<p>Student B:
- GPA: 4.0 UW
- SAT: 2340
- SAT IIs: 780, 800, 800
- Lukewarm personality/character
- Good essay/recs, but not stellar</p>
<p>Assuming that both: (a) have equally competitive extracurriculars, (b) attend the same competitive high school, (c) are not URMs, legacies, or recruited athletes, which one is more LIKELY to be accepted?</p>
<p>^ I'm starting to doubt colleges' evaluation of character. For example, a student who is widely known for cheating was accepted at Columbia ED. The student's academic record in terms of GPA/SATs is solid, however.</p>
<p>I (a female) was just wondering whether one's character and essays can make up for a non-stellar academic record. This is what I want to know. My previous statement dictates why it matters to me.</p>
<p>If you find this thread ridiculous/irrelevant, UKRUS, there is no need to post.</p>
<p>College adcoms are not in a position to know whether a student is of good character or not. This is something that teachers and GCs can comment on. If they are willing to write glowing recommendations on behalf of a known cheater, the onus is on them, not on the colleges. You must know of colleges rescinding offers of admission to students who later were found to have committed plagiarism (Blair Hornstine comes to mind). That students who are known cheaters were admitted to colleges says nothing about the value these colleges put on character but a lot about the high schools these students have been attending.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>For example, a student who is widely known for cheating was accepted at Columbia ED.<<</p>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>Known to whom? To Columbia? I'm sure that no respectable college would accept a known cheater. But I'm equally sure that no student is going to confess his cheating ways in his essays. </p>
<p>I'm sure that colleges are very interested in attracting students of good character, but the difficulty is that "good character" is entirely an abstract concept - difficult to even define much less to measure. But academic achievement is readily measured by means of grades and test scores. Judging character is much more subjective. Colleges just have to do the best they can with the tools they've got.</p>
<p>I read in an article that Byerly posted earlier that Harvard, more than the other Ivy Leagues, will accept the student who has an all-consuming passion and who pursued that passion creatively and independently throughout high school -- even at the expense of his or her grades -- rather than the student with perfect grades/SATs and a more-generic profile.</p>
<p>I honestly don't think colleges are a good judge of character. I don't blame them though, how can one judge character through a short app? There are so many fantastic students applying an applicant would need <em>both</em> a 4.0 <em>and</em> great character. He/She would also need a lot of luck.</p>
<p>Also, how about this?</p>
<p>"Admissions officers aren't interested in rewarding past performance...[They} see themselves not as MVP voters but as talent scouts whose duty is predicting what a prospect will pull off as an undergrad and beyond. Harvard places a strong emphasis on that 'futures test'".</p>
<p>Doesn't that imply that the student with character demonstrated and a rising Gpa would be better off than the 4.0 lukewarm student? Still like I said, you need both.</p>
<p>^
They take high SAT scores and GPA into account not as achievments in and of themselves, but rather as indicators of intelligence - an important prerequisite for future success.</p>
<p>at this level you have to ask yourself whether an 800 makes B that much 'better' than A. But that's a tired argument.</p>
<p>However, if one's character is 'good' enough, there's nothing subjective about it. And if one's character obviously stellar, then it may be enough to tip the admission in one's favor. If there's a doubt or debate then character shouldn't be able to have this effect.</p>
<p>An academically weaker applicant with strong EC's WILL be selected over a second applicant who's stronger academically but weaker EC-wise -- BUT only to a certain limit.</p>
<p>If you're a ~2000 applicant, chances are you won't be accepted no matter how stellar your EC's are... unless you get a rec from Steven Hopkins/YoyoMa/Tony Blaire or something. (or, if you're a URM ;) )</p>
<p>Not playing a sport does hurt to a certain extent UNLESS you have some amazing demonstrated passion in another area as displayed through awards, essays, recs, etc.</p>