<p>First off, there are way more non-superstars than superstars, therefore you are likely to see more non-superstars in famous/successful positions since they don’t necessarily require incredible intelligence. At the same time - just focusing on purely academic accomplishments - if you look at the biographies of past Nobel prize winners, top professors, Field’s medalists, etc. you will find that nearly 100% of them were academic superstars.</p>
<p>Math/Science - International Math Olympiad, USAMO, incredible AIME/AMC scores, any of the Science Olympiad teams, Intel/Siemens finalists, significant published research, etc…</p>
<p>Humanities - Since there are less competitions, most superstars will have published significant research or novels</p>
<p>Other - Valedictorians of top prep and public schools (Exeter, Stuyvesant, etc).</p>
<p>Here are the stats of someone I know who got into HYP</p>
<p>2330 SAT I,800 x 3 SAT II, 4.0UW, 5 AP’s all 5’s (3 self-studied), two varsities, and most importantly, USAMO x 5(starting from 8th grade), AMC Perfect Score x 2, and ISEF x 2.</p>
<p>IMO something that could make you academically very strong would be experiences outside class and test scores. For instance, somebody who wants to be premed and has gained gold in the International Biology Olympiad and International Chem Olympiad along with the perfect test scores and GPA, would be academically strong.</p>
<p>A big problem with this discussion is that it is still focused on a narrow definition of excellence. </p>
<p>Take for example, the various academic Olympiads, Intel/Siemens (which seems to measure the opportunity dished up to the student as much as anything) - they don’t measure many things that really count in the long run, such as creativity and divergent thinking (the latter is death in these competitions). They may or may not select for kids that have curiosity, drive and such. And as others have said, many future stars never learn of these or just don’t apply because they’re too busy doing other things. </p>
<p>Most importantly, such a short snapshot as a competition is better at measuring narrow short term performance than performance over time. </p>
<p>So for a variety of reasons, the game changes a lot in college. Students are compared to much more talented peers than in (most/) HS settings. They are evaluated to higher standards over much longer periods of time. Their evaluation is much more multidimensional - no one teaches to the test (AP exams anyone?) in college. </p>
<p>Side not to poisonous, show me how many of the folks you mention were “stars” in HS? I’ve known quite a few who were anything but. For example the “star” of the chem department when I was in grad school had a curious background: Youth detention or the military when he was a teen. He took the military, did GED, used GI bill for college and the rest is history. Read the bio yourself: </p>
<p>Yes, it is nice to think that the selection process going into college is efficient and accurate - that the stars then will be the stars later. But it just isn’t so.</p>
<p>I am sure that strong applicants are exist.But its kind unfair to say that those applicants have their admission certain. Anyone of us is unique and he/she has the same chance to get in. This thread may stress someone and make him feel that he/she is useless.I dont doubt that those students with perfect scores and extraordinary extraccuriculars make a lot of effort to achieve.I admire them.But they are students with no perfect scores or extraordinary extracurriculars but with a lot of passion to contribute and to do great things.The time will show up though.</p>
that’s very true, physically, emotionally, and intellectually. The emotional is the most critical – drive, persistence, character, enthusiasm, playing well in the sandbox. This is why the female % of college students top 100 National Unis, including large Publics, tends to hover around 56-57%.</p>
<p>Even Intel STS finalists, Siemens Regional Finalists and folks who make it to the top levels in Olympiads (and have other interesting, substantive ECs and awards outside of math/science, plus outstanding essays) get rejected by Ivies. </p>
<p>finishing my thought from two posts above, I did a quick Google search to see if my observations about % female at Top 100 held across the board, and found this 2005 article discussing the trend and confirming what I have seen (57% across all levels of college):</p>
<p>the school where the 4.0 is achieved is important. HS sets grades usually with respect to the students taking the classes, and therefore that 4.0 is relative to that group, too. a 4.0 from X school is diff from Y school.</p>
<p>more relativism: even tho SAT is a standardized test and is supposed therefore be ‘objective’ , if a student eeks out a 2300, for example, but has to do it in a one room apt in a housing project with bullets flying around, and a single parent trying to hold things together, that person has GOT to be academically - not to say character wise , but that was not in the OP’s question - superior than a 2400 w/ the best of circumstances.</p>
<p>of course, this kind of relativism gets us further away from simple numbers, which are easier to use when designating things; easier , but not more accurate.</p>
<p>More females go to college because most high schools today have a strong bias against traditional male traits, such as competitiveness and an inability to sit quietly for extended periods of time. Increased divorce rates mean many boys have less contact with their fathers and, thus, less chance to better learn impulse control. Since there is no statistical evidence that males are dumber than females, on average, the huge college admission differential must be due to social factors, where a lot of males decide they just don’t fit well into the educational system.</p>
<p>I disagree with some of what newmassdad says.</p>
<p>The kids I know who have come in top 5 in Intel–a very small group–did so with unusually creative projects and/or startlingly good research. While I think the opportunity “dished up to you” can now and again get you to the semifinalist level, I think the top 40 in Intel and especially the top 10 really have <em>it</em> in science and less often, math. </p>
<p>One winner in the Intel (1st)–I really don’t know him, but he was from NYC and his family was friendly with families I know-- is now an associate prof at Harvard. He’s in his early 30s. He has two Ph.D.s, one from Cambridge, received as a Marshall scholar, and one from Stanford.
Here’s a link to his cv. </p>
<p>One I know who graduated from high school a few years later was elected to PBK as a junior at Harvard. </p>
<p>Now, I’m not denying that there are kids who get GEDs and then turn around and get Ph.D.s later, but I do think the top science and math contests DO ID superstars, most of whom remain superstars.</p>
<p>After all, how many HS kids have access to a scanning tunneling microscope for a HS project??? This is not to say Adam was not a smart kid. Clearly he was. After all, he got into Harvard. :)</p>
<p>In response/addition to an earlier post: Would a poor student living in a small space who scores a 2300+ on the SAT and has a 4.0 GPA yet not strong ECs be more likely to get into College X than a richer, more privileged student with the same stats and better ECs?</p>
<p>I know someone like that at my school - he’s my best friend, actually, and I’ve dated him for a year in the past. He placed top 10 in the US for one of the national academic olympiads then proceeded to score very, VERY highly at the INTERNATIONAL olympiad. He’s insane. He maintains incredible grades at a super-competitive high school, is well-liked by pretty much all his teachers, produces high-quality writing… he’s incredible. </p>
<p>To top it off, he’s also an incredibly thoughtful and caring person. He’s gone above and beyond to make me feel better when I am sad or overwhelmed. I can talk to him about anything. </p>
<p>Really, I don’t know how he does it all.</p>
<p>Hmm, now that i think about it, he (my first boyfriend) placed top 10 in the US for one of the national olympiads and my second boyfriend placed top 25 in the US for another national olympiad… jeesh. funny how it works out.</p>