@cappex : Mostly its awards or “depth” (with respect to the schools strength or current direction which is the hard part to investigate)…for example if I am applying to HYP (or any other very STEM heavy school) as a science major…for better or worse, a person who placed well at say ICO or IMO will likely be more impressive than a person who won a state science fair (same could be said for a good performance at Seimens) and may certainly be more appreciated than the pre-health with butt-loads of volunteer hours and I guess what one considers “stereotypical” leadership positions. I think the value of a resume or sheet loaded with EC’s has kind of declined especially in the “leadership” department because many schools have caught on to the fact that many students may “found” organizations so as to claim that they were a leader but in reality the org. may not have been very active or active at all (as in, to adcoms, it is beginning to look like people are inventing things just for college admissions and not for themselves or to serve others). Many schools seem to like those who were clearly passionate about a few (say 2-3) areas and pursued as much as possible or to the best of their ability…and of course rareness plays a role. Don’t ever believe that places like HYPMS just expect geniuses or special students to automatically apply with enthusiasm or at all.
They essentially find way of recruiting and then accommadating those types of students. You can tell that those level schools value the students who have pursued an ijnterest, especially an academic one, really aggressively simply by looking at the offerings many departments have for freshmen. You could, for example, take what is equivalent to a graduate level physics, math, or math course at those places and it is specifically for first years (or those entering the department with amazing backgrounds). You don’t “attract” enough people to be able to offer those courses if you don’t actually desire those types. Schools that offer that level of an honors course over many departments clearly value academically or intellectually oriented students. The idea overall is that they all don’t just want the same thing in students, high scores and lots of EC’s. The schools have very different environments due to the recruitment schemes and how the academic offerings support the students usually recruited to such schools.
To figure out what an individual school wants or tends to like (as in something that will give one an edge) beyond you being in or near the interquartile, a lot of investigation must be done to see if you’re actually a fit and it involves visiting ideally and cruising around on the school’s website (admissions or student news publications or the schools’ newsreels) to get a feel of the direction the school is going (if any-for example, if a school is still in “pump up SAT score” phase, then you may see many recent articles over the past 2-5 years that constantly tout selectivity metrics and how they are changing). You do it both for you AND for sake of strategy.
To me, at Emory, the shift toward desire for more academic (and SE) diversity, and intellectually or artistically inclined students is rather obvious. The faculty and administration wanted (I mean the new Quality Enhancement Plan is something as specific as the “Nature of Evidence” whereas most schools just choose something vague that basically requires them to do nothing more than what they have been doing to "implement) it and the adcoms are at least trying to oblige despite impediments like the schools traditional pre-professional draw. Other evidence involves things like the Voluntary Core (created by faculty members concerned about engagement with the liberal arts) curriculum, revamping of certain science curricula (namely chemistry), return or creation of certain honors courses (like a freshman only comparative politics course or an honors linear algebra sequence that gains students credit for 3 intermediate/advanced math courses), and also the willingness to give more and successfully recruit more Emory scholars.
It is also focused on lower SE folks as indicated by articles that discuss how we have a ridiculous amount of QB scholars.
You’ll also notice things like how the admissions folks (via their website for example) are attempting to sell things like the arts to students and that when you go on a tour, they try to actually take you through academic buildings (such as chemistry) to not only show off how shiny it is, but show off how something is taught differently.
The school wouldn’t sell these things so hard if it wasn’t interested in getting more students interested in them as opposed to merely getting higher scoring students with lengthy resumes of mostly non-academic passions. The creative writing and English Department was being pushed heavily (and it actually is amazing). I wouldn’t be surprised if QSS wasn’t next.
Either, you just have to gauge the school, what it seems to be pushing from its admissions office and what is currently going on at the school. And if you visit, you can maybe get an overall feel. Also, don’t get me wrong, it isn’t that these places don’t take cookie cutter type high achievers, because of course they do, but the reality is those people won’t stand out in a pile of similar applicants and someone who fits the direction of the school and its goals will probably fare better. If you are more stereotypical, a lot of luck will be involved, interquartile or not. A year or two ago me and several posters were VERY surprised at the results for Emory with high scorers who fit the standard profile EC wise(as in very solid laundry list of things) and academically (pre-bus, pre-med, pre-law and in popular majors like polisci for example) were not offered even a waitlist. It was very surprising(but unfortunately not uncommon). The people who seemed a little different, offered something less “stereotypical” seemed to get in even with lower scores (did not matter if they were URM or even Asian).