<p>Ever since I discovered CC, I've been told many times that GPA easily trumps test scores and that a high GPA/low SAT kid would have a far better chance than a low GPA/high SAT kid because it's better to be considered a "hard-working bad test taker" than a "smart slacker". However, in Barnes and Noble today, I flipped through the book A is for Admission by a Dartmouth assistant director of admissions. In one of the chapters, it mentioned the distinction between high GPA/low SAT kids and low GPA/high SAT kids. Here's what it said:</p>
<p>"The last important observation is that despite what Ivy League admissions officers will admit if you ask them, most value high scores and decent grades much more than decent scores and high grades. There is something undeniably impressive about a student who scores over 750 on the CR, math, and writing portion of the SAT and who scores in the high 700s on 3 SAT IIs. </p>
<p>It used to surprise me that even the director of admissions at Dartmouth would make excuses for students with extremely high scores. I'm not talking about C students, but students who did modestly well in high school (top 15% or B-category grades) and had astoundingly high test scores. Often during committee deliberations, I would hear him say, "With those scores, I bet Caroline was just bored with her classes and her teachers. I bet she would take off if challenged by other brilliant people in an Ivy League classroom." You would never hear the same argument for someone with a number-one rank and all low 600 scores. The comments would run more like this: "Despite the impressive rank and GPA, we can only assume that his high school is very weak or that Tom is a real grind who would study all day and continue to do here what he did in high school. "</p>
<p>This was a real surprise to me because of what I've been told repeatedly in the past. And now that I think of it, there may be a reason why a student from my school with a low GPA and 2400 (from what I've heard, his ECs and essays were good but not extraordinary) was accepted to Dartmouth last year. What are your opinions on this? Do you think that the "4 years of work > 4 hours in a room" saying is true, or is the importance of test scores way underrated (of course, both high GPA and SAT is optimal)?</p>
<p>I know nothing of what goes on in an admissions officer’s head. Honestly, I have spent over a year of obsessing trying to figure it out. One admissions officer tells me to worry more about grades because most schools understand that SATs and ACTs can give varying results. GPA is always the most important thing. Then I was told that there were gray areas, where it matters more that you are focused on certain subjects and extra curriculars, and then I was told that in reality admissions officers don’t think you have any business trying to specialize just yet, and rather you should have a variety of interests and excel in all areas. Basically, since the beginning of my junior year, I have heard everything…</p>
<p>So I have given up on making guesses. I have decent test scores and a decent GPA, and I love my ECs, so whatever happens happens and that is the best advice I could ever give to anyone: do your absolute best at everything, don’t punish yourself for BS like not having that 750 somewhere, and do what you love. But I digress…wow. I digress a lot.</p>
<p>In my own opinion on the actual topic at hand. Test scores are not adequate indications of intelligence. But hey, that is just my opinion. On the other hand, while I definitely believe coursework(notice I did not just say GPA) is extremely important as well, there should always be some room for the occasional simple course or B grade. If you never need that awesome, but just because we are students does not mean we are not also humans who make mistakes and get distracted and go through rough personal periods. </p>
<p>So yes, 4 years of work> 4 hours in a room.</p>
<p>Okay. Longest post in the history of man. My sincerest apologies. :)</p>
<p>You can’t take a quote for Dartmouth and apply it to the entire college system. The type of student that Dartmouth is looking for represents a verrrrry small portion of the college-going population.</p>
<p>Back in the last century when I was an alum recruiter for my recognizable-on-CC-highly-selective-LAC, I was told flat out that the high school transcript was more important than test. The alum recruiters I’ve spoken with in recent years have told me that that particular policy hasn’t changed.</p>
<p>I’m in that low GPA/high SAT range, but one thing to keep in mind is that each school has its own difficulty level–I went to one of the top HSs in the nation from 9-10 and received mostly low Bs, then transferred to an average school where I earned mostly solid As. A 4.0 at one school could easily be a 3.5 at another, etc. etc. I personally think that the SAT tests test-taking ability and grades gauge work ethic…intelligence lies somewhere in between…?</p>
<p>I think in the end, what Ms. Hernandez tells us is that you better have both a high GPA and high SAT score. Since she wrote the first edition things have changed pretty dramatically. Back then, schools didn’t have the tens of thousands of perfect applicants from all over the globe. They could forgive a slightly low GPA or SAT score. No more. Today you need great everything. I think Ms. Hernandez would agree.</p>
<p>I would say high test scores are definitely the most influential. Whenever you see a “chance me” thread, what do you look at first? I’d bet it’s the SAT/ACT. We all know just how much GPA varies, so I almost feel like that number is invalid, especially given the enormous and incalculable differences in course difficulty. </p>
<p>I know we all see complaints that one test doesn’t show how smart someone is. Maybe it doesn’t, but the fact is that standardized tests are how colleges have chosen to judge. I get confused by people who say they “just don’t test well”; you wouldn’t go to a tennis tournament and when you lose, complain that “I’m just not a good tennis player, I’m much better at pingpong!”</p>
<p>Tl;dr: What do you see as more impressive, a 4.0 GPA or a 2400 SAT? /thread</p>
<p>^Because of grade inflation, the SAT effectively caps out a lot higher than GPA does. I think both ways of evaluating students have their flaws. Certain students are advantaged or disadvantaged by looking at GPAs, and other students are advantaged or disadvantaged if you look at test scores. That’s why the college uses both in combination.</p>
<p>Srsly, NerdyAsianKid, I am an adult telling you that what’s done is done. You should be working on your college app essays. You will have plenty of time Jan - Mar to revisit this topic.</p>