Consistency vs. Progression?
If a student got A's at Math and Science and a few other subjects, but B's for a few other subjects in the first two years of HS, then turned that around to straight A's in the second two years of HS. (i.e. progression)
How would this stack up to a student who's been getting straight A's for all 4 years of high school? (i.e. consistency)
Assuming they've got the rest down (<- I say that very loosely!), EC's, brilliant essays, and a strong passion for something interesting, and all the other stuff that makes them a great applicant.
Of course, at the end of the day, the person counts more than the letters and numbers on their transcript, but at the core level, does MIT value sustained progression, or consistency more, would you think?
Or would you potentially think that these two kids are equal, it's just the first person may have been distracted by a passion, or maybe may have been lazy, while the second was well focused?
Does MIT believe that people can change? Or once-a-slacker-always-a-slacker? Or would they potentially go as far as trying to understand why the grades were lacking in the first place?
Interested to know your thoughts (and if an admissions team member / alum / student / parent were to answer this, of course, MIT's!),