<p>Someone on another thread made a very good point:</p>
<p>The quality of a student's GPA is usually somewhere between the quality of his or her SAT's and the quality of his or her EC's. Why? Because while SAT's are at the "intelligence, not hard work" end of the spectrum, EC's are at the "hard work, not intelligence" end of the spectrum, and grades require both.</p>
<p><strong><em>I know this is a huge generalization</em></strong></p>
<p>So, which one would you think is a better applicant? </p>
<p>Conceivably, the "brilliant but lazy" one has more potential because he/she can always work harder...it is much harder for the "overachiever" to get smarter (because most of brain development is thought to be genetics or occurs early in life...but let's not digress).</p>
<p>But the trend at schools of late seems to be towards the "overachiever" for reasons that are beyond me. Political correctness? The Generation Y "effort more important than performance" mentality?</p>
<p>Well, I think the goal for top schools is to find the students who are neither brilliant but lazy or not very smart overachiever. That is, the student for whom grades/SATs/ECs are all high enough or close enough together that they are clearly a very intelligent (or even brilliant) high achiever. That’s the perfect combo, because while its fine for a school to take a risk on some brilliant underachievers (depending on how brilliant they are, and how underachieving they are—there’s a difference between someone with a 2400 and a 3.5 and someone with a 2400 and a 2.0), if that was who they primarily accepted, they might end up with a bunch of people not achieving at all.</p>
<p>From my experience, in terms of personality, the "overachievers" tend to be a lot more cocky than the "brilliant but lazy" people- who are usually more modest but less ambitious.</p>
<p>This is how things always have been in America. </p>
<p>I am personally strongly against valuing extracurriculars over academic performance in college admissions.
People should do things because they are PASSIONATE about them not so that it can help them get into the best college.</p>
<p>I'd say the overachiever would be more attractive to a college - at least you know for sure they're going to be doing something there, enhancing the community and all that stuff.</p>
<p>Another assumption is no prep for SATs. A lot of students from my area get high SAT scores out of pure practice and coaching. Their SAT scores are often 500+ points higher than their junior PSAT scores. </p>
<p>The thing is that top top colleges these days have the ability to choose the "Brilliant Overachievers". There are many kids who have the whole package. The next tier schools generally differ in philosophy. Lower-tier LACs will obviously choose the second type of student, while large state universities will often take a combination and give more consideration to high test scores.</p>
<p>colleges don't want either...rather the highly competitive ones only go for a third, but far more rare type of applicant: the brilliant overachiever.</p>
<p>these people are ridiculously smart and talented and yet they also constantly work hard to improve themselves. since they're brilliant, they don't have to work so hard on figuring out the basics (say in a really hard calculus class, the concepts just magically make sense to them) and so they can invest energy in going above and beyond in the course and pursuing a far greater depth of knowledge. while also balancing a minimum of 5+ extracurriculars and boasting a 2300+ SAT score on their first try.</p>
<p>that's why it's so insanely difficult to get accepted by really selective colleges. why should a college accept someone "average" like me, with a 4.0 and 2300 on my third try and lackluster EC's, when they can have my friend who has a 4.0, 2390 first try, was MC for a statewide "issues concerning youth" conference which was visited by our governor, is editor in chief of a citywide (not just school) paper, serves on our city youth council as president for two years, and spends his free time on the weekends planting trees and restoring trails b/c he's just so into nature/environmental awareness?</p>
<p>sure, my rank is like 2 and his is probably 5 (out of 400ish), but when it really comes down to it, who is smarter and who works harder? he is both, while i remain a humdrum "overachieving" yet dumb nobody.</p>
<p>I respect the overachievers, though my respect is tainted by the realisation that many of them have done their activities precisely to impress the universities, and not because they actually care. I somehow like the brilliant but lazy people more, because with them, what you see id the minimum of what they are capable of. The fact is that a lot of brilliant scientists, entrepreneurs, politicians would have come under "brilliant but lazy" when they were young.</p>
<p>I agree with hannahmontana. The best of the best schools have enough applicants to choose from that they can accept only the people that fulfill both criteria (innately intelligent and hard-working). When considering other schools, though, it probably depends on the school. For example, state schools would probably prefer the brilliant, lazy person because they focus more on numbers.</p>
<p>it takes all types of people to make the world go round. Many EXTREMELY successful geniuses in both academia and in business got there through sheer merit and being a visionary in their field. They didn't attend HYPSM and then go onto some business job at some law firm or investment bank, they went to a lesser school, spent much of their time doing what they loved and what they truly wanted.... and were successful....</p>
<p>it takes all types of people and going to Harvard or whatever does NOT make you successful, college is only a very small part of the entire equation.</p>
<p>The true visionaries, geniuses, and leaders in their respective fields will be there if they have the God given natural talent to do so and use the talent. I am a firm believer not one single person is "smarter" then another, its just they have a different way of viewing the world. You mathematician may be extremely good at calculating equations and finding whatever out, but they would have no idea how to deal with a car engine and how to fix it up..... same goes for an investment banker who would have no idea how to write and compose a quality computer program.... its just a different skill set for a different person...</p>
<p>That's why I try not to judge people by the field they are in, but how they are doing in their respective fields.....</p>
<p>not everyone can be doctors, lawyers, authors, or genius scientists....</p>
<p>I'm a good example of the "smart but lazy" type (but a 2080 SAT isn't that good on these forums) and I'm pretty confident that i would do well in college courses. Quite a few people of the other "type" of applicant i know are looking at more prestigious colleges than I am. Perfect example, girl that has around a 4.0 unweighted, is freaking out because she's getting a B in precalc now, doing mostly IB and AP classes, etc. She has a private tutor and spends hours every night studying and doing homework to achieve the level she's at. After taking hours of SAT classes and a different, private SAT tutor, she got around a 2000. Looking at UVA, William and Mary, Georgetown etc. She is the more attractive applicant, but I think that I, with my 3.3 GPA and 2080 sat(taken cold), could do as well as or better than she could in any high level college course/</p>
<p>Well, of course you want the brilliant overachiever...that would be ideal. But between the "brilliant but lazy" and the "average overachiever" who is more attractive to schools? Who DESERVES to be more attractive to schools?</p>
<p>I'm definitely the "brilliant but lazy" side of the spectrum, for example. To be honest, I'm very intelligent...or at least my DNA is intelligent (I was speaking fluently before many people learn their first words; I probably have a really high IQ)...but I'm low-energy (and I sleep a good ten hours per day) and I'm kinda passive about stuff. I have a lot of unrealized potential to be incredibly productive. My stats reflect this:</p>
<p>Brilliant but lazy = SAT > GPA > EC's
Me = 2390 SAT, three 800's on SAT IIs> 4.2 weighted > A couple clubs, that's about it</p>
<p>Most people on these forums are the latter, even if they won't admit it (you know, the ones who call themselves "procrastinators" just to sound humble?)</p>
<p>I personally can't stand the people at my school who are like, "Lol, I have a 95 average in all my classes but I am really lazy because I put off things to the last minute." </p>
<p>The stuff we have to do in high school is so goddamn easy. It's not an accomplishment to procrastinate.</p>
<p>I hope colleges prefer the somewhat lazy applicants. </p>
<p>SATs>ECs>GPA</p>
<p>I have a 2330 SAT, and I'm extremely dedicated to one EC of mine where I've won some state and national titled, and I have a 93.2 UW GPA for important classes. I feel like a definite minority on CC.</p>
<p>I'd say that the overachievers deserve the Ivies more that the "brilliant but lazy". Not because I am one, but really if you think about the "brilliant but lazy" will discover what they need to do because eventually it will hit and they will become brilliant. They don't need the motivation, if they are skilled and talented that in itself will take them far. The overachievers on the other hand are no where close to the intelligent of the "brilliant' ones therefore they need the extra boost that Ivies might provide them with. But thats just my 2 cents.</p>
<p>haha of course everyone would rather think of themselves as brilliant and lazy rather than overachievers...it just has a far more positive connatation: oh all that "unrealized potential" as you so quaintly put it 2-iron.</p>
<p>i'm not doubting your brilliance...not at all. but the fact that you have a 4.0+ and that you post on these forums with a post of this nature definitely makes me question the "laziness" part. </p>
<p>i'm not trying to criticize you specifically, god i have so many friends who claim to not study for a test, or to do their homework the class period before it's due and they all end up with stellar grades. and it becomes so painfully obvious how much they actually do work hard and really try to succeed. of course they're smart, but they're not as lazy as they'd like to have you believe. i'm often guilty of this, claiming to have put forth absolutely no effort for what i achieve because it justifies not achieving more.</p>
<p>sometimes how hard you work is all a matter of perception...i can tell ppl i'm lazy and smart, that i "failed" my first sat with a 2230 because i didn't study at all and was super-overconfident, i can tell them that i have no clue how i got a 5 on some of my ap exams where i'm pretty sure i had no clue what i was doing, that i don't know how i set the curves on tests when i didn't study "at all", but honestly while skimming over a chapter the night before the test is "being lazy" to me, for others it's far more than they've ever done.</p>
<p>i think a lot of ppl are overachievers, rarely does brilliance come without a bunch of hardwork...but these overachievers just bring in the "brilliant but lazy" argument to blame their few "failures" on a reason that seems far more noble and flattering than just, "i tried my hardest but it just wasn't good enought this time". </p>
<p>i really do agree with bleedblue, everyone has the "potential" to be smart. most ppl just aren't willing to apply this, and when those who try to be smart and work hard end up failing on the rare occasion, they want to pretend like they never tried at all.</p>
<p>@OP, i'm sure you'll get into an awesome college where you'll be happy. if it's a question of who "deserves" what, honestly i guess time will tell=)</p>