<p>I was wondering if having EXTRAORDINARY talent (well, to a limit) more than makes up for mediocre/only slightly above average academics/everything else and can land someone in an ivy league school. Say someone is good enough at violin to consistently win 1st place at regional competitions and attends music camps each summer. That would be considered "extraordinary talent," even though maybe they're not exactly good enough to be the Carnegie Hall type, right?</p>
<p>Would having this incredible ability alone be enough for the ivies?</p>
<p>Not talking about myself or anything. Just curious haha.</p>
<p>Though any awards are helpful, I think a musician would need international recognition to be seen as an extraordinary talent. This does not mean that musicians below that very high level don’t get in.</p>
<p>No…
From Harvard’s Common Data Set 2011-2012, % of incoming freshmen with the following GPAs:
3.75 and higher** 91.49%**
3.5 to 3.74 - 4.71%
3.25-4.49 - 3.08%
3.0-3.24 - 0.72%</p>
<p>You can bet that the bottom ~8% were all legacies, or kids of billionaires or recruited athletes.</p>
<p>Attending music camps is generally a paid experience… so don’t see how that means anything most of the time except your parents can pay for it. Also agree that regional success isn’t likely to offset poor grades. National level, maybe.</p>
<p>No, a lot of musicians at Ivies and similar schools have awards at the regional and national level, some probably at international level, while still getting a top GPA. Ivies get quite a lot of students like that, so I very much doubt they’d choose someone with awards only at regional level and mediocre grades by Ivy standards. It’s possible, but very unlikely, and for someone like that to gain acceptance there would have to be hooks or a special situation.</p>
<p>Regional awards aren’t really good enough to make up for anything, for the most part. It’d have to be National/International to even make up a little, and even then it’d just make up for having a 3.7, instead of a 3.9 or whatever.</p>
<p>I started business since I was 14 years old (though not legally). I started my first legal one this year and have already made $2m profit. By the time I enroll, I should have made around $4m total profit and have a yearly salary of about $500 000 “without actually doing any business”(with everything that I have already settuped)</p>
<p>I believe this should be a pretty strong talent. Im applying AEM Cornell btw. I have weak sats (1960) however people on CC told me that I had a good chance. I’ll confirm if I get in ED. </p>
<p>My grades are also a mediocre (I have little As). However, these scores are mostly due to the fact that business takes quite a toll on my mental state. I usually ace my finals as I make sure not to have any business around that period.</p>
<p>I don’t know for music though but I do hope it works out for you. I can’t even play an instrument. And if you have a good reason why your grades are mediocre, I think you should be okay.</p>
<p>No. No more than being a first-rate jockey should be able to secure you a spot on an NBA roster.</p>
<p>Leading colleges and universities are academic institutions. They’re in the business of academic education, and they’re looking for really good students who also play violin (or volleyball or water polo or what have you), not outstanding musicians or fencers who also study some on the side. (Obviously, at many leading universities, there are exceptions made for people who play high-profile, money-making sports. But you asked about playing the violin, not playing cornerback.)</p>
<p>Being an outstanding musician and a pretty good student may mean you’ve got a shot at a leading conservatory–because what they do is train artists–but it doesn’t mean you have a better shot at admission to an institution whose mission is entirely different. And it shouldn’t.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Dunking a basketball with two hands, and/or being a Kennedy.</p>
<p>Also a “no.” They are looking for kids who can manage the academics and opportunities at that college. The more competitive the school and your peers, the more important you can handle the challenges that school expects. Brilliance as a musician or an entrepreneur is not enough. Same for Olympic athletes and others.</p>
<p>To be perfectly candid, I think that’s sometimes *exactly *what it means.</p>
<p>For one thing, if you’re a less-than-top-notch student applying to Ivies, as the OP describes, then the chances of being admitted without being a recruited athlete, a celebrity, or the child of a major donor or celebrity are so slight as to be, for all practical purposes, zero.</p>
<p>And more than that, suppose by some fluke, you did manage to get in. Why would you want to spend four years contending for grades–and believe me, contending is the word for it–in classes where everybody else can more or less eat you for lunch? That life simply turns your dream into a nightmare.</p>
<p>If you’re going to get eaten for lunch, the whole point is maybe it’s not the environment where you can fit and thrive. Maybe you haven’t considered past the rep or appearance. That’s why the top schools have an admissions process run by savvy adcoms who know what works and what doesn’t. It’s not what “you” want. Not about how much you dream of that single digit school for years, not some random plus point.</p>
<p>Try to wrap your head around the fact of 20-35000 kids vying for 2000 seats. Many of those kids with records of achievement, entrepreneurial skills (which can take many forms,) and clear personal strengths that matter in the freshman class. Take out the dreamers and wannabes and you’re still left with 10-15000 great kids.</p>
<p>It’s not in the college’s best interest to take a chance on someone with an extraordinary talent and mediocre grades. they want students who will thrive at their school and graduate. Admitting someone who will flunk out or transfer or just not finish does not reflect well on the school.</p>
<p>Admissions is just the beginning, not the goal.</p>
A “extraordinary talent” in music is far more advantageous towards acceptance to a selective college than being first-rate jockey would be to a NBA player. It’s a completely inaccurate comparison. Harvard was mentioned as an example school several posts earlier. In the interview at [Harvard</a> Admissions Dean Fitzsimmons Interview (On Harvard Time) - YouTube](<a href=“http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSUcwGMwc2E]Harvard”>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSUcwGMwc2E) the Dean of Admissions at Harvard states that each year Harvard admits* “2 or 3 hundred people who have some sort of distinguishing excellence. It might be music…” * They separate this extraordinary excellence from the group that gets admitted due to exceptional academics and “all arounders”. However, he defines distinguishing excellence as national or international level, not regional level, like the OP. Stanford has made similar comments about favoring students who are passionate about something and achieve amazing things in that passion. I expect the idea is people who accomplish amazing things in a passion are more likely to have the motivation, drive, personality, and values that will help them accomplish amazing things in college and beyond – both in and out of the classroom. </p>
<p>I expect nearly all of this group is qualified to be successful in college, although they likely have worse stats than the overall average for the class.</p>
<p>
I was accepted to Stanford + MIT + ivies with a 3.4/3.5 HS GPA without hooks, legacies, billionaire parents, or athletics (several years ago). In the year I applied, my HS GPA was in the bottom 3% of the Stanford class. It’s not all hooks, but I’d expect it is nearly all persons who have something really impressive on their app that makes admissions willing to forgive the lower stats.</p>
<p>You’re forgetting those with extreme accomplishment are also expected to be able to succeed academically. He didn’t say those 2-300 with distinguishing excellence are allowed to have been distracted. He noted they are, in themselves, a portion of the admits, not that that’s all they offer. This is really about a matrix of factors that make one compelling. </p>
<p>“The foundation is character and personal qualities” - where have I heard that before?
And, note how he slipped in the phrase “judgment issues.”</p>
<p>“I expect nearly all of this group is qualified to be successful in college, although they likely have worse stats than the overall average for the class.”</p>
<p>It’s similar to how URMs are more likely to be on the lower side of stats, even though nearly all URMs who are admitted to highly selective colleges are qualified to be successful in college, and some have top stats.</p>
<p>I’m glad we overlap; was concerned there was an overestimation of how talent plays. When faced with that overwhelming pool of highly qualified applicants, no one trump card is key. Unilateral isn’t enough, as Sikorsky and SlackerMom point out. Having plodded through these piles of stellar kids for long enough, I believe you had something far more to offer Stanford in multiple respects. It’s rare that the sort of accomplishments that come up on CC are enough, in themselves. Someday, tell me more. Another time, another thread.</p>
<p>Reply to #10 :
I sorta agree with what you say but logically speaking, wouldn’t accepting a kid with extraordinary talent(I am not saying that violin is an extraordinary talent) be beneficial to the school ? He might not be at the top of his class but he might become famous later on. He will probably be thankful to the school for accepting him and make major donations which is how Ivy League Schools are mainly funded right ?</p>