Does doing orchestra through college look as good as a sport

[unsung]

In many ways it is. Especially considering that sports take up so much time and also tire out the participants both mentally and physically to a greater extent than violin does. I will admit I don't play violin and never have, but you also haven't participated in a varsity sport.

I have practice for 3 hrs a day before class and then am recommended to do at least another hour of practice a day after classes. I know many people involved in a capella (which is huge at my school) and one of them is on my team and it isn't nearly as much of a commitment as my sport is.

Are you kidding me? My piano teacher used to play 6-7 hours a day for practice. I wasn't anywhere near her level, but back when I played, I still practiced hours every day. Anyway, piano gives far more flexibility than orchestra, which you have to account for actual playing time in the orchestra, rehearsals, downtime, and that's on top of taking lessons and individual practice time.

Hours upon hours and hours, my friend. As for how draining it is, reading and playing music takes full concentration. I've been to plenty of soccer practices where I'm chatting at the same time I'm running or my mind's totally elsewhere while I'm just doing some conditioning. And that's even taking into the account of how much thinking you have to be doing. Playing music well isn't all technique, you have to spend time learning music theory and understanding what you're playing in order to play it. Sports otoh, don't necessarily require anything of this sort. Especially if it's the kind of sport that emphasizes endurance over precision of movement/artistry...

So, I don't want to get into a whole "which is tougher" debate, but my guess is you have never played an instrument, if you dismiss it out of hand like that. They're both tough, in their own ways. So give the OP some respect here.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[drcrabber]

Are you kidding me? My piano teacher used to play 6-7 hours a day for practice. I wasn't anywhere near her level, but back when I played, I still practiced hours every day. Anyway, piano gives far more flexibility than orchestra, which you have to account for actual playing time in the orchestra, rehearsals, downtime, and that's on top of taking lessons and individual practice time.

Hours upon hours and hours, my friend.

yeah, your teacher. that is her profession. of course, she dedicates that much time to it HERSELF. did YOU practice 6-7 hours a day? No.

I do know some ppl practice like 4 hours a day. my violin friend had to do that at this school in Cali...Fullerton I think? that was her MAJOR, though. she ended up transferring to Michigan and changing majors to psych haha. she was super good! my orchestra friends tell me most ppl aren't like that, though! to be REALLY, REALLY good you have to practice that much, but most ppl are in orchestra for the scholarship so don't care much about it haha.

 

[pianola]

I think the upshot of this discussion is you can do anything mindlessly (music or sports) and you can anything poorly. Or you can do either well, and to be good, you have to put in work.

 

[unsung]

yeah, your teacher. that is her profession. of course, she dedicates that much time to it HERSELF. did YOU practice 6-7 hours a day? No.

I do know some ppl practice like 4 hours a day. my violin friend had to do that at this school in Cali...Fullerton I think? that was her MAJOR, though. she ended up transferring to Michigan and changing majors to psych haha. she was super good! my orchestra friends tell me most ppl aren't like that, though! to be REALLY, REALLY good you have to practice that much, but most ppl are in orchestra for the scholarship so don't care much about it haha.

What's your point? I made it pretty clear that *I* did not practice anywhere near that much, but still spent hours each day.

I just don't get the hate here, or the automatic assumption that sport > music. I could go to the gym, put on my headphones and run for an hour mindlessly. Is that really somehow more impressive than spending an hour playing music? Also, clearly I didn't really have to spend any time learning how to run... it might've taken a while to build endurance, but anyone can do it.

 

[NeuroFP]

"I used to play hockey competitively (AAA level, continued in university at a high-level intramural league)"

that isn't collegiate athletics. intramurals? are you kidding me? at a "high-level intramural league?" as long as you play in the highest league you can say that. my school has A, B, and C intramural leagues. guess how much time that is per week for any of the leagues? 1-2 hours a week. dannng, are you serious?? that's too much!

as for "hockey AAA..," "AAA Hockey is a classification of hockey that surpasses the A level of competition found at the typical youth hockey level." dannng, i am so impressed!

sorry to mess with ya, but you don't need to gloat. we're talking collegiate D1 athletics here, not intramurals or high school hockey. nice MCAT, though!

my friend plays the viola in my school's orchestra. she practices 4-5 hours/week, attends class 3 1-hour classes/week, and has 2 hours of lessons/week. a D1 runner has at least 3 hours of STRENUOUS, physical practice/day at 5am. so that's 21 hours of PHYSICAL work for the runner versus ~10 hours of stringing an instrument for the violist. i didn't mention the violist doesn't have to go to class/practice every time. she only has 2 concerts a semester that are a 5-min drive away. the runners have an away meet every other weekend in which they travel hours to get there! the runners ALSO have to live on a super strict diet. i mean, come on, you can't compare the two.

To keep this simple, you are whole-heartedly ignorant. Unlike sports (not that I have anything against them, because I am an avid swimmer and runner myself), music activates all areas in the brain. On pertinence of medical school admissions, what do sports do other than keep your brain ramped up with dopamine and your body in shape? I suppose that it shows commitment, but music does as well. Just because a doctor is committed doesn't mean that he/she is a good doctor. To further support this, check out this site: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v434/n7031/full/434312a.html The fact that music stimulates all areas of the brain encourages the musician to think more creatively, and medical schools most definitely recognize this.

Furthermore, I'm not sure what your friend was doing practicing 3 hours a week...was he/she just a recreational musician? Even if that were the case, I know myself that 3 hours is not the average amount of practice that any committed musician puts into their craft. I'm a percussionist myself, and on the days when I can, I'll easily put in 3 hours or more of practice a day. I attend a small liberal arts school, and many of my friends are musicians and music composition majors. Most of them spend whatever time they aren't spending in class practicing their craft. These people are fully committed. And going back to your comment earlier, about your friend only putting in a few hours a week: no matter what tangent of any matter you delve into, there will be people who are committed and people who aren't. Just because the uncommitted exist definitely does not mean that the committed do not. That being said, most musicians are nothing less than committed, so don't run out swinging and kicking until you know your facts.

And think about this: in practical terms, what would be better for the doctor's patients: having a committed doctor, or having a committed doctor who has the ability to think more creatively? And that creativity in this case may in fact be diagnosing what many doctors cannot. You do the math.


So my advice to the original poster would be to definitely pursue your violin in the orchestra. Medical schools will most certainly recognize it and differentiate you from other applicants because of it, especially if the rest of your resume is stellar. Best of wishes.

 

[Vihsadas]

So a high-school/freshmen student can't commit 30 hrs a week getting up at 5am many days of the week, practicing after classes and then traveling on the weekends to be nationally competitive in a 20 and under sport? Of course they can...
How about an adult league that requires 15 hrs of practice and team training a week?
How about a music major to commit 70+ hrs a week to music school + practice?
Just because its not D1 (Although those guys I have heck of a lot of respect for) doesn't mean that it's a worthless endeavor. What about those of us that chose sports that aren't supported at the intercollegiate level? I switched to brazilian jiu-jitsu and No-Gi wrestling in 2nd year of university, and compete in that sport. Sometimes I can train 4 times a week for 3+ hours a day, + extra gym time 3-4 weeks for conditioning...

But all of that is really besides the point which was missed the first time around: It doesn't matter what endeavor you are committed to. The people that practice that activity at a high-level (regardless of age) are intensely committed to that through time and training.

And even further, that entire discourse is completely separate from whether this will make you a better doctor or not...Why can't we just agree that the music student that puts in 20+ hours a week has an equal commitment to the athlete that does the same?

 

[The Buff]

Here is a point that no one here has brought up, but believe me it is true. The number of people claiming to be very talented musicians or have played throughout college in one way or another is fairly common among medical school applicants. The number of D1 (or even D2/D3) sports participants is much lower. Simple supply and demand says the latter thus "looks better" on an application, all else being equal. It really haslittle to do with the intrinsic value of music vs. sports.

 

[Vihsadas]

Here is a point that no one here has brought up, but believe me it is true. The number of people claiming to be very talented musicians or have played throughout college in one way or another is fairly common among medical school applicants. The number of D1 (or even D2/D3) sports participants is much lower. Simple supply and demand says the latter thus "looks better" on an application, all else being equal. It really haslittle to do with the intrinsic value of music vs. sports.

That is a very good point, and from the viewpoint of an admissions committee, I can see why.

 

[gates_2]

That is a very good point, and from the viewpoint of an admissions committee, I can see why.

interesting... I was under the impression that quite a number of pre-meds grab a music minor at their respective schools, as it is easier to get, but not too many majors

In any event, I`ll let everyone know if my music helped me in this process when i`m on the other side of the fence next year!

 

[gasdf1234567]

Are people seriously comparing the typical "I am a dedicated instrument player" to someone who plays D1 athletics? First of all, adcoms realize that the person who claims to practice the piano for 30 hours per week could easily be embellishing that number. Whereas someone in D1 athletics HAS TO practice for over 30 hours per week, and during the actual season the hours are much greater. It takes over their lives. And the person who brought up numbers has a great point. I've seen many posts of people asking if they can write on their application that they practice X instrument for so many hours a week. Much fewer are applicants with significant athletic dedications in college. So go on thinking that being in orchestra is comparable to varsity athletics. It's quite frankly laughable.

 

[soparu]

orchestra and performance major are different things.