<p>Student A: has erratic grades, getting superior grades in history and languages (95+) and has maybe one or two low grades, with an overall 3.2 GPA and has an SAT score of a 1980. Better written essays and recommendations.
or
Student B: has balanced grades wit an overall 3.2 GPA. Has a SAT score of 1710. EC's are the same. Average recs and essays, nothing that makes them standout. </p>
<p>Who has a better chance of getting in?</p>
<p>Isn't it obvious that student A is better?</p>
<p>yeah, it's rather obvious that A is superior.</p>
<p>Student A... what's so interesting or impressive about Student B?</p>
<p>Yes, but student A has really erratic grades, in every subject with the exception of history and french. Including a D in chemistry, junior year.</p>
<p>A is still better imo; better rec/essay + much better SAT set it in stone</p>
<p>Student A is definitely better.</p>
<p>Yeah, definitely student A. Erratic grades, sure, but that shows some personality. That's a weird way of saying it, but if a student gets some great and then some bad grades, and displays great performance in a particular area, that student is going to seem much more "real" and interesting than someone who just gets roughly consistent, mediocre grades across the board.</p>
<p>What if they had the same SAT scores, recs and essays still student A?</p>