<p>I have a question.
Are teams and clubs really necessary for you to do in order to get in to good school?
I had this senior in my school and he did nothing except Math Team for 4 years.
But, he got in to Cornell for full scholarship.
Of course, he had high GPA and SAT scores.
Do you have to do many teams or clubs in your high school year?</p>
<p>Why do you ask? Your Cornell dude obviously didn’t have a full list of clubs (as far as you could tell). BTW, Cornell offers need based financial aid, no scholarships.</p>
<p>Um, yeah…how else would the top schools discern between all of those 3.85+ 2200/33+ students?</p>
<p>^Perhaps by not instituting arbitrary GPA/SAT thresholds. A 2400 student and a 2200 student will be considered differently.</p>
<p>However, OP, ECs are necessary for top schools, though they need not be teams or clubs.</p>
<p>^I understand, but I feel as if instituting those thresholds is accurate. For example, a students with a 2200 but stellar ECs will have the same “chance”, if not BETTER “chance”, than a student with a 2400 but virtually no ECs. </p>
<p>I agree that they need not be teams or clubs, but those are typically where the leadership is located (President/VP/Treasurer/Secretary).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think it’s fairly purposeless to argue the “Boring 2400 versus the Brilliant 2200” argument. It is in an applicant’s best interest to assemble the strongest application possible, and that includes test scores. Colleges don’t operate using score thresholds, so applicants shouldn’t approach testing as if they do. Besides which, why are the 2400’s always assumed to be boring and EC-less?</p>
<p>I never asserted that 2400s are “boring and EC-less”. I am simply using it as an example: which would a university rather have if it had to choose between the two students? Yes, I agree, if the student with the 2400 had stellar ECs he/she would have a solid “chance” at any school, but I use the example to portray that the 2400 isn’t EVERYTHING, that the student shouldn’t assume that he/she is a shoo-in at any school. </p>
<p>I agree that colleges don’t operate using score thresholds, but honestly, if you’re unhooked, then there is a threshold, whether you want to believe it or not. A student who is not a recruited athlete/URM, for example, would HAVE to score higher than a 2150/32 to have any shot at the top 10. Those who say that this is not true because the schools publish a list that say you can score less than that threshold and still gain admission because “it has been done before” are incorrect in that these students were hooked in some fashion.</p>
<p>Colleges want interesting people. EC’s seem to be evidence of being an interesting person, as well as passionate about a topic, and are a chance to display leadership, etc.</p>
<p>The guy who got to Cornell? Its not the quantity of EC’s, but the quality. He probably showed great dedication to Math Team; maybe he won stuff or was team captain.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That is not a threshold. A threshold is a point above which any increase in score would have no impact on decisions. Chances, however, increase exponentially as your SAT score increases (mifune has a great analysis of this floating around CC). An unhooked 2200 will have to have some pretty phenomenal ECs or have done extradinarily well at one of the nation’s top preps for admission to an HYP. A 2400 will have to be less extradinary.</p>