<p>A friend of mine who worked in Harvard admissions years ago remarked to me that Harvard was not necessarily looking for the brightest students, they were looking for those who would be most successful. There is no doubt that EQ plays a major role in success, in general.</p>
<p>Also, there appears to be a case that students who are “overachievers” in terms of test scores (lower) vs. performance (outstanding) are not merely drudges who are willing to put in a lot of extra effort, but may rather be some of the most creative people. Surely sometimes the colleges can recognize this.</p>
<p>Part of the idea of the “happy bottom quarter” at Harvard (according to their report) was that students in that group might well flourish and do very well in college–in fact, much better than their stats would indicate. I think this view is very much alive and well in admissions.</p>
<p>Creativity and a unique way of looking at the world are very valuable in the physical sciences. A datum often batted about is this: Richard Feynman had a tested IQ of 123 or 124.</p>
<p>All of that said, it is quite clear that Feynman was very, very smart. Looking at things through the lens of physics and mathematics, I think that no one accomplishes much of lasting importance in those fields without great gifts of intellect. Based on the data available to me, I hypothesize that some of the top schools may on occasion miss some of these students. My alternative hypothesis is that I know a total outlier in the admissions process, among QMP’s friends. The latter is possible, but it seems more likely to me to assume that I know a representative sub-set of results than a non-representative sub-set.</p>