<p>So I've been wondering what it actually means to be a top applicant in the United States or what it means to most college kids you were competing against to get into certain schools.</p>
<p>For example, your profile fits the "median" applicant's to Harvard- 1500 SAT, good EC's, recs, etc. What type of applicant do YOU think has a better shot to take your spot at this school?</p>
<p>Would you be more scared of the kid with a Perfect SAT, Valedictorian, tons of AP's, great recs, 3 800 SAT II, Math League state champion, Chess Champion, National Merit Scholar, etc.</p>
<p>Or</p>
<p>1410 SAT, Top 5%, 0 AP's, 3 700+ SAT II, Math League runner up, Chess runner-up, Cross Country All-State, Track All State, City Newspaper Correspondent, Foster Child (both parents died at young age)</p>
<p>It's a tough decision, but the question is, if you were an admissions officer, who would you take? From an applicant's perspective, who would you think has the better shot?</p>
<p>That's a tough question, but I think that both those types of kids will be accepted. Competition for the top schools has gotten so ridiculous that the most miniscule details can make a difference, and diversity/overcoming adversity is a big one. Thirty years ago the first one (perfect SAT valedictorian whatever) would have been accepted hands-down. Nowadays there is a hodgepodge of applicants whereas the applicant pool was more homogeneous in years past. I guess if I were an admissions officer and had to choose, I would pick the more well-rounded one (dead parents).</p>
<p>I have the actual results of both of these profiles, and I will list all acceptances/rejections of both applicants once I see what people think, especially anyone currently in school.</p>
<p>Can't wait for the surprise, number 2 got in! These anecdotal things are useless. Go to the common data set and find out how many people with his stats got in. That will tell the only story you can count on to be factual.</p>
<p>The point of this was to show people out there that well-roundedness is most often better, and just because your stats don't always "add up" you're probably better off to avoid the books TOO MUCH.</p>
<p>Applicant #1- (One of my best friends)</p>
<p>800M 800CR 790Writing
Valedictorian in Class from Competitive Private School
State Math League high scorer
Other awards as listed
Was actually #1 in New England in Chess</p>
<p>STATE Newspaper (The Providence Journal) Sports Publications, lost to applicant #1 in state chess championship, #8 R.I. Math League Points (#1 in arithmatic category), 2nd in state indoor track (1000m- 2:41) 3rd Outdoor Track (800m-2:00), 17th in state Cross Country, Foster homes for 9 years.</p>
<p>Acceptances/Rejections:</p>
<p>Princeton- Accepted
Dartmouth-Accepted
Notre Dame-Accepted
Tulane-Accepted
U.S. Naval Academy- Accepted (attending)
U.S. Merchant Marine Academy- Accepted</p>
<p>This is definitely not to brag, but after a week looking in chances forums, I think some people's view of what "Top Applicant" means is a bit askew. You could argue that applicant #1 applied to better schools... I don't know.</p>
<p>Just goes to show people that lower-stat kids DO have a chance. Based on this, do you think I would have had enough to get into Harvard '10?</p>
<p>In fact, my school district has passed a new requirement that in order to graduate all students must complete 40 hours of Community Service. The "Smaller Learning Community" (I'll elaborate if someone wants more info than that) requires 115, to put us even farther ahead.</p>
<p>One of the teachers in my SLC likes to tell a story similar to this, where one student applied with excellent test scores and a 4.5 GPA and got denied to UCLA.</p>
<p>GoNavy, congrats on your acceptances. You certainly had some great options to choose from!</p>
<p>I don't understand the point of this thread, though. What are you trying to prove -- that a person with a less-than-perfect resume has a better chance than someone who has better* scores/grades/awards? This isn't true. You noted that your essays were outstanding, while your friend's were only above-average. Considering how important essays are in the admissions process, it would seem that he was rejected from Dartmouth and you were accepted because the adcoms thought your essays were more interesting, not because they prefer imperfect profiles. </p>
<p>In addition, there isn't enough contrast between yours and your friend's admissions decisions to be able to say that one was more successful than the other. Your friend was accepted at Harvard and Brown; you were accepted at Princeton and Dartmouth. Both results are great. Would you have been accepted at Harvard? At Brown? It's anyone's guess.</p>
<p>The point is that you cannot prove the desirability of one type of applicant's profile over another applicant's based on a single example.</p>
<p>But again, excellent work on the part of you and your friend!</p>