Why do US universities care about extracurriculars?

[eggsbenedict23]

That's it really. Why do they care about them?

Because they want rounded individuals who will contribute to college life beyond the academic sphere as well as in it?

Ah ok. Thanks

cause study not the only thing in the world

Some US universities make a significant amount of money off their extra curricular programmes, especially sports. For example, Stanford Mens Football team effectively subsidises a lot of the smaller athletics programmes they have, as well as the sports scholarships the uni pays out to students. The Mens Football programme has reported making upwards of $40 million in some academic years. A lot of the players on the team will have had their full attendance at Stanford paid for, through that revenue.

https://stanforddaily.com/2017/09/06/stanford-athletics-and-the-profitability-of-amateurism/

So it makes sense that they will seek to recruit students who have suitable extracurricular interests.

Also your choice of extracurriculars demonstrates your values as much as your skills and interests. If a uni has values around being socially responsible and environmentally conscious, they're going to be interested in applicants who demonstrate that through their choice of extra curriculars, since it's quite hard to demonstrate that in your choice of study subjects. Berkeley for example is quite open in their admissions info that they value leadership, so they will be looking for demonstration of that in extracurricular activities.

Remember as well that in US universities they have to study a fairly wide range of non 'major' related topics as well as their key study area, especially in the first year or two, so having students with a broad range of interests helps to fill those classes. In my first year I had to take a health class, a science, and a physical exercise class, not related to my psychology degree at all. It also makes for a more intersting and vibrant campus life, if you have a number of interests and skills represented outside of the academic.

I don’t disagree with previous posters, but there is a sinister side to this. Ivy League schools introduced a “rounded” admissions policy a century ago to keep Jews out. (And uses it now to keep Asian numbers down.)

We all want exceptions to take into account special circumstances or unique talent. But whenever non-objective measures are taken into account you get a drift away from merit and towards “the right sort of people.”

Reference: https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2019/03/history-privilege-elite-college-admissions/585088/

Quotation, if you cannot get past the paywall:

But the Harvard Board of Overseers didn’t institute the quota system Lowell wanted. It instead adopted an application system that prioritized subjective qualities—birthplace, family background, athletic ability, personality—over test scores. Publicly, the board represented these changes as a boon for inclusivity. The original report proposing the new system characterized it as a “policy of equal opportunity regardless of race and religion.” But privately, Lowell’s sentiments were shared by many in the Harvard community, and the new policies allowed the administration to justify exclusion.
Administrators at Harvard, Yale, and Princeton “realized that if a definition of merit based on academic prowess was leading to the wrong kind of student, the solution was to change the definition of merit,” Malcolm Gladwell wrote in a 2005 New Yorker article. And so the modern college-admissions system was born.”

I just heard the end of File on 4 (on radio 4) just now which was a very interesting programme about US admissions and litigation to prevent people's skin colour being relevant to if they get in.

One of my nephews went to Sanford and the other Chicago - both on full scholarships. Extra curricular is a big thing when it enables you to get free/next to free top class education.,

A decade ago I went to a talk on US admissions. We were told that IVY league colleges say themselves as communities and were interested in selecting individuals who contributed to that community. So not just academic horsepower, but leadership, athletics, the arts etc. So not just what we do for you, but also what you do for us.

Sounds like a way to be exclusive rather than inclusive. To do some of these extracurriculars will take money, influence, knowing the right people, going to the right schools etc. And as PPs linked above, being from the preferred stock.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

It’s about creating wiggle room to let in “the right sort of people.”

Extracurriculars can be the way in for the poor too, though, in the US sometimes or because you were born tall (which is no more your choice than born rich) you can get balls into basket ball goals better. One of the litigation cases on the radio 4 programme is about how much harder it is for Asians compared with blacks to get in under the contextual programmes and one Asian man who did not get into loads of places where he applied who are interviewed said they were viewed as very hard working and boring with not much to add as no hobbies as they have just worked very very hard, harder than anyone, on STEM subjects and then have a lower chance of getting in even if their parents were equally as poor as the black candidates so they feel doubly penalised.

Anyway may be it is impossible to be fair to everyone and all we can do is our best.

Not all extracurriculars are in sports though, nor do they cost money. My state high school had a wide range of clubs, and being a member was the kind of thing you put on your application. So I did Spanish Society, worked on the school newspaper, and joined the volunteer program (basically helping junior school kids with reading or math). The only outside of school activity was summer courses at the local art school. That's the kind of thing most kids did.
And contrary to posts above, my Japanese friend got in to University with lower academic marks because she was Japanese as they had to take X amount of minorities.

The system is geared toward creating a better rounded more dynamic person not just an exam mill.

My DD1 got into an Ivy League from a state school in Ireland and her only extra curricular was some volunteering she had done locally and the school French debating team.
Well that and partying but I don’t think she put partying on her application.
Good results and excellent essays count too.

Most of the top schools are “needs met” for everyone who gets in. So sorry if you are one of the 5% or less who get accepted you get means tested and get whatever funding you need. It can work out less expense than studying in Ireland or the U.K.

My DD2 is also going to an elite US school but competed internationally in an academic activity and now mentors and judges at international events.