<li>not have any real extracurriculars but spend a lot of your time studying and getting straight As and being valedictorian at a really competitive school where a lot of people get into good colleges.</li>
<li>not have a 4.0 but a good 3.8 or 3.7 but spend no time studying and instead focusing your time on fun things and ECs.</li>
</ol>
<p>which would get into college over the other?</p>
<p>number 2 easily, damm I want a real life, not a clone</p>
<p>^I agree...wouldn't want to wake up in twenty years and realize the only experiences I had as a kid were purely academic, some of which would never help me in the real world.</p>
<p>Sorry, didn't see your second question but my answer remains the same...colleges most likely want the student they know will actually get involved in the school and not spend his/her entire time shut in their room or library.</p>
<p>obviously 2...which is what I actually do.</p>
<p>To add onto esgee's point, colleges definitely want students who aren't going to burn out - and if you spend 8 hours per day studying for 8 years, you're going to burn out at some point. lol.</p>
<p>I would rather study, be towards the top of my class, and still find time to do extra- curriculars. In my class, I don't think there's a single person who studies all the time with no ECs...not even the val,sal, and top students. But then again, I go to a mediocre school.</p>
<h1>2.</h1>
<p>A 3.8 GPA is still good, and a few B's shows that the students isn't a machine.</p>
<p>Definitely 2. A 3.8 is excellent and colleges would much rather see a well-rounded and passionate person who is still pulling an A average over a person with a 4.0 who does nothing but study all day.</p>
<p>definitely number 2. a 3.8 unweighted is still a fantastic GPA, and colleges would certainly rather see a well-rounded candidate than someone who spends all their time studying. i know people who fit description 1 and ended up going to their state schools because they didn't have anything to put in their app but good grades.</p>
<p>also, to have a "good 3.8 or 3.7" you can't spend "no time studying". that's implying that such a GPA is bad, which it isn't.</p>
<p>i dont know how any of you can consider a 3.8 UNweighted bad. At my school that's what the sal has.</p>
<h1>1 if its automatic admission to harvard. Then i'd just party it up there.</h1>
<p>NOTHING is automatic admission to harvard, especially something so lacking in well-roundedness as #1.</p>
<p>raiderade, only the OP called a 3.8 bad. A 3.8 at my school is incredible...no one here has a 4.0, our classes are too hard.</p>
<p>1., because I like being a nonconformist.</p>
<p>what does OP stand for?</p>
<p>original poster</p>
<p>be a valedictorian with outstanding ECs</p>
<p>I'm val and I dont have a 4.0... very close to it (one B) but taking 17 ap classes its kind of hard to get all A's</p>