<p>"Nicely said. And I always thought that academics isn't everything. There are many ways to be successful in life besides academics like sports (which is something OP seems to be highly oriented with), comedy, art, acting, etc."</p>
<p>Agreed, though one thing I wish would be that it'd be at least a little clear what admissions officers are looking for. This is the only sense in which I agree that the questions stonegill raises are legitimate...i.e., I do believe in spirit that all shows of amazing talent have their places.</p>
<p>whoever wrote about slacking during HS and writing a great essay - that does work for some people who know that STANFORD doesnt give a flying f how hard you have worked. They only pretend to. They only care about what they can PROJECT or EXTRAPOLATE that you will do in college and beyond from what you have done in HS. OP obviously projected herself as someone very likely to be a top athlete as well as having a personality that will help Stanford's community - the hard work isn't even relevant. The passionate commitment is what is extrapolated to hint at success in the future, not the hard work. it's not fair, but if you thought that you could woo Stanford with your accomplishments and credentials the same way a rich guy shows off his wealth to try to pick up an attractive woman, then chances are Stanford won't be impressed. </p>
<p>So yes, slacking off and learning how to do one thing well and learning how to write is better than doing 432 useless little ECs. Because Stanford doesnt care how hard you have worked, they care about the factors that determine whether or not your hard work is MORE than work.</p>
<p>Contrary to what many people say, I admire people like you. People would think that you have no chance at the top schools because of your GPA. Yet, you managed to get in. While it is true that the admissions process is a mystery, you clearly had something to offer them, so they took you. There are far too many students out there of the same mold (high SAT, high GPA, EC's galore with leadership). But you must have been different in your display of passion. I congratulate you again, and thanks for serving as such a great example to everyone here on CC that there are many more ways to get admitted than one would think.</p>
<p>Stanford is building a community. Like a city, it has all types of diverse people. A community needs some happy but not so bright people who can run fast and make coffee. And a few smart people.</p>
<p>Not really lol. The SATs aren't everything....
Also, as future pointed out, in another thread I've mentioned that I got 2300. I didn't post that. My friend used my computer to post that for a project of his.</p>
<p>i have a question.
My school doesn't exactly do GPAs. I've tried looking up conversions online, but it seems like every single one is different. So, for those of you who know the 4.0 GPA thing, what would a 94 average be? And by the way it's not weighted.</p>
<p>yeah but magicmissile I saw you said in another post that you had a 450 math and 510 reading, so that 800 writing would probably not have been enough to get you in.</p>
<p>Jenny, thanks for the post. After googling for some information about colleges and winding up here, I saw all these people with ridiculous achievements. My high school experience seems extremely similar to yours in terms of grades, sports (football for me), and overall experience I suppose. I hope this shows people that they don't have to be perfect academically to go where they want to go.</p>
<p>stonegill - I agree with you 1000000000000000000000000000%. I applied to three schoo, wich were "out of my range" and it completely angers me that I spend long hours on school work and alot of time and energy on extra curriculars, yet I am not accepted to the college I want to go to. What is that? It does not make sense to me at all. I'm glad someone is feeling the same!</p>
<p>I don't see why we should put down people who are overachieving, and stereotype them. I am not attacking the OP, or anyone else, but pointing out that there is a tendency to brand high-achieving students as simple-minded "high SAT, high GPA, EC's galore with leadership" students.</p>
<p>In fact, most overachieving students tend to me just as interesting, if not more, than other underachieving students. We shouldn't bash people for being smart.</p>
<p>Congratulations on your acceptance. I hope you do well at Stanford. I have a similar problem to yours. I had a 4.0 unweighted gpa in my freshman year. From this time, I wanted to get into MIT because I love science and technology. When sophomore year came, I lost motivation and became depressed, which caused my gpa to decline greatly. I went from a 4.0 unweighted gpa to a 3.71, then to a 3.57 for both semester gpa's. Now the first semester of my junior year has just passed, and I did worse than last year. This time I have under a 3.0 unweighted gpa with honors and ap classes. This is caused by the same reason as last year's, lack of motivation and depression. Into my last chance now, I'll be trying harder. My own hands shattered my dreams; my life will never be the same because of the lack of motivation and depression that came into my life at the wrong time; the time that mattered most in my life.</p>
<p>"there is a tendency to brand high-achieving students as simple-minded "high SAT, high GPA, EC's galore with leadership" students."</p>
<p>Very important point pointed out in another thread as well. It is very possible to give students who are happy with their acceptances a pat on the back while acknowledging that it's <em>REALLY RIDICULOUS</em> to what degree people brand high scorers as 'the same' -- not every high scorer is at all intellectually the same. Hello! How many various academic fields are there...how diverse are the passions going into them? How much does it take to really become a master of one of these fields? A lot! </p>
<p>A lot of people who congratulate people with lower GPA's and scores are highly disrespectful towards many of the academic minds.</p>