<p>Perfect Academic but mediocre EC:
2320 SAT
Valedictorian in a 432 student class
800 Math2
780 Bio
770 History
9 AP + 2 self-studied (mostly 5s)
Mediocre ECs (Vice President in a club, patrol leader in boy scouts (Eagle Scout), lots of band (soloist in jazz, woodwind choir, and marching band (200 members), championship math league, plus some other mediocre things like honor societies, student government)
No significant awards</p>
<p>vs.</p>
<p>Amazing ECs but Mediocre Academic:
2150 SAT
700s SAT Subjects
Rank 5%
5 AP
Lots of amazing ecs and leadership (Drum Major of band, president of NHS, student council president, president of a club they started, lots of volunteer hours, etc.)
Several Awards (nationally awarded debater, writer)</p>
<p>Ahhh… but Show: your sentiment that “ECs are BS” diverges explicitly with what most top colleges say they value. Sure, their applicants need to meet a minimum standard of academic achievement – but it’s not like the plaster every applicant onto a spreadsheet and take the top 1200 academics.</p>
<p>That’s what’s done at public schools, for the most part. Holistic admissions allows colleges much more flexibility. In your sentiment, you’d ask Columbia to adopt the admissions policies of schools you yourself wouldn’t rank highly?</p>
<p>… ah but this is a debate for another time.</p>
<p>OP, this is so off that I think you should put it in chances or high school life and let them have at it. </p>
<p>Your sense of better academics versus “amazing” ECs is flimsy. And misses the entire point about how applications are reviewed, in holistic. It’s this kind of thinking that messes up many kids’ own chances.</p>
<p>Same for you, Snow. How a kid spends his time is very telling.</p>
<p>Neither. To have a decent chance, you need to show the admissions office that you’re well-rounded academically and in extracurriculars. And even at that level it’s still a crapshoot to get in. I know that’s not the answer most people want to hear, but it’s reality. :/</p>
<p>SATs aren’t the only measure of academics (although statistically a 2150 is not out of the range of Columbia), although the fact they’ve only taken five APs will seriously hamper the second person (just not a rigorous course load at all). Essays and recs are huge factors that might make or break either. There’s a solid chance the second candidate is able to write an amazing essay about something meaningful while the first be totally inarticulate (wouldn’t be the first time I saw that).</p>
<p>As for ECs being BS; I know near perfect SAT scores of 3.2 students. valedictorians that couldn’t break 2000, and people with high GPA and SAT scores who don’t have the commitment, drive, or maturity to hold a legitimate leadership position. A student is a package, you can only tell so much off raw stats alone.</p>
In retrospect, I can see where Show gets this idea. Often there’s the chasing among high achievers to be “president” of this club or “founder” of this club – or people lie and put it on their apps anyway.</p>
<p>It’s recognized that this sort of thing is rampant and thus deserves the bovine dooky descriptive.</p>
<p>However, as a long time interviewer, I can say I’ve met some students with truly jaw dropping ECs – the kind where I email directly my regional officer and say “Look at tonight’s news” or “read tomorrow’s Washington Post”. Amongst our young people are some kids who seem to float on air. (I can’t say I was even close to this – but my schools took me anyway)</p>