How to improve Extracurricular Activities?!!!!!

[NewfieMike]

Just a quick question: You can do ECs before you even start university, right? 'Cause I start first year in Sept.

 

some places don't give a **** about anything you've done before undergrad

[FD33_]

I dunno; when I think of counter-strike, I think of doritoes, red bull, and a sedentary lifestyle. Certainly not things I would want associated with doctors. Now, if this person did something else that was regularly physically engaging, I might be inclined to change my mind.

 

I actually know a guy who plays CS ~20 hours a week, and gets paid to play in clan matches. He gets sponsored by different companies to bring gaming gear to lan parties too. Outside of that, he's very fit, and actually works part time as a life guard while going to school. In fact, last I heard he was a premed too! (Only in first year though).

[NewfieMike]

I agree with your first point, but not your second one.

 

I would surmise that an olympian may have significantly less time to perform a broader variety of extra-cirriculars that a med-bound undergrad. student could.

 

And the variety of extra-cirriculars which the pre-med performs and experiences would probably lead to a more eclectic development of skills (which medschools want). This would probably lead to a better interview with the pre-med having a broader arsenal of answers to answer various questions as opposed to questions related to 'dedication' or whatever olympians can stress during interviews.

 

Looking at it this way, it is possible that an olympian with the same grades and MCATs as a pre-med might actually have a disadvantage coming into the interview.

 

I'm hypothesizing. What do you think?

 

i think that is absolute nonsense.

 

The majority of "diverse" ECs that a premed takes doesn't even come close to that of an olympic athlete.

 

Sure you volunteered at a hospital gift shop, sat as an exec society member, went on a voluntourism trip to ghana, but who cares? The majority of premeds do that stuff to pad their resume.

 

No olympians commit their lives to their sport as padding. It's not that their only skill is "being good at a sport", but the amount of dedication that it takes to get there shows skills far beyond the typical premed.

 

to argue that an olympian would be at a disadvantage because of their lack of EC diversity is simply just foolish.

[AndreaM]

From what I have been told, UBC's reasoning for their 'high performance' category is that to achieve an extreme level in anything it will take away time and resources from other categories where you can get points. And yes Olympians do get more points than someone who has only competed at a city wide level, even if they both have put the same amount of time into it.

[blind_synergy]

I actually know a guy who plays CS ~20 hours a week, and gets paid to play in clan matches. He gets sponsored by different companies to bring gaming gear to lan parties too. Outside of that, he's very fit, and actually works part time as a life guard while going to school. In fact, last I heard he was a premed too! (Only in first year though).

 

I'd think he'd be the exception that proves the rule, if he actually is fit. Playing video games twenty hours a week is still unhealthy, no matter what way you slice it. Ruins eyesight and posture, not to mention that time could be better spent developing other more useful and applicable skills.

 

I mean, hey, if that's how he relaxes, that's up to him. Adding it to a med school resume would be silly, though. I'd take the guy who practices martial arts 20 hours a week and loses every tournament he enters over an undefeated CS player any day (all other things being equal).

 

P.S. Maybe I have high standards but lifeguarding != fitness. I've done it years; you usually only have one or two fit people on each staff, oddly enough. The certification standards have been basically watered down to a 650m swim (which you only have to complete once) and some fairly easy skill tests (lifting a 20lb brick from the bottom, carrying a person five metres, etc...) which only have to completed once a season.

[UTPEOPLE]

I'd think he'd be the exception that proves the rule, if he actually is fit. Playing video games twenty hours a week is still unhealthy, no matter what way you slice it. Ruins eyesight and posture, not to mention that time could be better spent developing other more useful and applicable skills.

 

I mean, hey, if that's how he relaxes, that's up to him. Adding it to a med school resume would be silly, though. I'd take the guy who practices martial arts 20 hours a week and loses every tournament he enters over an undefeated CS player any day (all other things being equal).

 

P.S. Maybe I have high standards but lifeguarding != fitness. I've done it years; you usually only have one or two fit people on each staff, oddly enough. The certification standards have been basically watered down to a 650m swim (which you only have to complete once) and some fairly easy skill tests (lifting a 20lb brick from the bottom, carrying a person five metres, etc...) which only have to completed once a season.

 

but cs is a team game. Just playing online is very questionable, but being ranked and playing in organized officially sanctioned matches? How is that different from sports? Even sports is "just" a game, and an fps requires just as much hand/eye coordination + practice. If the CS player has a few other sports, I would rank him with the martial arts guy equally. Extensive time commitment is not neccessarily a good thing. It can be used as evidence for inefficiency. If the martial artist is practicing 20 hours per week and not making improvements, then he is doing something wrong (and worst of all, not realizing it)

[blind_synergy]

but cs is a team game. Just playing online is very questionable, but being ranked and playing in organized officially sanctioned matches? How is that different from sports? Even sports is "just" a game, and an fps requires just as much hand/eye coordination + practice. If the CS player has a few other sports, I would rank him with the martial arts guy equally. Extensive time commitment is not neccessarily a good thing. It can be used as evidence for inefficiency. If the martial artist is practicing 20 hours per week and not making improvements, then he is doing something wrong (and worst of all, not realizing it)

 

Okay. All I'm saying is I wouldn't be very impressed if someone came up to me and said, "I'm the best CS player in the world. I've won every CS competetion ever held." My reaction would probably border on indifferent to somewhat hostile ("Good use of your time their, bud."). I think a lot of people in the older generations would feel exactly the same.

 

On the other hand, I would be very impressed if I met someone who was say an Olympian.

 

We can pick and choose some cases that are exceptions to the general rule, but that would be counterproductive. All we are trying to do is determine which EC would be more impressive to an ad-com.

 

Ask yourself these two questions:

 

What is the general stigma associated with people who play videogames excessively?

 

How about student-athletes?

 

Now, you can try and make the arguments you just made to the ad-com (although I'd disagree with some of them). The problem is that, just because of the general stereotypes associated with video-gaming, you'd be immediately coming off as defensive.

 

As for the martial artist example, that's not a real-world case. If anybody trains hard enough, they'd become at least proficient enough in their sport to be middle-of-the-pack at some level.

 

Some people hit a wall in their training. I knew a guy who was stuck at a certain 400m speed his entire university track career. He tried changing coaches, routines, bulking up, then slimming down, training harder, training less, etc... Nothing worked. Sometimes he got slower. He was in peak physical condition and would just top out at this particular speed for some reason. He had great people (professionals) working with him and none of them seemed to be able help. Now, his training did get him somewhere. He was pretty good, top ten in the country. However, he wasn't the best (probably worked harder the best, though). The impressive thing is he didn't give up.

 

After he graduated, he quit competetive running while he sorted some other things out in his life. He went back to racing a year later and broke his old record by a second (with minimal conditioning).

 

Anyways, I'd like to hear an inspiring story like that about a gamer. Don't get me wrong. I play a lot of video games myself. I'm not, however, trying to pass it off as character-building (really, what hardship is associated with playing videogames?).

[UTPEOPLE]

Okay. All I'm saying is I wouldn't be very impressed if someone came up to me and said, "I'm the best CS player in the world. I've won every CS competetion ever held." My reaction would probably border on indifferent to somewhat hostile ("Good use of your time their, bud."). I think a lot of people in the older generations would feel exactly the same.

 

On the other hand, I would be very impressed if I met someone who was say an Olympian.

 

We can pick and choose some cases that are exceptions to the general rule, but that would be counterproductive. All we are trying to do is determine which EC would be more impressive to an ad-com.

 

Ask yourself these two questions:

 

What is the general stigma associated with people who play videogames excessively?

 

How about student-athletes?

 

Now, you can try and make the arguments you just made to the ad-com (although I'd disagree with some of them). The problem is that, just because of the general stereotypes associated with video-gaming, you'd be immediately coming off as defensive.

 

As for the martial artist example, that's not a real-world case. If anybody trains hard enough, they'd become at least proficient enough in their sport to be middle-of-the-pack at some level.

 

Some people hit a wall in their training. I knew a guy who was stuck at a certain 400m speed his entire university track career. He tried changing coaches, routines, bulking up, then slimming down, training harder, training less, etc... Nothing worked. Sometimes he got slower. He was in peak physical condition and would just top out at this particular speed for some reason. He had great people (professionals) working with him and none of them seemed to be able help. Now, his training did get him somewhere. He was pretty good, top ten in the country. However, he wasn't the best (probably worked harder the best, though). The impressive thing is he didn't give up.

 

After he graduated, he quit competetive running while he sorted some other things out in his life. He went back to racing a year later and broke his old record by a second (with minimal conditioning).

 

Anyways, I'd like to hear an inspiring story like that about a gamer. Don't get me wrong. I play a lot of video games myself. I'm not, however, trying to pass it off as character-building (really, what hardship is associated with playing videogames?).

 

True... but the culture is changing, while for us, the transitional technology generation, video games and online stuff might seem silly, it might not be in the future. I'm just pointing out that the inherent idea of having a goal and putting in the time to work towards it is a common thread that links the gamer and the martial artist. Right now, there is a bias against computer and VR stuff, but in a few years, that sort of stuff might seem natural.

[blind_synergy]

True... but the culture is changing, while for us, the transitional technology generation, video games and online stuff might seem silly, it might not be in the future. I'm just pointing out that the inherent idea of having a goal and putting in the time to work towards it is a common thread that links the gamer and the martial artist. Right now, there is a bias against computer and VR stuff, but in a few years, that sort of stuff might seem natural.

 

I see what you're saying and I was going to bring the point up myself. I still think the main knock against videogaming is that it isn't really a healthy lifestyle (compared to other potential ECs). You of course get exceptions to the rule, but once you bring up the VGing, you're going to have to fight to prove its benefits (whereas the benefits might be inherently visible in other activities). Who knows, we might be playing some fully immersive VR stuff in a few years that does force us to exercise.

 

The current big difference between normal sports and gaming is the effect of stress. People tend to be very relaxed when they play video games, even competetively. They aren't forced to deal with that rush of hormones and emotions (well, unless your one 'em angry gamers) they might get when they're performing under physical stress (or in front of a vocal and large visible audience).