Curious about this too. Sort of a popular logic I've never sincerely questioned that most people applying to these schools have the test scores/GPAs etc so you're sort of lost in a sea of 'excellence'. (Only put quotes because it would only be one narrow definition - I was excellent at Unreal Tournament, setting up LAN parties, and eating Jack tacos).

> I was excellent at Unreal Tournament, setting up LAN parties

Interestingly, with good enough scores and grades and a slight spin on this skill set (e.g., setting up large scale LAN tournaments, being world ranked in UT, etc.), you would distinguish yourself from the “sea of excellence” (you are correct that scores and grades are a narrow and incomplete definition by Ivy admissions standards).

> Isn't admissions into the Ivies mostly a crapshoot after you reach a certain GPA/SAT threshold?

In general, it is not a crapshoot.

There are some things that are very doable by any reasonable Ivy admit that will set them apart. Cal Newport has written quite a bit about this, and I agree with most (if not all) of what he says.

It may seem like a crap shoot, because some/many folks don’t realize what it is about a successful admit’s application that sets them apart. Fwiw, it’s not “better SAT and GPA” or “one more extracurricular”.