<p>Greetings CC Community!</p>
<p>It is my intention to know which, if any, among “intelligence” and “diligence” count more in college applications. Are universities looking for einsteins who can sleep through lectures and yet score exceptionally because of their superior IQ or are universities looking for assiduous individuals who compensate their lack of super human intelligence with tenacious work?</p>
<p>The very top colleges have the luxury of seeking intelligence with high stats and strong EC accomplishments. Due to attracting an overabundance of high achieving, intelligent applicants, and due to having the highest graduation rates in the country, top colleges aren’t interested in admitting students whose only asset is a willingness to work night and day to get good grades. </p>
<p>Other colleges that struggle to have decent graduation rates would be delighted to have diligent students who can be counted upon to graduate from college.</p>
<p>Based on what most look at most strongly (class rank), intelligence without follow through won’t get anyone far at top schools. Some lower ranked schools do take chances on kids with high scores as the scores help their rankings.</p>
<p>Top colleges absolutely do not look most strongly at class rank.</p>
<p>They want kids who can intelligently apply hard work. </p>
<p>Seriously, it’s not as though you can really extract these elements. Kids at top schools will have a fair amount of natural intelligence, but without top stats and top ECs–both of which are procured through a combination of raw intelligence and persistence–you won’t be admitted. But they are looking for interesting people, so if the only way you maintain your 4.0 is by putting your nose to the grindstone and studying incessantly, don’t hold your breath.</p>
<p>As NSM mom said, however, there are less competitive schools that would be more than happy to accept diligent kids.</p>
<p>It is easier for a diligent person to appear intelligent than for an intelligent person to appear diligent, but it is easier for an intelligent person to become diligent than for a diligent person to become intelligent. That’s just the difference between talent and effort in general.</p>
<p>To actually answer your question, top colleges pretty much require both. Beyond that, it really depends. A harder working person is likely to gain more sympathy and can be expected to do well more reliably. However, when the work gets extremely hard I imagine someone with natural talent is at an advantage. They can step it up if necessary whereas a student who already works hard will reach their limit sooner or later.</p>
<p>Diligence > Intelligence. In terms of college admissions, at least. The 4.0, 2100 will fare better than the 3.6, 2300 almost every time. Unfortunately, I’ve found this out firsthand.</p>
<p>Both together.</p>
<p>Both needed, without either you won’t get far.</p>
<p>I believe that in college/university settings, the importance of intelligence exceeds that of diligence by a factor of at least five. I am in agreement with what was said in one of the comments above – that it is easier for an intelligent person to be diligent than for a diligent person to be intelligent. This statement implies that intelligent students possess the capacity to work hard and thereby amalgamate their superior intelligence with the benefits of diligence but diligent studens with average IQ are highly improbable to augment their intelligence through hard work and will thus be at a disadvantage of not being able to reap benefits of both qualities.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>that’s an idiotic comparison considering 2100 is already immensely high and indicative of intelligence. </p>
<p>OTOH, if you had said there’s a difference between an 1800 and a 4.0 student vs. a 3.6 student and a 2300 student then i would have agreed; esp since there are an abundant of students with 1800s and 4.0s getting accepted into colleges <em>cough</em> the UCs <em>cough</em></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The answer is familiar, and it applies to most selection processes, not only college admission.</p>
<p>At the lower levels of performance selection (whether academic, athletic, artistic or anything else), conscientiousness predominates. This is visible throughout life on measures of literacy, school completion, college attendance and graduation, employment, marriage, health, and home ownership. At higher levels of performance selection, talent becomes increasingly important.</p>
<p>@wheatbread: 2100 is not immensely high. It’s pretty good, but, especially if it is achieved as a result of backbreaking studying, it’s not particularly strong.</p>
<p>OP’s question has one obvious and simple answer. Top colleges are looking for BOTH. One without the other is no good at a top college, and I would say that both factors are about equally important.</p>
<p>Since one is innate and only one can be acquired, why do you care?</p>
<p>Both are required; being superbly *igent will not outweigh the need for the other. No matter HOW *igent you are, you need both. </p>
<p>But you really don’t need superb *igence if you have above average of both - being the most *igent person in the world is not appreciably better than being sufficiently *igent.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Saying that two factors are both desirable (or that there is a required threshold for both) in a selection process doesn’t answer the substance of the question. </p>
<p>If you want a routine or unskilled job, or admission to a middle-of-the-road university, then evidence of diligence and related factors (such as conscientiousness, responsibility, finishing tasks, work ethic, honesty, etc) will have relatively more influence compared to talent factors, than in a selection for a prized specialized job or admission to a top university. The relative importance of innate or developed “talent” factors (such as intelligence, creativity, musicality, charisma, sex appeal, position in a national ranking of chess players or athletes, etc) will grow tremendously as the standard of selection is raised higher and higher.</p>
<p>Either will only take you so far, so you need both.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>^ This. 10char</p>
<p>^^Agree, too.</p>