<p>"Academic accomplishments <em>require</em> talent plus passion plus hard work."</p>
<p>They are necessary but insufficient.</p>
<p>bob99975, the error that has come up in both of these related threads is that not all 2300+ scorers are alike. The one who is a prize jerk (yes, there are such persons smart enough to score high but not smart enough to be nice people) will have worse admission results than the one who is a leader and community-builder. The lack of independence between the admission decisions of colleges with respect to high scorers comes from issues like that: the colleges can agree in their results for each individual applicant, based on that applicant's individual characteristics, even if "colleges for the most part do not communicate with each other and coordinate decisions," as you wrote. A statistics teacher understands this point: if you take two applicants with exactly the same numerical credentials (we could even stipulate that they attended the same school for the same courses and were tied in GPA) and check their admission results from the five least selective colleges, personal qualities might mean one applicant gets five offers of admission, while the other gets none. Then it would be easy for any onlooker to decide to bet differently about how the three most selective colleges will treat each of the two applicants. In the usage of statisticians, "independent" means "not correlated," but there would be the reasonable expectation of significant correlation among the admission decisions of the distinct colleges.</p>
<p>Well, this whole line of argument is irrelevant for a field such as science (which is my field.) Challenging the status quo is the whole point and is not inversely proportional to prestige seeking. Also, as long as you have a lab and funding, the degree you have doesn't matter. However, I am talking</p>
<p>For fields which don't require you to necessarily achieve something to have status, HYP opens a lot of doors and makes it easier to aquire a position of power such that you can influence the status quo. Yes it is possible to fight your way to that position like Rudy Giuliani. But it's much easier to do it if you have the degree since HYP is a recruiting ground. I mean, that's why you have so many idiots in high positions.</p>
<p>"Academic accomplishments <em>require</em> talent plus passion plus hard work."</p>
<h2>They are necessary but insufficient.</h2>
<p>insufficient for what?</p>
<p>Academic Accomplishment + Talent + Passion + Hard Work</p>
<p>I think if you can ring the bell loudly on all four elements of the equation then you have an excellent chance of getting into one of the countries top schools. </p>
<h2>Academic accomplishments alone, irrespective of how high one's SAT scores, will most often not suffice.</h2>
<p>Speaking abstractly, so you are saying that you need a,b,c, and d to be successful. And I am saying that a = b + c + d. Therefore, if you have a, then you have b,c, and d also. So if you have a, then it should be sufficient if all you need is a,b,c, and d.</p>
<p>tokenadult,</p>
<p>Your statement, "The one who is a prize jerk (yes, there are such persons smart enough to score high but not smart enough to be nice people) will have worse admission results than the one who is a leader and community-builder" assumes that admission commitees can ferret this out. It is noble sentiment, but I am unafraid it is untrue. </p>
<p>What I believe is more true is this. Colleges and universities are rightly leary of admitting too many high-scoring, high gpa candidates who are simply test and homework jockeys. I think they aggressively screen out a number of these single-threaded candidates. In part because too many of these student make for a very dull class and, more importantly, adcoms I believe truly want students who can contribute significantly to the community through athletics, the arts, etc.</p>
<p>collegealum314,</p>
<p>Talent beyond academic talent, as in sport or an art.</p>
<p>"Well, this whole line of argument is irrelevant for a field such as science (which is my field.) Challenging the status quo is the whole point ..."</p>
<p>I think it is highly relevant to science. If one understands Thomas Kuhn (The Structure of Scientific Revolutions), than one knows that science operates very much within the status quo and it progresses often incrementally.</p>
<p>OP has very good intentions BUT:</p>
<p>I agree 100% with enderkin's post#12:</p>
<p>there's nothing that will persuade the super-anxious to quit being super-anxious. it's just how people are sometimes.</p>
<p>You are misinterpreting Thomas Kuhn.</p>
<p>Richard Feynman talked about creativity in science as trying to maneuver in a straitjacket. If you have not absolutely mastered the nuances of your scientific field, good luck overthrowing that paradigm. Often the key to founding a new scientific paradigm is finding a case where the rules don't apply. Well, if you don't completely understand what the rule is in the first place and how it is supposed to be applied, then it is hard to find where the rule doesn't apply.</p>
<p>BTW, Feynman, one of the greatest and most creative minds of the 20th century, won the Putnam exam and was one of the only people ever to get a perfect score on the incoming math and physics graduate school entrance exam.</p>
<p>"There's nothing that will persuade the super-anxious to quit being super-anxious. it's just how people are sometimes."</p>
<p>I think this has a corollary. </p>
<p>"Please don't take my problems away from me, I'll have nothing to wake up for in the morning."</p>
<p>Stop emphasizing grades. It's foremost yes, but still, it's not everything. Take a step back.</p>
<p>Tokenadult-
No one is disputing the fact that not all 2300 or 2400 scorers are alike. In the case of truazn, he assumed that a candidate with 4.0/2400/800s had i think a 40% chance of admission. he was not claiming that all candidates with those stats had a 40% chance of admissions- it is just an estimate for the chance the average applicant with these stats might have. Obviously, not everyone has an approximately 40% shot to be admitted to HYPMS- etc. Massive community service, leadership, inner city URM from Wyoming might have 96% chances with these stats, while a white or asian from NJ, son of a millionaire with only these stats and no meaningful ECs might have a 5% chance. But thats not the point. 40% is a very rough estimate for the average candidate with these stats. it obviously does not apply to everyone with these stats. </p>
<p>truazn could have easily done his argument x's, y's, and z's in place of 40%- and accounted for the fact that every applicant with the same stats has different odds- but this thread would be far less understandable for readers- so truazn chose 40% as his average estimate of odds for all candidates with these stats. he's not insinuating that all candidates with these stats have the same odds.</p>
<p>That's exactly how statistics works. Average over a population.</p>
<p>Just like the average human has one testicle and one ovary - but you won't find very many individuals in that situation.</p>
<p>
[quote]
[ truazn ]'s not insinuating that all candidates with these stats have the same odds.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'll let him speak for himself on that subject. He could have made that point clearer earlier, but I'll glad to hear him make clear what he originally meant. Meanwhile, I hope it is clear to everyone reading this thread that the statistical problem he posed for himself in this other thread was incorrectly analyzed and thus incorrectly solved. If you doubt that, ask an experienced statistics teacher to look at this thread and his other threads and comment on the reasoning in the threads. In this thread, the definitive reply came early (post #6): </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The thread here doesn't doesn't deliver what the thread title promises. I agree with the sentiment that high school students shouldn't spend their time worrying, but not because I think it is easy to get into an Ivy League college (it isn't, even for the lowest-tier Ivies) but because I think there are many other noteworthy</a> colleges at which a student can get a good education, some of which are not particularly difficult to get into.</p>
<p>The beginning of the 99th percentile on the SAT is 2200. The beginning of the "99+" (according to collegeboard) percentile is 2280. Get your facts straight, OP.</p>
<p>Very interesting thread, otherwise.</p>
<p>You pessmistic-to-the-death cynics need to calm down =</p>
<p>People usually only began so passionately tearing stuff apart like this when they know in their hearts that it is actually true.</p>
<p>
[quote]
inner city URM from Wyoming
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That is about as close to a mythical creature as you can get. </p>
<p>The Wyoming cities I have seen are mighty small--they don't really have an "inner" and an "outer".</p>
<p>Those 2 loosers with the name Clintons, where did they go for undergraduate? Wellesley and Georgetown. What a bunch of loosers? How dare they try to run for president (without a HYP degree for undergraduate)? Did they event understand statistics? What is the chance of husband and wife both becoming presidents(ok, not at the same time)
[/sarcastic off]</p>
<p>collegealum, yes I know the difference between National Merit Scholar and Finalist. I was surprised that one school would have 50+ Scholars but that was my misreading of your post. In my post at one point I referred to 14900 Scholars; it should read Finalists. At my S's private college prep school he was the only Scholar and I was initially shocked at a school having 50+.</p>
<p>Freud's comment about the narcissism of small differences was made in a paper on primary narcissism and the channeling of libidinal energy to achieve object cathechsis. Balletgirl misuses the concept but makes an outstanding point.</p>
<p>Everyone is fascinated with Feynmann because physics is sexier than the chemical bond but the one scientist of the 20th century who will rank with Newton is Pauling and he went to Oregon Agricult College I believe. So secure in himself that he went against the grain all his life. I am wandering of the thread, sorry.</p>