<p>I am curious because I think I have really unique and interesting extracurriculars (national leadership + schoolwide leadership) but am afraid that my writing will be good, but not as GREAT as that of some of the other Yale SCEA people from my school. If my extracurriculars were marginally better but my essays were marginally weaker (and my grades/sat/rank marginally stronger) than say a particular candidate of the exact same race/gender/school, how would I fare admissions-wise with Yale SCEA or RD?</p>
<p>Sorry if this sounds petty, I am just worried because I go to a really competitive school in California but we only send about 1 or 2 people to an ivy every year, so it's highly unlikely they will admit 2 people who are almost demographically the same SCEA. What do you guys think?</p>
<p>First of all, “really competitive school” and “only 1 or 2 people to an Ivy every year” don’t really go together.</p>
<p>If you’re concerned that some parts of your application are going to be marginally weaker, don’t count on getting in SCEA. Yale SCEA is among the most competitive applicant pools in the nation, and they only accept the best. They defer A LOT. If you’re a more average-ish applicant like me, then you probably won’t get in. That’s not to say you don’t have a chance at RD.</p>
<p>Also, neither extracurriculars nor essays are more important. You can’t be weak in any part of the application, but if we’re talking marginally weaker then who knows what could happen?</p>
<p>I wouldn’t rely on a peer comparison to gauge your chances. I would compare yourself to others who have actually been accepted. Just because you’re the second best applicant and your school gets 2 Ivies a year doesn’t mean you’ll be accepted. On the same note, just because you’re the fifth best applicant doesn’t mean you’ll be rejected. Some high school classes are much stronger than others.</p>
<p>While I generally agree with what YeloPen said, I would have to say that I think academic achievement and achievement in ECs have to be more important than essays, in general. I don’t think a well-written essay can make up for less-than-stellar achievements, unless it reveals some relevant information about the applicant.</p>
<p>Agreed. I think an essay is only likely to overcome weak (or marginally weaker) ECs if it reveals personal qualities or interests about an applicant that weren’t otherwise revealed. But such an essay would essentially be bringing ECs into light.</p>
<p>Not being weak in any part of the app is not the same as being perfect. Just because you don’t have weak grades/scores/ECs/essays doesn’t mean that you have 2400, straight A’s, etc.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t really think they can afford to. They can <em>relatively weaker</em> in grades than in ECs or something, but they can’t be weak anywhere. I guess it all just boils down to your definition of weak.</p>