<p>Which would you consider more important in increasing your chances of getting into a (top) university and why?
This is an interesting video about the importance of hobbies/extracurricular activities:
How</a> To Really Get Into An Ivy League School - YouTube</p>
<p>You can’t do anything with one without the other. </p>
<p>But if I had to choose I would say EC because they are universal. GPA’s vary between schools, a 3.5 somewhere is harder than a 4.0 somewhere else, even both with the hardest classes. But extracurriculars are universal in difficulty and recognition.</p>
<p>While the two go hand in hand I say ECs. With an EC it’s so much more than getting into an Ivy League. it’s about impacting your community, serving others, and developing real leadership. You can’t put a GPA or score on being a better citizen and admission officers should take note of this.</p>
<p>I’d always made the assumption that ECs were the REAL DEAL. There are a lot of goal achievers who get the 2400 SAT score or the 4.0 GPA, but their ECs are what are needed to truly set them apart. And obviously a lot of people aren’t going to attain those scores since they’re so good, but it’s just part of my example.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree, but I was going through a post about this exact same thing from I believe a couple months ago, and the general consensus was that it was GRADES that matter.</p>
<p>I still think high GPAs and test scores should count for a lot for college admission</p>
<p>The top universities are going to want both. They want strong grades and scores, but once you have a level that shows you are competitive, higher grades and scores will not necessarily give you a stronger chance. All the top schools are looking for students with talents, drive and leadership and you can show that through your EC’s.</p>
<p>I think that grades (and test scores) are basically all that matters at many less selective schools and that at the more selective schools grades and test scores essentially get a foot in the door and then essays and ecs get you accepted. That being said, without the grades for a top school, you likely won’t even have a shot, barring some extreme circumstance.</p>
<p>GPA–taken in the context of class rank, course load, competitiveness of high school, etc.–is and ought to be the single most important factor in college admissions. Universities want people who will be able to succeed in their classes and that’s the bottom line. High school GPA is the best indicator of this. Clearly at top colleges there are more than enough applicants who have proved themselves academically, so colleges are free to cherry pick whichever applicants will best thrive in the campus community (hence emphasis on extracurriculars). Still, no ordinary applicant is getting in with a questionable GPA.</p>
<p>Definitely GPA. Whether you are president of 500 clubs at your school or not, if you don’t have A’s you won’t get into an ivy (or other top schools). Plain and simple. Although, having A’s without ECs won’t do you any good either. But I would say it is more possible to get into a top school with a top GPA rather than with outstanding ECs. </p>
<p>Even UPenn states on their website that GPA/course-load is the single most important factor on their admissions decision. I’ve seen a lot of those charts in which colleges state what they consider “very important” or “important” or “not considered” (i.e. religion), and almost all top schools said GPA was “very important” while ECs were just “important”. </p>
<p>You need to have both, but 1 will get you further; If you have As you know you will at least be going somewhere pretty good, but I cannot say it is true vise versa.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I just read a whole thread about this… So going to a high school that’s not as good as another really hinders your chances of getting into a college? I mean, wouldn’t the admissions committee take into account the fact that you’re taking the most rigorous schedule you possibly can at whichever high school you choose to attend?</p>
<p>Grades are more important than extracurriculars. Less selective schools tend to be focused mainly on grades and/or rank and test scores, with extracurriculars having minimal to no impact. At the most selective schools, extracurriculars become important to distinguish between large numbers of applicants who are close to the maximum in grades and test scores, but having significantly lower grades would take you out of the running (unless you have an “institutional need” like being related to a big donor or being a recruited athlete).</p>
<p>Think of it this way: who is likely to have a larger selection of colleges, a 4.0 GPA student with no extracurriculars, or a 2.1 GPA student with good extracurriculars (assuming same test scores and no “institutional need” factors)?</p>
<p>What about what POLI said?
If all a person has are the grades, how would the adcom know about their character and what they can offer to the world?</p>
<p>Do the adcoms really care about character and what they can offer the world? Or do they care about making the school look good?</p>
<p>Making the school look good involves having diverse people with different hobbies and passions. Who would want to go to a school where everyone had the same 4.0 GPA and 2400 SAT score? (Actually, that’d be pretty insane and awesome, but you catch my drift)</p>