps in the college admissions process. Somewhere along the way, extracurricular activities stopped being about exploration and started becoming about competition.
High school extracurriculars have evolved into an arms race, where students feel pressure to constantly accumulate more leadership roles, initiatives, and achievements—not for passion, but to keep up the expectations of selective college admissions.
This system began when college admissions placed an increasing emphasis on holistic review, meaning activities matter alongside grades. While initially encouraging students to pursue interests outside of the classroom. However, over time, students began interpreting admissions expectations as “the more impressive activities you have, the better.
Several factors contribute to this competitive environment. For instance, increased competition for spots at highly selective universities like Harvard University and Stanford University, and online college advice forums and social media showing extreme student accomplishments, causes a perception that simply participating in activities is no longer enough—students must create, lead, or find something new. What began as encouragement for curiosity gradually became a competition to stand out.
Today, common patterns like this are all around us. While students used to create passion projects for genuine change, and some still do, students founded nonprofits primarily to demonstrate leadership. Club leadership positions are multiplying across campuses, high school students are pursuing research internships traditionally meant for college students, and applying to summer programs marketed as college admissions advantages.
Instead of asking “What do I enjoy?” they ask “What will look impressive,” and activities become strategic rather than authentic. Even meaningful passions can begin to feel performative when students constantly think about how they will appear on applications.
Extracurriculars used to fit on college applications as a way to better understand an applicant and a slight standard of measure; however, this approach neglects the first function and instead presents a person fabricated on paper.
But is this fair? While some people may go above and beyond to pack their resume, what happens to those who don’t know how to play the system this way? What happens to those who don’t have the available resources to pay for programs or flights there? What happens to the child prodigies with skyrocketing grades, but can only race with their fingers?
But then, if you don’t win the race. If your resume doesn’t demonstrate leadership, care, or excellence, how will you succeed? Students are not necessarily acting dishonestly; they are responding rationally to a system that rewards exceptional achievement. So it’s not the students’ fault, because all we want to do is secure a place at a college that will benefit us, and there is no other way to do it than this. Is there?
This system persists because of this. Students fear falling behind peers, parents encourage resume-building opportunities, and colleges struggle to distinguish applicants in an extremely competitive pool. No one wants this to escalate, but no one wants to fall behind either.
In an arms race, everyone keeps building more and more because they fear being left behind. But when the competition escalates endlessly, nobody truly benefits.
Be First to Comment