<p>I saw a post in another thread that I thought would be a great thread-starter for the Parents Forum: </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t think I would take quite the same view if I were an admission officer, but what do you think? Which applicant would you choose? Why? </p>
<p>Also, is there a college (or more than one) that takes the point of view of the quoted participant? Are there colleges that offer high probabilities of admission to applicants with a “brilliant underachiever” profile?</p>
<p>I think by hardworking overachiever the poster meant that the student is only hardworking, but not brilliant.</p>
<p>The hardworking person has already achieved his ‘max,’ and a brilliant person who can set himself to do something has a much higher potential.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>How do we know that for sure?</p>
<p>Tokenadult:</p>
<p>I do believe adcoms are concerned about the possibility that hardworking overachievers will not be able to make the extra effort it takes to do well in college where standards of excellence are much higher than in high school. This is why we see so many kids with high stats not get admitted and others with lesser stats get in. Many think this is the result of capriciousness on the part of adcoms, or of their valuing extra-academic pursuits. While there is truth to this, concern over maxing out is an important factor. This is why teacher’s recs can wreck an applicant’s chances with adjectives such as “conscientious,” “hard-working,” “diligent” and similar descriptions. Recs that describe a student as creative, imaginative, insightful, great in discussions, etc… make a much better impression. And keep in mind the teachers’ rec form from MIT in which teachers are asked how the student got the grades s’/he got: being grade-conscious/good at memorization/hard-working/brilliant. Clearly brilliant is expected to trump hard-working.</p>
<p>However, the brilliant underachiever is not advantaged in admissions at all. There is the feeling that someone who has not acquired the appropriate self-discipline and study skills will not do well in college. It’s too late. I will never forget overhearing two members of an admission committee discussing a n applicant with perfect SATs but so-so grades (i did not get to learn what they considered so-so grades). But they were agreed that “We don’t want underachieving slackers. They won’t cut it here.” Or words to that effect. Obviously, this was not an admission meeting. But I doubt that this applicant with the perfect SATs made it into the pool of admits at that college.</p>
<p>My school’s headmaster said something like that to my mom once (she’s chair of the board, so no sharing of private information). Two kids applied to a certain, very selective school: one got in, one did not. The girl who didn’t get in had done some pretty amazing things, so there was some surprise that she was rejected when the other boy got in. My headmaster pointed out that the girl was already operating at 100%–she would do the same amazing things no matter what college she attended because she was so internally driven. The other kid is no slacker, and I wouldn’t call him an underachiever, but he wasn’t working at full capacity yet. I’m sure it was clear on his application that he’s extremely smart and talented, but he hadn’t shown yet how far he could take his abilities. He hadn’t been pushed yet; the other girl didn’t need to be pushed.</p>
<p>I’m not sure what I think. I do think there’s a desirable balance between the two, though.</p>
<p>Edit: Just read Marite’s post. I like what she said very much, and I think she’s on target.</p>
<p>How would an adcom know if a student is brilliant underachiever or a hardworking overachiever, assuming both have the same grades and test scores (the underachiever was too lazy to prepare for the SAT while the overachiever has been studying for it for two years)? Recs only say so much too. How do my teachers know if I spend 5 hours studying each night or 5 minutes?</p>
<p>Give me a team of hardworking overachievers and I will move a mountain. Give me an underachiever and it may or may not get done depending on some impending inspiration.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I could write a book…</p>
<p>I think a brilliant underachiever could easily become an overachiever if he finds something that interests him and is pushed to pursue it. </p>
<p>Let’s face it, those brilliant underachievers are probably the type that don’t find high school chemistry and English very stimulating.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I could write a book…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Of course not. But the ones that aren’t slackers turn in the HW anyway. They get As on tests without studying, and look for the challenge outside of school.</p>
<p>Supose this underachiever took only ONE SAT test, got the score s/he wanted, then too lazy to took 2nd time. While the hard working overachiever had taken several times, got to be if s/he have been studied for two years, to get the same score? adcom certainly see the history of your SAT score.</p>
<p>And there are personal essais, more or less, adcom could tell from the stuff you writen?</p>
<p>I would take “Brilliant SLIGTLY Underachiever” for the reason stated in the quote. Only that much slack I would give to a ‘lazy’ kid. Guess that’s why college app have you listed the time (hours/wk) you spend on activities, even the trivias ones. In order to judg if you are maxed out by spending all your time studying…But nowadays with internet, I couldn’t imagine such kid, who studies all the time, exists any more.</p>
<p>WashDad, may I be invited to write a few chapters for your books, please?</p>
<p>I’m having trouble with the concept of 'brilliant underachiever," I mean, if an individual is truly brilliant in the terms we’re speaking of, I find it hard to believe how underachieving they could possibly be. I know several people who maintain excellent grades in high level classes without the dedication of the hardworker, just based on their sheer intellect.</p>
<p>The answer, of course, is that the top schools and the top scholarships at the “not quite top” schools are looking for the brilliant overachiever. With community service. ;)</p>
<p>Not underachieving to the point of failing a class or barely passing with Ds and such, but one who pulls decent grades but can do so much better, and really doesn’t care to do so. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s assuming way too much. Some classes assign very little homework, or the homework simply doesn’t weigh very much. A brilliant underachiever would be able to pull an A without studying, but the opposition to a brilliant underachiever was a hardworking overachiever, which I look at as one who would be studying.</p>
<p>The top schools are looking for brilliance. HS GPA is not a good measure of it - at most schools you don’t need to be brilliant to get straight As.</p>
<p>There are certain personality traits that can be deduced through student’s transcript (high grades in challenging classes, but Bs in easy required-for-graduation ones probably would not get anyone rejected from college; student that retakes 2350 SAT 3-4 times, on the other hand, might raise some eyebrows…). But brilliance usually shows up way beyond the grades. What top schools are looking for is the true intellectual curiosity that drives the kids to go on their own beyond any requirements.</p>
<p>It depends on what they want to achieve. If they got all D’s but they’re a great novelist, than they’re actually pretty ambitious.</p>
<p>i study philosophy in my free time, i also have a 3.0 . i would hope the colleges that i’ve applied to will see that i am internally motivated, just not so much for school.</p>
<p>^I guess colleges would still be worried that you wouldn’t magically start being motivated for college school work? Would they have a problem with that? I suppose it depends on the college.</p>