<p>Tarhunt - thanks for the observations - very true, in my opinion. The thing is, the studies which gauge college “success” set a bar which is both low and understandably affected by a lot of things which are almost completely independent of academics, so that a lot of people fail to achieve that “success” for reasons having little to do any objective qualities assessable during the admissions process. “Success” is little more than a default, and “diligence” is a major factor in achieving that default. </p>
<p>There was a lengthy discussion in a bygone thread about what constituted a “qualified” applicant to a selective school. My opinion was that a student with about a 1200/1800 SAT or its equivalent should be able to complete four years at any college in America and graduate. Not necessarily in any major; not necessarily with honors, but graduate. Some will not, because they won’t work hard enough, or will choose a course of study for which they are not well suited, such as a hard science or engineering major. But they have enough basic “smarts” to get the job done - certainly at any large state university.</p>
<p>But that doesn’t mean that a student with an 1800 SAT is likely to be a good match for Yale or Duke or Caltech. There will be some who are - and those students will have 4.0 HSGPA’s (or close to it) and demonstrate by other means their ability to handle the challenge - but most will find it a poor fit, making their way through a selected major by dint of a lot of hard work and/or (as in the case of some recruited athletes) a lot of tutorial assistance. Most students with a 2000 SAT will tend to fit better at more selective colleges; 2200, even more so. That doesn’t mean any particular kid will get up in time to attend class, or finish his or her paper, or any of the other things that go into collegiate “success” - just that, on average, handling the academic part of it won’t be as big of a challenge for the higher test scorers as it is for others.</p>