<p>okay, so i'm taking bunch of APs (by the time i apply to college, i'll hav 9 AP grades with 3 APs in senior yr) but my grades aren't that great. i barely managed an A- from freshman yr to sophomore and now i'm gettin a B+ in my junior yr. i think by the time i apply, i'll have a B+ avg as my unweighted GPA...</p>
<p>however, it's not as if i'm lazy or somethin. i would definitely get more As if i had time for school. for the previous yrs, i've been heavily involved in 2 charity organizations, 1 club that i founded, and a job. the job definitely takes a lot of time since i'm helpin this company with some business projects. </p>
<p>i'm pretty sure that my SATs and essays will be great but it really worries me how admissions (particularily Harvard) will view this. do they like an applicant with a lower GPA but great ec's (and has taken many challengin courses) or they would prefer someone who was more devoted to school?</p>
<p>Grades are more important since these are concrete statistics. The ECs are inflated by most students and colleges understand this. If there is a prestigious EC on your application (i.e. political involvement at his or her state capitol), this can be very impressive and one that they can verify through contact and/or recommendation letter(s). Some students will probably be admitted primarily because of their ECs, but it is very rare I would assume, since these will not boost anyone who struggles to maintain a good GPA.</p>
<p>At least it shows rigor, and that you challenge yourself. I mistakingly took just AP Chem this year, so when I apply I’ll have only one AP under my belt. I think rigor>easy.</p>
<p>Don’t change your life to get into Harvard. Are the EC’s important to you? If so, then continue them, and then whatever college accepts you will be accepting who you really are, whether it is Harvard or another school.</p>
<p>From my observations over the years, ECs are more important than grades, at least for some students, but there’s a limit to that. A few B±type students do get into Harvard based on their ECs – but that is a tiny fraction of the B+ students who apply, and the ECs had better be incredible. (Or consist of weighing 300 pounds – of muscle – and being an all-star offensive lineman.)</p>
<p>Grades don’t distinguish among students as much as really quality ECs do. There are lots more 4.0 students in the world than there are true leaders, people who make things happen, and who put real time into that. So often it’s the ECs that determine which of the thousands of kids with great grades/test scores actually get admitted. Not always – some kids do get admitted based on pure academic merit, notwithstanding mediocre ECs, probably more than the B+, EC-centric people who get admitted.</p>
<p>Usually the students here have a great combo of both, but I might argue that ECs are more important because a lot of the students who apply are already academically competitive.</p>
<p>In practice, the decisions often come down to extracurriculars; don’t take this to mean that ECs are more important, though.</p>
<p>If one has very strong ECs but mediocre grades and rank, he or she won’t get in. If one has very strong academics but mediocre ECs, he or she has a chance.</p>
<p>But one needs academic qualifications to receive any look at the ECs. Also, many students are downright dishonest when filling in their EC commitments and colleges know this.</p>
<p>The problem is, schools like Harvard get enough apps that they can afford to choose students with both ECs and grades. I also agree that most EC’s are hard to verify, because I know a few of my classmates who plan to embellish their hours/commitment level. After all these years, does anybody actually know for sure how frequently colleges even make an attempt to verify ECs?</p>
<p>I am beginning to think that ECs contribute to one’s application only if they denote promise for the future of the candidate or will add prestige to the school. For instance, if a student has a position in his or her state Congress, then this may denote political promise or if scientific work is published in academic journals, this often will show the adcom that this student will likely have an illustrious career in his or her field. However, I sincerely doubt that a college will call up thousands of high schools nationwide to verify that a student is in the NHS or Checkers Club or whatever. In fact, worse yet, I doubt that colleges contact all recommenders.</p>
<p>@mifune: Grades are also inflated by the school. It seems like the only real way to compare students within inflation, when you get down to it, is standardized exams–SATs, SAT2s, APs, etc.</p>
<p>It seems that ECs can be verified if there are national awards–then they really contribute to your application.</p>
<p>^I completely agree. In my opinion, standardized tests are more important than grades since a GPA/class rank from one school is completely meaningless in comparison to that of another. Even AP/IB classes, which follow a set curriculum internationally, differ by the school and instructor. However, grades are mathematically verified statistics, unlike ECs. </p>
<p>And yes, ECs may greatly contribute if state/nat’l/int’l recognition is achieved, but even for Harvard, putting down something is clearly better than nothing.</p>