What Not To Do
12. What Not to Do
Jordan, selective universities evaluating political science and public policy applicants tend to see large numbers of students with similar academic interests and extracurricular patterns. That means certain common application mistakes can quietly weaken an otherwise strong profile. The committee flagged several risks that could affect how your application is interpreted if they are not addressed carefully.
The guidance below focuses specifically on pitfalls to avoid as you prepare your applications for schools like Georgetown, the University of Virginia, and Howard.
1. Do Not Assume Common Political Science Activities Will Automatically Stand Out
Activities like debate, Model United Nations, student journalism, and student government are extremely common among applicants interested in politics and public policy. Admissions offices at highly selective schools see thousands of students with these exact activities each year.
The risk is not participating in these activities — they can be valuable experiences — but assuming that participation alone makes an application distinctive. If your application reads as a list of standard political science activities without deeper context or impact, it can blend into the background of the applicant pool.
Applications become weaker when they present these experiences in generic terms such as:
- “Participated in debate tournaments”
- “Member of Model UN”
- “Writes for the school newspaper”
When applications rely heavily on these kinds of descriptions without demonstrating depth, leadership impact, or tangible outcomes, admissions readers may view them as routine involvement rather than meaningful engagement.
If your activity list includes these types of organizations — and you have not yet provided your full activities list — be careful not to let them form the entire backbone of your profile.
2. Do Not Leave the Atlanta Journal‑Constitution Journalism Reference Vague
The committee specifically flagged the mention of journalism connected to the Atlanta Journal‑Constitution. If this experience appears in your application without clear explanation, it could create confusion rather than credibility.
Admissions readers will immediately ask several questions:
- Was your work actually published by the Atlanta Journal‑Constitution?
- Were you interviewed or quoted in an article?
- Did you contribute through a student journalism collaboration?
- Was it coverage of something you organized?
If the description in your activities list or essays simply states something like “featured in the Atlanta Journal‑Constitution” or “worked with AJC,” admissions readers may not know how to interpret the accomplishment. In selective admissions, ambiguity often works against the applicant.
Vague phrasing can unintentionally trigger skepticism, especially when tied to a well-known media outlet. If the nature of the involvement is unclear, the reader may assume the impact was smaller than implied.
The risk here is not the accomplishment itself, but presenting it in a way that forces the admissions officer to guess what actually happened.
3. Do Not Submit an Application That Stops at School-Level Leadership
Another concern the committee raised involves the scope of civic engagement. Political science applicants frequently present leadership roles inside their school — club officer positions, student government participation, or organizing school events.
Those experiences matter, but they are extremely common in the applicant pool for policy-oriented programs.
If an application shows leadership only within the boundaries of the school environment, admissions readers may question whether the student has engaged with real-world civic systems or policy issues beyond the classroom.
In other words, an application that stays entirely within the “school ecosystem” can appear limited in scale.
For students interested in public policy, universities often look for signs of engagement with broader civic structures, such as:
- Community-level issues
- Local policy conversations
- Public institutions
- Real-world civic outcomes
If your application lacks any evidence of measurable civic outcomes beyond your high school environment, admissions officers may interpret the profile as academically interested in politics but not actively engaged in public-facing work.
The committee specifically warned against submitting an application that never demonstrates real-world policy engagement or impact.
4. Do Not Present Your Activities as Isolated Achievements
Another common mistake is structuring an application as a series of unrelated accomplishments rather than a coherent narrative.
This happens when activities are described independently without a clear thematic connection. For example, an application might list journalism, debate, volunteering, and leadership roles separately without showing how they relate to a broader interest in civic participation or policy.
When admissions officers read dozens of files in a row, they often look for a clear through-line that explains:
- What motivates the student
- How their activities connect to one another
- Why their academic interests make sense
If the application reads like a checklist of unrelated achievements, the admissions reader has to work harder to understand the story. In many cases, they simply move on to the next application rather than reconstructing the narrative themselves.
The committee highlighted this as a structural risk for your profile. If your activities, journalism work, and civic interests are not presented as parts of a unified civic engagement narrative, the application may feel fragmented.
5. Do Not Let the Application Sound Like a Generic “Future Politician” Profile
Many political science applicants unintentionally present themselves in a very similar way: debate participant, interested in government, wants to improve society. Admissions readers see this profile constantly.
If essays, activities, and descriptions rely heavily on broad language about “wanting to change the world” or “being passionate about politics,” the application can feel interchangeable with many others.
Generic messaging becomes particularly risky when combined with common activities such as debate or Model UN. Without specificity, the application may fail to show why your perspective or experiences are distinct.
The committee flagged this pattern as something to avoid because schools like Georgetown and UVA receive large numbers of politically engaged applicants every year.
6. Do Not Assume Academic Metrics Alone Will Carry the Application
Your GPA of 3.78 and SAT score of 1440 place you in a competitive academic position, but for the universities on your list, academics alone rarely determine admission outcomes.
If the rest of the application lacks clear impact, narrative cohesion, or demonstrated civic engagement, strong academics will not compensate for those gaps.
Admissions offices evaluating public policy applicants tend to prioritize evidence that the student is already engaging with civic systems in meaningful ways. An application that relies primarily on grades and test scores while leaving extracurricular impact vague may feel incomplete.
7. Do Not Leave Key Application Details Undefined
You have not yet provided several important pieces of information that will affect how your application is interpreted, including:
- Your full extracurricular activity list
- The exact nature of your journalism work
- Any civic or policy-related initiatives outside school
If these elements remain unclear when the application is assembled, admissions officers will not have enough context to fully understand the scope of your work. Ambiguity tends to weaken otherwise promising experiences.
8. Do Not Let the Application Feel Like a Collection of Titles
Another pattern admissions readers frequently encounter is an activity list that emphasizes titles — “president,” “founder,” “editor,” “leader” — without demonstrating what actually happened as a result.
For policy-oriented applicants, titles alone are rarely persuasive. Admissions officers are usually looking for evidence of outcomes, influence, or engagement with real issues.
If leadership roles are listed without concrete context, the application can feel administrative rather than impactful.
9. Do Not Overstate or Blur the Scope of Accomplishments
Especially with the journalism reference tied to the Atlanta Journal‑Constitution, it is important not to present achievements in ways that could be interpreted as exaggeration.
Admissions officers are experienced at identifying when descriptions feel inflated or imprecise. If the scope of an accomplishment is unclear, readers may assume the claim is overstated.
This is another reason the committee emphasized clarity around the journalism experience.
10. Do Not Wait Until Senior Fall to Clarify Impact
If measurable civic outcomes or policy engagement are missing from the application narrative until the final stages of the process, there may not be enough time to demonstrate meaningful impact before applications are due.
Applications that feel rushed or incomplete in this area often reflect missed opportunities earlier in junior year and the following summer.
11. Do Not Treat Essays as Separate from Your Activities Story
One of the most common application weaknesses occurs when essays and activities tell completely different stories.
If your essays discuss civic engagement but the activity list does not demonstrate it — or vice versa — admissions readers may struggle to see a consistent intellectual direction.
The committee specifically cautioned against allowing different parts of the application to operate independently instead of reinforcing the same civic narrative.
12. Do Not Assume Admissions Officers Will “Connect the Dots” for You
Perhaps the most important mistake to avoid is expecting admissions readers to assemble the story of your interests themselves.
At highly selective universities, each file receives limited reading time. If the relationship between your journalism experience, civic interests, and political science goals is not immediately clear, the opportunity to convey that story may be lost.
An application that requires the reader to infer the narrative is almost always weaker than one that makes the connections obvious.
Avoiding the pitfalls above will ensure that the strengths of your profile — your academic performance, your interest in public policy, and your journalism involvement — are interpreted clearly rather than getting lost in ambiguity or common patterns.