<p>Which looks better?:
1.
A). 2400 SAT I
or
B). 36 ACT</p>
<p>2.
A). three 800 SAT IIs
or
B). five “5” scores on five AP exams</p>
<li><p>A). 2400 SAT and three 800 SATIIs
or
B). 36 ACT and 5 fives on five AP exams</p></li>
<li><p>A). three 800 SATIIs
or
B). one 2400 SAT I</p></li>
</ol>
<p>5.
A). 2400 SAT, 36 ACT, 240 PSAT, and three 800 SAT IIs
or
B). 4.0 UW GPA, valedictorian from one of the most competitive high schools in the nation, and 10 5s on AP exams.</p>
<p>um.....
They all look perfect.. I don't think colleges put emphasis on one test over another. A perfect ACT = a perfect SAT. Just look at the UC conversion charts. And you're comparing some very different things here... what is the point?</p>
<p>Um, you're obsessing about minor details. They don't think nearly as much about it as we do. Trust me! </p>
<p>Anyone with perfect stats across the board gets special scrutiny, but not necessarily in a good way. One of the valedictorians at my school had perfect grades and scores, great ECs (even managed to get a sport, track, in there among It's Academic) (that's so gay)...and he was rejected by both Harvard and Yale. Princeton took him, tho.</p>
<p>Being perfect on paper doesn't mean squat. Who you are as a person, and how well you can articulate in your essays who you are and why attending their school will help you in the next phase of your life, will make the difference in your app. Your stats don't need to be perfect, but if they're perfect and you show no personality, you're not getting in to too many places. If they're solid but you're a well-rounded person who has something to say and more to learn, you'd have an edge over the "perfect" candidates any day.</p>
<p>So don't obsess on dumb things like that. Go do something more interesting with your day and your brain.</p>
<p>1) in general, along the coasts, colleges prefer the SAT and in the more central regions of the US, colleges prefer the ACT</p>
<p>The percentage of applicants submitting the SAT is much higher than that for applicants submitted the ACT for colleges along the coast; thus colleges have more context to compare the student's SAT results with, which is better</p>
<p>also, ACT has score choice, so the kid that submitted a score of 36 could have taken it once or five times....can't tell....</p>
<p>also, nearly all students that know about both tests think ACT is easier (at least where i'm from); and i'm sure most colleges would believe this too</p>
<p>2) APs are definitely harder than SAT IIs; same company makes them, and everyone that's taken the AP and the SAT II exams in the same subject knows the SAT II exam is a watered down version of the AP one</p>
<p>3) SAT IIs are easier than the SAT I. enough said.</p>
<p>4) standardized test scores mean nothing without a strong high school transcript because perfect SAT scores and a low GPA means the kid's smart, but lazy; that said, a person with a strong transcript and solid (but not perfect) SAT scores would have a better chance than a person with perfect SAT and ACT scores, but a weak transcript (Bs, Cs; low rigor...)</p>
<p>really, azn..., b/c if i were a college, I would rather admit someone with really high potential and intellectual power, rather than someone who excels by grinding away and has no potential. B/c basically the person w/ the high GPA but low test scores is just someone who achieves academically by really hard work and is already achieving their max. potential.</p>
<p>There are a couple big flaws with your logic, lukeli.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>The ability and willingness to "grind away" is very important.</p></li>
<li><p>If a person has high test scores (which we will assume measures something called "potential") but a low GPA, then that person is <em>NOT</em> fulfilling his or her potential! So what reason is there to believe that he or she ever will?</p></li>
</ol>
<p>B. because GPA is the single most important thing for schools. high test scores and low gpa cant compenstate that much.</p>
<p>perplex...,</p>
<ol>
<li>It is important, but it is not the only thing that matters. If one achieves only by hard work, then the future would look kind of bleak for that person (compared to one who can achieve w/o as much work). So, I'm not saying that it's not important or that it's wrong, in fact it is desirable, but I'd rather have Einstein than a just hard worker...</li>
<li>You raise a very good point. However, there is a bigger chance that one who is lazy but has high potential in high school will fulfill his/her potential, than someone who is a hard worker with little potential to just suddenly develop a lot of potential.</li>
</ol>
<p>1) i said "solid" (but not perfect SAT scores), NOT LOW SAT SCORES!</p>
<p>2) if an Einstein doesn't have the desire to work at all, what use is he?</p>
<p>3) so you're telling me that a person who doesn't work hard through high school, but scores well on standardized tests, is going to magically gain a desire to fulfill his/her potential in college? do you have any proof of this? with all due respect, it sounds like a lot of bs to me.</p>
<p>azn..,
First of all, I was aiming my post at perplex...</p>
<p>Second of all, of course if an Einstein had no drive to work at all, then he is useless. But even if he had just some or a little desire, it would be very useful.</p>
<p>Lastly, I'm not saying that someone who doesn't work hard thru high school will be guaranteed to suddenly gain a desire to fulfill his potential; just that there is a higher chance that they will compared to one who is a hard worker with little potential to magically gain a lot of potential. I mean, one can consciously change one's work habits, but cannot by any means (unless he/she is very lucky) consciously change one's intellectual potential. So, while one is possible to change (maybe not likely, but at least possible), the other one is almost impossible to change. So odds are in favor of the person with the high test scores and intellectual potential.</p>
<p>Anyone agree with me? And don't forget the Opening Post.</p>
<p>Well, I think there is some middle ground. If a student has a "low" gpa like
3.6-3.9 (on CC it seems like that's low) and really good SAT scores, I think I may favor them over the 4.0 with decent ones. After all, it is still hard to get basically like 3.5+ in many schools, and SATs show that the average is lower due to a more rigorous coursework, school, etc. Since I seriously doubt a 3.7 is considered "lazy"- not perhaps total effort, but far from lackadasical- a decent GPA with stellar SATs perhaps shows you work hard and have potential, but just need a little more umph to get there.</p>
<p>Would HYP take a 2.5 with a 2400? I doubt it.
A 3.7 with a 2400? More likely</p>
<p>So I kind of agree with both I suppose.</p>
<p>You're right, katia11, when I saw low GPA I mean UW about 3.4-3.7 GPA. High I mean 3.9-4.0 UW.</p>
<p>Yes, lukeli, an arbitrarily small but positive probability that a smart person will start to work hard is always greater than a zero probability that a "dumb" hard worker will magically achieve great things.</p>
<p>The difficulty I see - and this goes into what katia mentioned about a middle ground - is that there is no (known) precise mathematical function which can be used to determine whether applicant A or applicant B will achieve more; the internal workings of the brain, combined with the many possible external factors influencing a person, are simply too much to deal with in their entirety. You might argue that SATs can provide a rough measure of potential, but achievement is a function both of potential and the degree of hard work. Has anyone rigorously determined the achievement function f(GPA,SAT)? Not to my knowledge. Therefore trying to pick one applicant over the other in one of the OP's scenarios, on the basis of "likely achievement," would ultimately be about as effective as random guessing.</p>
<p>Yes, it is random guessing, </p>
<p>but if you were forced to pick one, which would you pick:</p>
<p>one with about 5% probability of succeeding
or
one with about 0% probability of succeeding.
(Notice I made the numbers up...I didn't use any mathematical function).</p>
<p>BTW, is the AI kind of like an achievement function?</p>