A grab bag of thoughts:
(1) The information that came out of the Harvard admissions lawsuit really undermined the premises of spike theory. Long story short, lots of people get admitted to Harvard with only normally very good academics and normally very good activities. The deciding factor was usually also getting a very good “personal” rating, not a “spike” as it is typically defined. Indeed, it was very hard to impress Harvard enough with academics or activities to get them to overlook a merely “generally positive” and not “very good” personal rating.
But this information has not seemed to do all that much to dismantle the industry that had sprung up around spike theory. Perhaps in part because helping kids understand how to become very good people is a lot harder than just telling them how to sign up for competitions or get published or whatever spike theory currently favors.
(2) I don’t think it is a good idea to become too fixated on one school, but for any holistic review college you might be interested in, it is generally worth checking out their version of a “what we look for” page. Here is Princeton’s:
https://admission.princeton.edu/apply/before-you-apply/helpful-tip
I suggest paying close attention to the Our Advice section in particular:
Our Advice
Instead of worrying about meeting a specific set of criteria, try to create an application that will help us see your achievements — inside the classroom and out — in their true context, so we can understand your potential to take advantage of the resources at Princeton and the kind of contribution you would make to the Princeton community. Show us what kind of student you are. Show us that you have taken advantage of what your high school has to offer and how you have achieved and contributed in your own particular context.
We look for students who make a difference in their schools and communities, so tell us about your leadership activities, interests, special skills and other extracurricular involvements. Tell us if you’ve had a job or a responsibility in your home. Most Princeton students were academic standouts in high school. Most of them also invested their energy and talents in significant ways outside the classroom. We want to know what you care about, what commitments you have made and what you’ve done to act on those commitments.
Note this doesn’t really support spike theory. Instead, Princeton is actually telling you that like with Harvard, being an academic standout and having strong ECs is only part of what they are looking for. They also want “students who make a difference in their schools and communities,” and they want “to know what you care about, what commitments you have made and what you’ve done to act on those commitments.”
Rather than rely on generic advice like spike theory, I’d take all this very seriously, and think about how you can be the sort of person Princeton is describing, in your own honest way. I’d also emphasize again there is something strikingly normal about this, meaning Princeton, like Harvard, is really putting a lot of weight on the concept of contributing to your school and local community. But that of course makes sense–these are schools, and they want to craft a college community where students will add a lot of value to each others’ experiences. And spike theory tends to emphasize individual striving and glory, and doesn’t typically address being a particularly well-valued member of your school community.
(3) There are many viable paths to law school, including many possible majors at many possible schools. But if you want to be competitive for the top law schools, you typically need to get really good grades. I would therefore strongly advise you, no matter where you go, to be very open minded about what you end up studying.
Because it is impossible to know for sure at your point in life what will actually interest you most in college, what you will actually be best at in college, and so on. Being open minded therefore gives you the best chance of following a path that will actually work for you, versus what you just imagine years in advance, without much real information, will work for you.
And in fact, I would say one of the better reasons to be interested in a legal career–versus, say, an academic career–is that a lot of legal careers allow you to be constantly learning new things. And for some of us that worked out very well.
But a lot of people also end up feeling trapped in a law job they don’t like, or actually hate.
Legal careers can therefore for be good for the sorts of people who are in fact open minded about where their curiosity and talents lead them. Maybe not so good for people who are too fixed on the plans they formed long ago, without yet really having the information and self-knowledge necessary to form such plans.