When we were going through college admissions with our daughter, she wanted to major in physics. Then she did an internship in the physics department of a university and decided physics wasn’t for her. She had a chance to explore something she thought she wanted to pursue, and finding out that she didn’t was certainly better than discovering it after committing to a degree in it. I would still call that a useful outcome.
I don’t know how much the internship helped her eventual application. But it helped her decide what to study, which mattered to us. When families ask whether a summer programme or internship will “help with college,” I think this part sometimes gets lost. We start discussing what will go on the application before considering what the student might learn about the subject, or about themselves. An experience can be useful even when it leads them away from the subject they started with.
The first two posts looked at costs and who actually runs these programmes. This time, I want to examine the admissions claim. A programme might help a student learn, and it might also give them work or an achievement to include in an application. Perhaps they earn a strong assessment or do a project that helps explain their academic interests. That gives a university something to consider, although how much it matters depends on what the university assesses and the rest of the application. It still leaves the question of whether attending improved their chance of getting in.
An increase in admissions chances is a much bigger claim. If a provider says its alumni went on to selective universities, you should ask what that tells you about the programme’s effect. Those students may already have had strong academic records and other achievements. A programme that selects strong applicants would have reason to expect some successful university applications afterwards. So when a provider uses those outcomes to sell places, ask how it knows the programme made the difference. The alumni list alone cannot tell us that.
What does the experience actually establish?
In the previous post, we distinguished registration from selection and looked at what a certificate confirms. For an application, the next question is what you can reasonably conclude from that evidence.
| Experience | What it can establish | What remains unanswered |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance at a short course | Exposure to a subject and participation | How much the student understood or could do independently |
| Qualification through a demanding assessment | Performance against the particular selection criteria | What the student did after being selected |
| A sustained project or teaching commitment | Specific work and responsibility, where these can be described and supported | The quality of the work and how the student developed |
| A research paper | A research output exists | The student’s contribution and understanding of the methods and findings |
The table does not put these activities in order of merit. A beginner may need an introductory course, while a student working independently can do demanding work without being selected for anything.
Suppose a student follows a tutor through building an app. That gives them an introduction to the tools. If they then adapt it to solve a problem they have noticed, they have to start making decisions the tutor’s instructions may not cover. Ask what they changed and where they needed help. “Built an app” could describe either experience, but the work involved is different. I would give the second more attention when discussing the student’s interest in computing, because there is more evidence of their own thinking. I would not infer it simply from the course title or finished app.
Similarly, qualifying for a later olympiad round can provide evidence of performance under particular conditions. Merely entering does not establish the same achievement. But you still need to understand the competition and the level reached before drawing conclusions.
Does it help explain the student’s academic interest?
Consider a prospective CS student whose activities include piano lessons, MUN participation, the school debate team, a basketball competition and an essay competition. That list could describe several serious interests. It could also be a collection of tickmarks assembled to look “holistic.” You need to understand the involvement before judging it. Even if the student takes these activities seriously, the list still leaves you wondering what interests them about computing. If they have barely explored that interest, adding another unrelated event will not answer the question. A project they work on seriously, or sustained preparation in a suitable maths olympiad lane, could give them much more to discuss. This is where the argument in Profile Building Is Mostly About Elimination becomes relevant: they may need time more than another commitment.
The emphasis also depends on the application. Cambridge’s personal-statement guidance prioritises academic exploration and says unrelated non-academic activities do not increase the chance of a Cambridge offer. Penn, meanwhile, explicitly rejects a predetermined list of activities for each major. It considers the depth of involvement and contributions, including responsibilities outside formal programmes. That is why I would be careful about telling a CS applicant to give up music or sport. They should have something to say about why computing interests them, but they can keep playing piano without trying to connect it to algorithms.
What was actually the student’s contribution?
Research makes this question particularly important because a publication title can sound impressive while leaving the student’s role unclear. If a professor guides a student at little cost through genuine work that contributes to a published paper, I would much rather examine that experience than recommend a package whose attraction is a promised publication or internship title. You still need to ask what the student did themselves. A low fee is no proof of quality; and a paid mentor can teach well too.
Caltech’s research supplement requirements provide a concrete example: applicants submitting a paper need a recommendation addressing their specific contributions. Caltech also recognises work that is submitted or in preparation. An unfinished paper can therefore be considered under that process; check the rules at the universities your child is applying to. We will look more closely at research mentorship and publication offers in the next post.
You can ask the same questions about work that never produces a paper or a competition result. Consider a STEM student who enjoys teaching and regularly tutors maths or physics. They might teach locally, or investigate Schoolhouse.world and its current subjects and tutor requirements. “Volunteer tutor” leaves a lot unexplained. I would want to hear about a lesson they prepared and what they did when a learner couldn’t follow the explanation.
Or take a student interested in finance who teaches basic budgeting to younger learners, including children of household staff or drivers whose families welcome the sessions. There is no need to call themselves the founder or CEO of a financial-literacy initiative. They should be able to explain what the learners needed and whether the sessions helped. A few regular learners would give them plenty to work on, provided the families want the sessions and find them useful. This can connect an interest in finance with helping someone else, without having to manufacture a large organisation around it. We will explore accessible alternatives in a later post.
And some activities need no admissions justification
It is okay to enjoy an activity without knowing how it will fit into an application. MIT advises students to choose activities for enjoyment and challenge rather than to impress an admissions reader. A teenager can play basketball because they like playing basketball, and they can choose a summer course because they want to try something unfamiliar. Particularly in Classes 9 and 10, they need room for that exploration. As we found with our daughter, discovering that a subject isn’t for you can be a good reason to have tried it.
If admissions is the main reason for doing it, though, you should be able to explain what it could add to this student’s application. Perhaps the programme gives them access to work they are ready to attempt, with feedback they cannot get elsewhere. Perhaps it lets them investigate an interest they have so far only described in general terms. Before committing, compare that opportunity with what they could do using the same time elsewhere. If the programme offers something they need, and the cost works for your family, you have a reason to consider it. If the main explanation is still “it will look good,” I would hold off.
Follow the series
Subscribe to College Admissions Field Notes for the next posts. If you would like help deciding which opportunities make sense for your child, see the AltView Deep Session.
Share with other parents
If this was useful, please forward it to your WhatsApp groups. You can copy the note below:
Sharing this for parents considering summer programmes, competitions or internships. It looks at what these experiences actually contribute to a college application, and why discovering a subject isn’t for you can still be a useful outcome. https://altviewedu.com/will-summer-programme-help-college-application/
