<p>justanothermom: You mean, turn the applicant into a BRWK with amazing stats? If the perfect stats put her/him into a category somewhere between BWRKids and absurdly accomplished kids, is there a term for this level of accomplishment?</p>
<p>speckeldegg: </p>
<p>I was thinking in terms of academics and how much they trump everything else. After following the A for Admission thread of a couple of weeks ago, I started to think that despite the frequent reports of perfect stats, there are few kids who are truly academic stars (AI 8 and 9s). As I understood that discussion, that type of kid would be admitted at most colleges, even the most selective. </p>
<p>So, in fact, the academic stars are between the superstar with national recognition and the BWRKids with academic indexes of 6 or 7. The superstar who has great stats and who has won an Intel or Westinghouse award would get in everywhere. The academic star would not be assured of acceptance, but would have a pretty good shot at most institutions (including HYPSM). The BWRKids would be in the bubble. Their acceptance probably dependant on the needs of the institution and how well they meet those needs. What Im suggesting is that colleges might be building the vast majority of their class from the pool of BWRKids, where the competition is most fierce and thus the chances of admission a real crapshoot. </p>
<p>I have some anecdotal information to back this up. But, since I cant vouch for the accuracy of the information, this is really, only speculation on my part.</p>
<p>Ok, let's get specific (hypothetically specific) and spell it out. And yes, speculation with a capital S.</p>
<p>Unusually strong and rare applicants:
Pursued by colleges
Perfect or near-perfect stats (lots of goose eggs)
Off the charts
Exceptional talent or giftedness possibly with national recognition such as Intel, Westinghouse, ranked athlete, musical performance (what others?)
True "passion" (inner drive that cannot be repressed or faked, usually notable from a young age)
Enhanced qualifications such as multiple languages, accomplishment across several fields (or could be just exceptional in one field)
Pointy</p>
<p>Academically strong:
Decent shot at most any school, but definitely not a sure thing anywhere
Perfect or near-perfect stats, 780+, 3.8+
Among the highest-achieving group in their high school
Maxed out their honors/AP track, possibly some college credit
Could be highly talented in whatever they do, with state or regional recognition perhaps in a sport
Maybe awards in group math/science competitions
Extra science research programs, bi- or tri-lingual</p>
<p>BWRK's:
Great kids who face fierce competition
Very solid academic record and stats, 3.6+, 1450+
School or local recognition (editors, captains, athletes, regional music)
Interest and demonstrated achievement in several activities, over time (soccer,scouts, etc.)</p>
<p>Note: Exceptional strength in one area can give student a boost, as could legacy status</p>
<p>speckledegg: Yes, the list seems reasonable. A couple of caveats, though:</p>
<p>The applicant with national recognition might not need to have such perfect stats. </p>
<p>Since there are so few superstars, the academic stars might have more than just a good shot at the very selective colleges. I do realize, though, that this assumption ignores the many reported rejections of perfect 1600 valedictorians.</p>
<p>Oh no, justanothermom, I forgot to activate my troll force field.
<em>types in code</em> Ok, fields are up, now we can proceed, but still, don't mention the names of any schools. </p>
<p>I looked over the list a couple more times. Many ED applicants I know who were somewhere in between the BRWK and the academically strong groups were deferred. The list may make sense to us but the process is far from "reasonable". I don't know how the kids stay sane.</p>
<p>"Hmmmm. I think the applicant needs to have spent one summer working to preserve the rare southeast asian super-skunk in its natural habitat, and then needs to have co-authored the definitive peer-reveiwed technical paper on the skunks for Nature."</p>
<p>This applicant will not be considered at my selective school, because he/she did not receive the Nobel Prize for their paper on the mating rituals of the tsi-tsi fly in some remote African village that was inhabited by the people of the Shelmiketmo Tribe (which, by the way, only has 3 members still in existence).</p>