Is it better to be well-rounded or "pointy"

[scaredadvocate]

Interested in hearing opinions on two different approaches to ECs:

well-rounded: the candidate with a little bit of everything: shadowing, research, volunteering, etc but no consistent theme or purpose connecting their experiences

pointy: the candidate with a lot of experiences in their passion/niche (public health, clinical research, teaching etc.) but didn't do as much box checking

Which candidate fares better? Does it depend on the tier of the school? Why?

FWIW, I've heard from the mouths of top adcoms that they like candidates with a sense of focus. Others have said that some things are just essential regardless if you're "passionate" about it

What do you guys think?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[gyngyn]

pointy

 

[LizzyM]

Demonstrate that you meet the competencies. Anything admirable that makes you memorable is pointy and highly desirable. (there is that other kind of memorable but we're not going for that!)

https://www.aamc.org/initiatives/admissionsinitiative/competencies/

 

[Lawpy]

I'm curious as to how a "well-rounded" candidate would present themselves to be unique and memorable to adcoms.

 

[eteshoe]

Something like this tends to work best

 

[AnonPanda1]

Both. Fat and pointy like a tear drop. (Many were shed during this process.) Cover all the basics and then excel in something.

 

[Lucca]

Google Vlad the Impaler but murder ECs.

 

[desiredmembername123]

IMO, teardrop is obviously best. But, if we are to frame the question of well rounded, checks all the boxes well but nothing superb vs superb in ONE field and missing other areas, I would have to say well rounded. HOWEVER, it is easier for someone pointy to become teardrop shaped vs someone who is well rounded to become teardropped shaped.

 

[JessebenBenjamin]

Google Vlad the Impaler but murder ECs.

That made me laugh.