<p>Which with their current system.. doesn't seem to be a problem.
[edit:] that was in response to phish</p>
<p>Although I would probably fall under the lazy type, I think that the overachievers deserve it more. They are the ones who have worked hard, who have shown true potential in actually making an IMPACT on campus. Obviously, any college would want to have a mix of both, but the overachievers definately have to be represented in a large amount for the campus to really feel lively.</p>
<p>That being said, it doesn't mean that the overachievers aren't going to be qualified. HS GPA (scaled/relative), study skills, and SAT IIs are known to be better predicters of college grades than SAT Is. These are the kids who worked hard in school and succeeded, AND had activities and hobbies they were passionate about.</p>
<p>You can't tell me you'd rather be at school with a whole bunch of genius underachievers who would rather do nothing all day, than with a bunch of smart overachievers who are interested and passionate about what they do and try their best even if they're not the smartest.</p>
<p>The brilliant but lazy people tend to be a lot more intellectual than the overachievers. </p>
<p>I'd rather go to a school with people who care about and discuss ideas than a school where people simply care about grades and what would look good on their resume- I would rather be with laid-back whiz kids than with ambitious work-horses.</p>
<p>That is the prime difference between the brilliant/lazy people and the overachievers.
Also, you would be surprised by the fact that overachievers are more likely to be <strong><em>bags than brilliant/lazy people. Being a "</em></strong>bag" is considered desirable in our society and so that is what they follow.
I don't think this is true of all overachievers and many people who fall in this group (especially at a website like College Confidential) probably do not fit this description but it's true for many- especially at a party-hardy college like Duke. </p>
<p>I think the SAT (once you take out that bloody Writing section) is a strong indicator of intelligence.</p>
<p>^ the problem with the SAT is that people are biased based on how they did. people who aced it like to consider it the ultimate intelligence test, while people who bombed look for any evidence they can find that proves that the SAT is a sham. the truth is somewhere between those 2 extremes.</p>
<p>If no one was allowed to think about the SATs before taking them, they would be much more accurate. In that sense, maybe the 10th grade PSATs are the best indicator, because very few people prep for them at all. </p>
<p>The socio-economic status thing is true, but then that could also mean that socio-economic status is a good indicator of intelligence. No one, especially me, would like to think that is true, but it is something to think about.</p>
<p>It might not be PC, but it might be true, rifleman.</p>
<p>If smarts -----> money,
then rich parents -----> smart parents -----> smart genes -----> smart kid---->high SATs (but from which? his money or his smarts?)</p>
<p>There seems to be some correlation.. but the correlation could also be that successful parents may be more interested and vest more effort and pride in their children's education..</p>
<p>This is such a dumb discussion. High SAT doesn't mean extremely brilliant and high GPA doesn't mean extremely hardworking and lots of EC's don't mean overachieving <em>vulgar words some people used</em>. Its a bit more complicated than that.</p>
<p>I really think that lazy, intelligent people won't get far in life and therefore do not deserve an ivy because it will not better their success in life.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The brilliant but lazy people tend to be a lot more intellectual than the overachievers.</p>
<p>I'd rather go to a school with people who care about and discuss ideas than a school where people simply care about grades and what would look good on their resume- I would rather be with laid-back whiz kids than with ambitious work-horses.</p>
<p>That is the prime difference between the brilliant/lazy people and the overachievers.
Also, you would be surprised by the fact that overachievers are more likely to be <strong><em>bags than brilliant/lazy people. Being a "</em></strong>bag" is considered desirable in our society and so that is what they follow.
I don't think this is true of all overachievers and many people who fall in this group (especially at a website like College Confidential) probably do not fit this description but it's true for many- especially at a party-hardy college like Duke.</p>
<p>I think the SAT (once you take out that bloody Writing section) is a strong indicator of intelligence.
[/quote]
Some of this is true, especially the part about the "lazy" type being more intellectual. Most of the people i know (this is in HS mind you) who have close to a 4.0 and win all those awards with impressive-sounding names tend to be grade oriented prestige whores who have the mind set that "I don't want to go to a decent school and get a great education, i want to go somewhere elite that i can brag about later on."
This is not true for many hard-working people and i'm not trying to imply that working hard in HS makes you a snob, but i would personally rather learn while surrounded by the kind of people that are naturally bright than the kind of people who slave away for hours to get good grads and write down everything the prof. says, the type that always has their hand up to ask for clarification on simple concepts because they're totally "by the book"</p>
<p>I agree about not wanting to go to college surrounded by those people that only care about grades. It annoys me. People always ask me for help on problems and I try to explain it to them so they can figure out the answer themselves and learn from it but most of the time they're just like give me the answer so I can get a good grade. However, you can't tell any of that by looking at SATs, grades, and ec's.</p>
<p>Oh- I'm not advocating for those people. My hs is actually full of those.</p>
<p>But there IS another subset of people, who many not be Einstein-bright, but who do have a very bright future due to hard work and true interests.</p>
<p>...Because getting a 4.0 doesn't really take that much effort IMO (at my school, I mean.) Just doing the assigned work 'n' what not. And I only did ECs that I felt like doing, ya know? I dunno if that's really LAZINESS, though.</p>
<p>I read somewhere (specific source, I know) that adcoms would prefer the word "bright" in a rec than "hardworking." Obviously, both are needed, but the student who only makes it by because they can put their nose to the grindstone isn't that exciting. I suppose the brilliant but lazy model is useless as well, since they're not putting their smarts to use.... I guess what I'm saying is that there needs to be a balance, but adcoms would rather see a student tilt towards the naturally gifted side than to the only-gets-by-by-slaving-away side. </p>
<p>However, the problem with the SAT/GPA/EC comparison is that you're assuming most EC's are only slave labor. Plenty are geared towards those with natural aptitude for a subject--like debating, AIME, the science competitions, writing, etc.</p>
<p>hmm I only skimmed through this thread, but here's what I gotta say. </p>
<p>I think SAT I shows how well a student can utilize his or her logic within a limited period of time under pressure. This does not strictly show the intelligence of a person. </p>
<p>Intelligence can vary from one thing to another. Logic is one part of it, but I think there are other things that SAT I does not test that also shows intelligence. </p>
<p>Also, I don't think the title 'overachiever' is accurate or fair for most people. I mean, if you are desperately trying to get your average from 96% to 99%, yes that is a little bit crazy, but there is no harm in gaining new experience by taking in ECs. Many may think that I am an 'overachiever', but really, I didn't started any of my activities because I thought that it would look good on college app.</p>
<p>And if one really likes a particular activity (or two or three), it only makes sense to work hard at it. Achieving leadership positions only comes because of the hours that are put into the work. You must really like the work to get to that level.</p>