<p>I would say the student athlete is a lot rarer than someone winning an intel science fair. This is because the fields are just totally different.</p>
<p>For example, there was this national cross country and track runner I know that made it into Princeton just based on his athletic ability. I don't think he had that good of an academic resume. Damn.</p>
<p>That all stars list is insane. Props.</p>
<p>I am hating myself right now</p>
<p>You don't even need to be a national level athlete. If in hs you perform well academically and are heavily involved in sports, colleges see that as a huge endeavor. Think about it, if you play soccer, that's at least two hours after school everyday and at least one game over the weekend w/ various practices, you could easily rack up 20-25 hours for the week. That is much more impressive than being part of a club or science fair (I know the big sf take months of research, but generally, sports take up more time because I've done both).</p>
<p>What about the "dreaded 36"? Are there generally more applicants with 2400 on the SAT than 36 on the ACT? And which feat is more difficult to acheive?</p>
<p>cavalier, it's hard to say. if you look at the raw numbers, fewer people get 36's...but fewer people take the ACT</p>
<p>I think there is much more score inflation on the SAT than on the ACT. When my parent were in school, they said that getting a 1600 was unheard of. Also, it wasn't the point of the test to get 1600. Now a days, students expect to get 800's on every section and are generally upset or discouraged when they don't.</p>
<p>Yeah, the SAT especially became easier after the "recentering" in 1994 and also with the recent elimination of analogies. I wonder if any high school students in the 1970s got their scores back and were upset by a 760 in math or a 750 in critical reading? Today that seems to be the norm among top students... "I'm so upset, I got a 2350! I can't believe I didn't get everything right! I'm going to retake it."</p>