...I would say that the kiddos that went to HYPS etc did have the "core" of good grades ( 4.0 un-weighted), IB diploma, AP scholar or better, over 100 hours of community service (at DD's school this does not include the 50 or more done for IB) and leadership in student organizations. Then they went on to do things like qualify for AIME , be an Intel Science Fair finalist, volunteer over 500 hours with local government, etc. So, another vote for well rounded AND pointy.
73% of admitted students had a 4.0
95% were in the top 10% of their class
Harvard (see here:
http://features.thecrimson.com/2014/freshman-survey/admissions/) had "only" 54% with a 4.0, but looking at a plot of GPA vs SAT demonstrates that high GPA and high test scores both characteristics of admitted students.
See, I find this information to be really depressing. IMO, these colleges are basically saying that there's no room for making mistakes, with B+ grades (or really, even A-'s) apparently counting as "mistakes."
Personally, I believe that our society really, really needs people who screwed up, dusted themselves off only to mess up again, and eventually learned from their mistakes and made something out of them.
This perfectionism-itis is especially bad for STEM aspirants. Given that tenure and grant funding decisions work on basically the same principle as above, the message is, "Don't do anything risky." Which, of course, is where all the interesting stuff is. Oh well.
