<p>Well just another 2 cents from me:
I'm SAT + EC >>>>>> GPA, because I refuse to do the busywork needed to have a perfect GPA. Don't get me wrong, I always understand perfectly what's going on during class, and I get great grades on the tests. I just don't feel the need to make flashcards to count for that extra homework grade.
Too bad colleges say that the transcript is most important.</p>
<p>I have an issue w/ lazy regardless of intelligence. The rule in my house is do the best with what you were given. Period!</p>
<p>I guess my next comment comes from one of the schools at which my daughter has been looking. The comment on that site talks about GPA and SAT but I do not recall reference to EC. But for it, GPA and rigor of curriculum as a combined entity trumped SAT. The site stated something about this combined factor, GPA & rigor, could overcome a lower SAT but that a high SAT could not overcome a lackluster school record. This came from a highly selective school but I did write this comment from memory. Assuming that I got it right, then I would conclude that they are looking for smart, hardworking and motivated students. Lazy would probably not cut it. </p>
<p>Where ECs stand, I am guessing it probably depends upon the ECs. Not all ECs are not created equal. Last year, it was a huge scandal at our school that a certain student got accepted to very few schools. Students were quite upset. If this student "who did everything" could not get into these colleges, how could anyone. Personally, the colleges made the correct choice from my point of view. This student's EC list was extensive (and I am sure was built for colleges in mind) but she was constantly skipping one for the other. Her grades were pathetic and course selection was always the easiest way out. I think the colleges saw "through the wrapping and saw the package was empty" and made their decisions accordingly.</p>
<p>As for the original post, neither equation fully works for me. SAT > GPA > EC and the implication of laziness does not appeal to me. EC > GPA > SAT doesn't work for me either. I guess I would need an equation w/ more variables.</p>
<p>*Note: I have an issue with the word brilliant, because I think very few people are truly brilliant, but I’ll use it in the same way its being used here, that is, WAY above normal intelligence. </p>
<p>I think part of the problem with this thread is that the terms don’t match the evidence. The OP puts themselves in the “Brilliant but lazy” category, but they have a 4.0+ GPA! Even with just a few clubs, the OP clearly has a good shot at top schools, especially with they have really good essays and can find a way to put a good spin on whatever it is they DO do outside of class. That’s not brilliant but lazy, that’s brilliant but underachieving a bit, and I think plenty of colleges prefer that to “great grades but clearly have reached their intellectual potential.” (The hard working vs. bright distinction). That’s very different from brilliant but lazy, which top colleges do not (and should not) want. </p>
<p>For example, I had a friend who had decent but not great grades (for top schools): As in math/science classes, but Bs (maybe one C) in everything else. He didn’t do many clubs at school. But he did take an accelerated path in math, took math/science classes outside of school and during the summer, and built Tessla coils in his basement (seriously). He had good SATs too. Sure, he wasn’t achieving up to his potential in every class, and didn’t have any “leadership” positions, but he clearly had tons of intellectual potential, and was clearly willing to work when it mattered to him (and even when it didn’t, he still did decently). He was brilliant but underachieving, and he got into MIT. </p>
<p>I had another friend who was also brilliant, also did well on his SATs. And heck, he had a couple of ECs (mainly sports). But the boy hardly ever got above a C in any class. He failed Bio, despite the fact that he could easily be going to Harvard Med school if he applied his very science/math oriented intellect. THAT is brilliant but lazy, and we all thought he was lucky to get into the second-best public uni in the state (not a well known one). No top school wants to take a risk on someone who has shown they are willing to waste their potential that much.</p>
<p>And honestly, the schools were right. Friend A has thrived at MIT, where he cares about all of his classes. Friend B has continued his path of not caring, doing only mediocrely at a school where his intellect should be putting him at the top of his class.</p>
<p>The OP may have a 4.0+ GPA, but the OP is also 52nd in his class despite being a quicker thinker and more analytical than most. Why? Because the OP did not do any homework in 9th grade.</p>
<p>I am the OP :)</p>
<p>And I'm not trying to make myself seem better than others or anything. I deserve the grades I got that year. I may be smart, but work ethic should count, too.</p>
<p>My math teacher who's won ton of awards for teaching (State and National) and grades APs and is on the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics Board and keeps in touch with lots of his former students (Wustl med school, harvard, princeton, MiT, berkeley, dartmouth) is confident that scores mean more than GPA.</p>
<p>NCTM</a> President Kepner and Four Board Members Begin Terms
HES MY TEACHER!!! (the one male high school teacher)
hes also writing my rec
MUAHAHAAHAHA
sorry. hyper -_-</p>
<p>I think we all need to realize what extra-curriculars we're talking about here. </p>
<p>Who would you perfer?</p>
<p>Situation: Two applicants, majoring in say bio/biochem or something
Person A: Decent grades (As and Bs) but is president in almost every academic club (from science clubs, to plain old academic clubs), also started his/her own science club w/ competitions
Person B: Great grades (all As) but not too many extra-curriculars. </p>
<p>I'd be a tad bit confused...can we say who's the smarter one?</p>
<p>Being President doesn't mean anything. Being President means the people liked you and voted for you. People also voted for George W Bush to stay as president. Starting a club shows interest in an area. Winning awards and competitions shows talent in an area. An officer position shows nothing.</p>
<p>nope.</p>
<p>our school does interviews with the teacher/current presidents. Very few academic clubs have the voting thing. (just an exception...)</p>
<p>haha, i love how everybody on this forum thinks that they are brilliant but lazy.....
its obvious that people would chose that one because it sounds so much better than being average and hard-working</p>
<p>^True. </p>
<p>I STRONGLY disagree with the point made about the SAT being a strong indicator of socio-economic status. Why? Because i've never been able to afford a decent SAT course, and yet i've still managed to score higher than everyone else in my school. I knew quite a number people who spend thousands for private tutoring but still can't manage to break 2000. The human mind is so complex, its impossible to gauge true intelligence with a single test. But one things for sure: The SAT is NOT a better indicator of Socio-Economic status than it is for intelligence. If an individual is driven, then he/she will do well. Simple as that. Is the majority of harvard students upper class? Obviously not. The truth is, if you're not that bright, it really doesn't matter how much prep you get because in the end, you're still not that bright. Preparation only works for the motivated, and if you're determined to succeed, then you're just as good as someone who's "lazy, but brilliant". What we need is Brilliant, and driven people- or brilliant, but lazy people who are no longer lazy. No adcom in his/her right mind would admit a student with 2400 SAT's and 2.0 GPA who show's no sign of seeking "redemption". If you're a lazy student, but do well on standardized tests, you sitll have a shot if you're able to do extremely well in your Junior year and the first 2 quarters of your senior year. It shows change of habits. Change is good- especially if you've been bad.</p>
<p>^exactly hahaha (#69)</p>
<p>I agree with Zenbadabing but a lot of people disagree with us.
I was one of the poorer people in my school district (mostly upper/upper-middle class, my family moved there just for the 'awesome' school district, moved the hell out of there once college began) and I was definitely at the Top 1-2% in terms of scores there.</p>
<p>How would an underachiever (brilliant but lazy) get motivated?</p>
<p>Something has to happen in his/her life for that to happen, and usually it takes longer than a year (from senior year in high school, underachieving, to freshman or soph year in college usually isn't long enough) for the student to experience an epiphany and start working to potential.</p>
<p>Often, the brilliant but lazy get terrible grades the first year, and may even flunk out. </p>
<p>Colleges may not want to gamble on the brilliant and lazy, when the hard worker is competing for the same spot. Colleges already know that hardworker knows how to work, and will probably continue to work hard in college, and hence spend the 4 years in college and graduate. Why turn down a sure thing for a questionable outcome with the brilliant but lazy student?</p>
<p>Exactly^ . But colleges will most definitely consider a underachiever who is no longer underachieving. The poor GPA will be history, and the New grades + stellar test scores will shed new light on the "brilliant, but lazy" student. But as i mentioned earlier, its obvious that colleges will not simply accept a student based on his test scores, and nor will a student be accepted simply because he/she works hard. There has to be a combination, and when it comes to applying to top tier schools, that combination is crucial.</p>
<p>Colleges such as Harvard are starting to believe that GPA should be weighted more than SAT's because there is some evidence that shows students who work hard in high school to get good grades continue to work hard throughout college and therefore have the highest potential for success. Students with ONLY high test scores will usually continue being lazy throughout college. Of course the best would be to have a high GPA and high test scores.</p>