<p>chinnychinchang, check out the Princeton admissions statistics I posted on the previous page. Whether you like it or not, it seems pretty obvious that a 2400 easily beats a 4.0.</p>
<p>username and chinny, you guys are changing the question and totally going off-topic. nobody is asking for your ill-informed opinions on what a high SAT score means.</p>
<p>As an example, if there are 27,000 applicants at H like there were last year, I'd imagine that thousands (I don't really know how many, probably about 5-10k) have a 4.0 (no B's), while ~150 have 2400s and ~700 have 2380+. Higher SAT scores are more distinctive, and if SAT II's are in the same 2380 (this is an arbitrary high score)+ range, you'll stand out even more.</p>
<p>after ~2200, SAT tutoring does nothing, btw.</p>
<p>It depends what the Bs are in. If they're in physical education or keyboarding or something dumb like that it doesn't matter either way. However, if the B's where in something like calculus I'd prefer a 2310 SAT and 4.0 uw to a 2400. I can always retake the SAT and get higher, but I can't retake a class.</p>
<p>depends on the school.</p>
<p>i'd rather have 2400 iin 99.7%, but i'd rather have a 4.0 at a famous, grade deflated school (ie, Stuy, Exeter-quality schools)</p>
<p>depends on the school, i would tend to think schools like WUSTL, Rice, Northwestern, NYU would lean towards the 2400 where as schools like Michigan and Berkeley would favor the 4.0</p>
<p>and all of those are great schools by the way so it really depends where you want to go</p>
<p>No school will "favor the 4.0." Some might give it more emphasis than it is given at other colleges, but a 2400 is more impressive assuming you don't go to a very elite, grade deflated school.</p>
<p>
[quote]
username and chinny, you guys are changing the question and totally going off-topic. nobody is asking for your ill-informed opinions on what a high SAT score means.
[/quote]
not true. I didn't go off topic. The question was which one is better. And I say 4.0 because it's harder (for people who know their stuff. but for people who know less, 4.0 is easier). I never said what a high SAT score means in my opinion. It's clear which you think is easier when you can't read and comprehend what i said properly...</p>
<p>
[Quote]
No school will "favor the 4.0." Some might give it more emphasis than it is given at other colleges, but a 2400 is more impressive assuming you don't go to a very elite, grade deflated school.
[/Quote]
</p>
<p>Sorry, but that's definitely not true for Michigan and most likely not true for Berkeley. At my grade deflated school we have seen this happen in person with applicants to top publics. In Michigan's previous point system a 1360/1600 was equated to a 1600/1600, there was no distinction. It is my understanding that they haven't changed this, Michigan still highly cares about GPA and after a 2100 on the SAT it doesn't matter. I also know Berkeley cares about GPA a whole lot, and with a sub 4.0 UC (roughly comparable to a 3.7 UW) GPA you'd have a very low chance of admission to Berkeley while Berkeley routinely takes kids with 1800-1900 on the SATs because of their 4.3 UC GPA (pretty much 4.0 UW)</p>
<p>Admissions</a> Chart</p>
<p>Without a doubt a perfect SAT score is weighted more heavily than a 4.0. It's true that you have to "keep up" a 4.0, but unless you're going to a very good private high school, it really doesn't take much effort (for those who are capable of scoring a 2400). Grade inflation is so flagrant at my school that there are people who maintain 3.5s (who don't study and have--literally--not read a single book or textbook passage all year) and who scored in the 110s on the PSAT.</p>
<p>Hmm that chart was from 1999. Do you have anything more recent?</p>
<p>Uh. That chart also says an underrepresented minority with a 400/1600 on the SAT would be favored over a white/Asian with a perfect score...</p>
<p>Good thing it was struck down...</p>
<p>I actually don't because it was ruled illegal in Michigan (I think in 2004 or something) for Michigan to add points because of race but legal to do admissions holistically, while considering race. Therefore, they stopped doing admissions on a point basis, however most critics cited that there was little if any change in Michigan's admission process. However, later in 2006, it was illegal in Michigan to even consider race in college admissions, but people are not sure how different college admissions at Michigan has become, but it's still pretty certain that they didn't change their academic qualifications much (only in response to the increasing quality of students). You can ask Alexandre on this one, but from the results of college admission at my school it seems Michigan's holistic admissions is still a shadow of the former point-based system without the inclusion of race.</p>
<p>it was michigan law school.
and i think a school in california had an issue.
all it says is that race cannot be a sole decider in admissions.
but it can definitely take part in it.</p>
<p>Interpreting the question ("Which one looks more impressive to adcom officials?") literally, there is no doubt that the 2400 would raise an eyebrow more readily than a 4.0. As has been stated numerous times, a 2400 is vastly rarer than a 4.0. Fewer than 300 students a year score a 2400, whereas tens of thousands of students carry a 4.0 all four years of high school. The perfect score will make an applicant stand out; a 4.0, by itself, won't.</p>
<p>On the other hand, a 4.0 is impressive if it's supported by 1) a very challenging courseload supplemented by stellar AP/IB scores, and/or 2) it was achieved at a school traditionally known for grade deflation/lower GPAs. A 4.0 at a top private boarding school, for example, would probably carry just as much weight as a 2400.</p>
<p>In general, with the exception stated above, a 2400 is the more highly regarded of the two. But it's not like getting both is impossible -- so why not try to go for the double-whammy, which, without question is more impressive than either by itself...?</p>
<p>In my grade I think 2 people got 2400s(one I know did, the other I think did but don't completely remember). 2 or 3 people also had 4.0 uw gpas I think, no one had a 5.0 weighted gpa though since that was impossible until the year after us without skipping 2 years of foreign language.</p>
<p>Uh 4.0 myself actually. I had a weaker gpa than sat scores already so with the gpa I had a 2400 would make me look lazy, and the gpa would have helped more.</p>
<p>for reference 4.4/5 (roughly 3.5 uw never bothered to find out) and 1480/1600 2170/2400 sats(damn writing section).</p>
<p>The National Association of College Admissions Counselors (NACAC) agrees with those of us who think that the standardized tests are an important data point in the college admissions process. Here is how they rank the various factors traditionally used:</p>
<p>Considerable Weight , Moderate Weight , Limited or No Weight </p>
<p>75.9% , 17.4% , 6.7% , Grades in college prep courses
61.5% , 25.3% , 13.2% , Strength of curriculum
60.4% , 27.9% , 11.7% , Standardized Test scores (SAT, ACT)
51.2% , 36.4% , 12.5% , Grades in all courses
27.9% , 30.6% , 41.5% , Essay and/or writing sample
23.1% , 38.6% , 38.3% , Class rank
21.2% , 40.7% , 38.0% , Counselor recommendation
20.8% , 31.2% , 48.1% , Student's demonstrated interest
19.5% , 41.1% , 39.3% , Teacher recommendation
10.4% , 23.1% , 66.5% , Interview
7.6% , 37.0% , 55.4% , Extra-curricular activities
7.6% , 23.5% , 68.8% , Subject test scores (AP, IB)
6.3% , 13.4% , 80.4% , State graduation exam scores
5.2% , 8.5% , 86.3% , SAT II scores
2.9% , 21.5% , 75.5% , Work</p>
<p>
[quote]
7.6% , 37.0% , 55.4% , Extra-curricular activities
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That survey is yet another reminder of just how different the admissions process at top schools is from that of most colleges in the United States.</p>
<p>weasel,
Maybe, maybe not. The weightings are relative. In an admissions process like that at top schools, there are large numbers that are qualified on the academic datapoints and then other factors like ECs will decide their fate. But rarely is a student getting admitted based on an EC as a deciding factor ahead of their academic record. Exceptions would be athletes and others with similar hooks.</p>
<p>I think we're looking at two sides of the same coin. You're right that a student usually needs to have solid academics before EC's come into play. And as you said, a great many are academically qualified. But since EC's often play a critical role in deciding which students among this large group of applicants are admitted, I think that the 55.4% number is far too high.</p>
<p>
[quote]
after ~2200, SAT tutoring does nothing, btw.
[/quote]
Well I'm glad I've been informed about this.</p>