<p>Thank god for sports!</p>
<p>Now let's not get cocky.;)</p>
<p>what if you get two C's but have won one international, two national, and two state competitions all in different categories? And also you have various other Strong volunteer things - lol hypothetical but somewhat not (?) </p>
<p>**I've been SO stressed out about my grades lately ='( I've always disliked certain subjects and have recently been sacrificing my grades more and more to do things I like more and more!!</p>
<p>I say B. I think no matter what, scores and grades matter more than anything.</p>
<p>that's a terrifying train of thought..</p>
<p>Gxing,
your contention is easily disproved by admissions statistics. If you were correct, you'd be seeing all 4.0, 2400 applicants getting accepted. But this is not even close to being the case.</p>
<p>Of course not all 2400's and 4.0's are going to be accepted. Harvard takes the occasional hooked or lucky kid who has stats that are far below their medians. To use cliched logic, you're always going to hear about the anomaly. Also, there was a statistic quoted on this board that kids with perfect SAT I scores are accepted at a rate of 40% vs. the normal acceptance rate of what, 10%? That's pretty convincing evidence that stats are the tiers of the cake and the EC's and all are the frosting.</p>
<p>After reaching a certain acedemic level it's all in character... I think that if you have reached about a 700 in all parts of the SAT...and score above in at least one part... and also have a respectable GPA with mostly A's while taking a rigorous load... That is when character begins to matter. But you really need at least that acedmeic level and the character to get in.</p>
<p>Orrican, like MichWoman explained, that was clearly not what I meant. What I'm trying to say that GPA + Scores > EC's, Character, Essays. The better your scores, the worse your EC's and character, etc can be. And vice versa. However, it is much easier to achieve extraordinary scores and gpa (2300+ 4.0) than it is to have extraordinary extracurriculars (siemens, intel, usamo, national ranked athlete, etc). I think that's why the notion SAT scores and GPA are most important prevails.</p>
<p>Here's the flaw in your logic gxing and MichWoman: <em>most</em> of the students who have high grades and SAT scores have good character and probably have better EC's and essays. The fallacy in savoirfaire's(OP) premise is that she assumes that character and academics are two mutually exclusive characteristics of an applicant when they are actually largely intertwined. Getting a 4.0 and a 2400 SAT requires a lot of perseverance, hard work, and diligence-characteristics that are often good indicators of character because if you are a cheater and a liar and all your classmates/teachers hate you, it's sure as hell going to be much harder to succeed academically when it seems like the whole world disapproves of you.</p>
<p>Now the reason Applicant A would win out in this hypothetical situation is that while he/she may not possess perfect academic records, the applicant still shows intelligence and ability to do all the grunt work in high school, meeting Harvard's 50th percentile requirement for grades and scores, but IN ADDITION brings something extra to the table, in comparison to Applicant B, as shown by essays/EC's which would complete he/she's image as a suitable candidate for Harvard by showing the remaining attributes that define personal character, which can't be shown through a transcript or a Collegeboard score report, such as creativity, amiable personality, humanitarian mindset, etc.</p>
<p>P.S.: Before a grammar Naxi points it out, I do realize that the last paragraph may constitute onne of the longest run-on sentences witnessed by mankind but conformity is contrary to Harvard's unparagoned ideals so **** off to those who care.;)
Hope that helped.:)</p>
<p>Gxing,
Academics are more important in the sense that they are the first threshhold an applicant must pass in order to be accepted. That is to say, you have to be above a certain level in terms of GPA and SAT scores (URMs are a different story, though) in order to even be considered for admission.</p>
<p>Once you've passed on to the next level, though, the story changes completely. Academics are no longer more important than EC's at this point. My above argument still holds - if Academics were really more important than EC's + recs + essays, then why are only 40% of 2400 applicants accepted? did the remaining 60% really have such horrible EC's that their academics, which you maintain to be the most important factor, suddenly lose weight? No. The 40% may be 4 times the average rate, but that is not reflective of their higher scores. These kids usually have other impressive awards and intellectual activities, and that's why they get in.</p>
<p>The answer is clear. The subjective part of the application is the most important. I would agree with you, however, that 2400-type applicants may get in with slightly less impressive EC's. But not to any significant extent.</p>
<p>I disagree with evil asian dictator.
Although all the reasoning is right, the conclusion drawn is off. Harvard is not trying to determine if you are a determined non-cheating student or a undetermined cheating student, because if you are that point in the admissions process, it is to be assumed that you are determined and non-cheating. As evil dictator previously said, the typical characteristics that the admission officers might be looking for are benevolence, dedication, amiability, passion, and potential for growth. But, these characteristics don't necessarily accompany a straight A and award-winning concert pianist or anyone for that matter. Harvard is not only looking for students who are outstanding in academics and extra curriculars, but character as well (obviously). So what I'm saying is that "character and leadership" is most definitely a separate category and those who are high-achieving otherwise are not at all more likely to have those desired qualities, or a certain degree of those qualities, i.e. - (lol) How friendly you are (although it could depend on which EC's that student is stronger in).</p>
<p>Actually, evil<em>asian</em>dictator, I didn't assume that the two (academic excellence and character) are mutually exclusive. That is why both of the hypothetical applicants have impressive SAT scores and GPAs. However, I wanted to know whether or not superior character can tip the scale in a competitive admissions process.</p>
<p>Here's what my observations have helped me to believe: Bad grades will keep you out, but good grades won't get you in. Just because they reject 60% of perfect Sat's doesn't mean they accept even 10% of 2000's.</p>
<p>Also, grades matter much more than Sat's especially if you are a URM. Oh by grades I mean Rank.</p>
<p>Shark_bite,
My point exactly.</p>
<p>what if your grades are not that great but your rank is actually ok? for example, in my class there are people who have one or two C's but still in top 1 percentile.</p>
<p>In a world where a 4.0 student scores an 1800 on the SAT, grades - in the eyes of an adcom - mean nothing without rank or your school's esteem.
If your rank is high, you're good.</p>
<p>Thank god I've played hockey for baseball for 8 years, soccer for 7 and hockey for 4. The hockey might come in handy with the Harvard-Cornell competition...</p>
<p>Is it detrimental for me to have a 3.88 UW at a school that doesn't rank? Will colleges assume the worst?</p>
<p>Mindy, it honestly depends on how hard your IB courseload is because grades in and of themselves don't mean much. If your courseload is weak for Harvard's standards, then you're basically as good as screwed unless you have some major hook of some kind(like Olympic figure skater or saved 1,000 starving children in Darfur while dodging rebel grenades).;)</p>
<p>Your IB Predicted scores,AP scores, and SAT II's will prove to be vital for you to make up for your somewhat lackluster GPA. Oh yeah, do you have a political internship of any kind or play a sport by any chance???</p>