<p>“I don’t know of one Admissions Director who thinks a 780 and an 800 are not equal.”
No argument here whatsoever.</p>
<p>But you miss my point which is how do we know what the upper limit of an 800 kid really is? I know a kid who scored an 800 as a 12 year old. Does an 800 as a 17 year old really do him justice? Anyway, you are right about the importance of transcripts.</p>
<p>I think ECs such as winning Intel and Siemens competitions, world math olympiads and chess championships etc separate those who are 800s from the true top 0.1%.</p>
<p>The two aren’t mutually exclusive but I disagree with the gist of your premise. For instance, in many cases doing well or even winning Intel or Siemens is a matter of access. Not going to get into that here but just look where most of the semifinalists come from. Also, I know a kid who was on the US Math Olympiad team who has been working with a top-notch paid tutor/coach since the kid was 13 or 14. Chess also requires constant practice and study. Even Bobby Fischer put in his 10,000 hours (okay granted he was a true genius - actually prodigy is probably a better word). My point is that many if not most of the 0.04% of kids who achieve perfect scores are capable of doing what you describe given the right exposure or access. This probably applies to the “800s” as well.</p>
<p>Gibby,perazziman, I’m sorry I didn’t mean to sound argumentative. i must be having a bad day. </p>
<p>I think being on this site the past few months and seeing what kind of machinations kids have to go through these days (Intel, chess championships, Carnegie Hall, etc.) has got me all lathered up. I feel sorry for the kids who ask for chances for the top schools and you know that even though they are decent, hard-working kids with good grades, test scores and are really trying to be involved at school, they don’t have much of a shot because they don’t know how the "game’ is truly played. They are fighting last year’s war by trying to be well-rounded instead of being in tune with the “well-lopsided” current obsession. Even though many parents and other older posters on this site counsel freshman and sophomores to just relax because they have time, the reality from what I have seen, is that most of the kids who get into the top schools start their meters running from the time they hit high school (or even before if they are training for competitions). Athletes go to sports camps or if they can hire private trainers, science and math students think about competitions and/or science fairs and start scouring for research mentors or research programs and art students start building their portfolios,etc. all starting freshman year.</p>
<p>I am going to take a break from CC for now. My daughter got into her first choice school last Fall so I technically didn’t need to keep following what is going on (probably didn’t need to in the first place), but I confess that logging onto CC can be addictive. I have learned a lot, particularly from sagacious posters like Gibby, TE264, notjoe and MollyMIT and many, many others. I have also read stuff that was way off base and totally wrong advice imo. I have also seen some pretty disturbing posts from HS teenagers who I worry about since they seem so incredibly obsessive at such a young age. I feel like Harvard of all places should teach a class on the meanings of happiness and success. There is a difference. </p>
<p>Good luck to all of you! I really wish that the top colleges had more slots because honestly from what I’ve seen, the overwhelming majority of kids who post their stats here can thrive at an Ivy or equivalent school. But, as many are quick to point out, there are many other terrific colleges and state schools other than the elite 12. In any event, may your dreams come true and make sure you follow the advice of the dedicated senior posters here who are indeed very wise.</p>
<p>Falcon1: Over and out</p>
<p>“Ask the question, do you believe that no human has any intellectual limit? There is no one who couldn’t master the intricacies of quantum physics, string theory? No one incapable of writing a symphony or a great novel? If you believe that any human has an intellectual limit, then why would you think only some have limits and others don’t?”</p>
<p>notjoe, I appreciate the thoughtful responses. What you say makes a lot of sense, though I can’t say you have me convinced. I guess one reason I’ve been so stubborn about the issue is that I find a great deal of inspiration in the idea that hard work trumps genes.</p>
<p>For the record, I do believe that anyone who possessed the same unrelenting drive and put in the ridiculous hours that Andrew Wiles did would have developed the brainpower and domain-specific knowledge necessary to prove Fermat’s Last Theorem. Whether or not they would have actually come up with a proof is a different issue; there is a lot of luck involved in any great success that has nothing to do with IQ. </p>
<p>The reason an ordinary person does not become a brilliant physicist is not that he has a constrictive intellectual capacity. He fails to become a physicist because he just doesn’t happen to be interested in physics. He is not obsessed with the way the world works so he doesn’t dedicate all his free time for 20 years to studying physics. </p>
<p>I very much doubt that there exists someone who ever put in the grueling work Einstein did without making amazing contributions to science that people today would characterize offhand as works of genius. Yes, there is something extraordinary about people like Andrew Wiles and Albert Einstein–they were dedicated enough to focus on one thing for years and years without giving up. That doesn’t sound like good genes to me. It just sounds like a ridiculous amount of hard work, hard work that nobody else was willing to put in.</p>