<p>All of you must still be in high school. I'd hate to be the one that has to say this , but your credentials from high school aren't worth ***** once you enroll in college and begin taking classes. Your SAT scores and G.P.A. won't even be used to determine which classes you'll be taking your first semester. Each school has their own set of placement exams, all of which are more relevant than the SAT, that you will take during orientation to determine which courses you should be placed in freshman year. It is how well you do on these tests that determine how your academic college experience will be, not your SAT/ACT scores, your high school G.P.A., your ECs, or your class rank. Also, none of your professors or advisors will EVER inquire about your high school credentials EVER, as they won't care. The only thing they'll care about is if you can do the work listed on the course's syllabus, if they even care about that.</p>
<p>jedo, touche.</p>
<p>I think that GPA and SAT are about equal. I know people who should be getting B's and C's but is getting A's and B's because that person cheated. I have also seen another thread where people have talked about people getting into Princeton or Harvard by cheating their way through high school. So GPA can sometimes be an inaccurate description of a person.</p>
<p>i dont think SAT's and GPA are equal</p>
<p>it just depends, with a 2200 SAT and 3.2GPA, ur chances are bleak for top school</p>
<p>with a 2100 SAT and 3.8 GPA, u chances are better than the above guy</p>
<p>with a 2300 GPA and 3.8 GPA, u should be better off than both the above ones</p>
<p>of course, remember other stuff counts too</p>
<p>GPA and SAT may not really be "equal"....u know what im saying?</p>
<p>ya. i change my response. i think GPA is wegihted a little more than SAT but tests such as AP tests and sAT I's are still needed.</p>
<p>I just think GPA is more important. If you work hard in high school you'll work hard in college and in your job. Even if you go to an "easy" school, it's never easy to get good grades. I would rather have a hard worker than a smart slacker!</p>
<p>
[quote]
I took the IQ test when I was in sixth grade. I asked my mom about it this morning. She said that I was old enough that I wouldn't get a big head about it now and told me my score. I got a 154.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I was about to ask how old you were when you to this SAT test. The way they calculate IQ for kids is very different than how they calculate IQ for adults. For kids, the formula is 100 X mental age/chronological age. So a 10 year old who scored as high as the average 13 year old would have an IQ of 130. Your score of 154 indicated that as an 11 year old, you scored as high as an average 16.5 year old.</p>
<p>"Hepstar, there is a correlation between SAT score and future earnings. It's not really debatable."</p>
<p>Maybe there is. However, I'm sure that there is a correlation between GPA and future earnings. I'm willing to bet that it correlates higer than SAT scores.</p>
<p>I have like a 2-3 GPA and 1540/1600 SAT =P Well 2-3 GPA for school reports. I had straight A*s for GCSEs and As for AS (British examination) A competitive high school can have a massive difference to how hard it is to get a high gpa. The highest grade in my english class was a C...so the top student would have a 2.0 average? My school caters mainly for entry to British Universities where our school grades don't matter as much, hence the very harsh grading, and generally teachers never gives out A's in case we aren't motivated to work for the examinations.</p>
<p>You know how Harvard says they reject 2/3 of all valedictorians that apply each year? Well I'd bet the majority of the 'valedictorians' are those from uncompetitive high schools who get 4.0 averages yet only 1600/2400 SATs. In some schools it can be impossible to get 4.0's...Short of breaking both arms before the SAT and having to write holding a pencil in between your teeth, there shouldn't be anything stopping someone intelligent from getting >2100-2200 in the SAT.</p>
<p>"You know how Harvard says they reject 2/3 of all valedictorians that apply each year? Well I'd bet the majority of the 'valedictorians' are those from uncompetitive high schools who get 4.0 averages yet only 1600/2400 SATs. In some schools it can be impossible to get 4.0's..."</p>
<p>I really dont want to get into an argument about all of this again lol, BUT anyway I just want say something Harvard doesnt accept people with only 1600/2400 (this is 1600 out of 2400 not a perfect score) just because they have a 4.0</p>
<p>"Short of breaking both arms before the SAT and having to write holding a pencil in between your teeth, there shouldn't be anything stopping someone intelligent from getting >2100-2200 in the SAT."</p>
<p>So if you're intelligent you can score over 2200 on the SATs?
Where are you getting this from? the SATs do NOT test your intellgence. Yes I do understand scoring under 1600 or so does show you aren't AS inteligent as people with 2200, but frankly, I feel that if you reach a certain score 1900 or so it wont really make you more inteliigenct than a person with a 2200, you know?</p>
<p>Gee. That's odd. Since the SAT was modeled on an IQ test and has around a .8 correlation to IQ, which is massive.</p>
<p>is the GRE also this sort of an IQ test, something like the SAT? or r u required to study more for that one?</p>
<p>koolcrud, where are you getting this information from? the SAT is NOT an IQ test. How does IQ test memorization, how does IQ test some you can prep for? An IQ isnt a test where if u study you will get a higher scores, its not supposed to be that way.</p>
<p>eh, who knows. i would like to think of myself as a pretty mediocre standard test taker...but maybe it comes down to more than that.</p>
<p>gpa: 3.54
sat I: 600 verbal 600 math 540 writing</p>
<p>i took it once and didn't prep for it. honestly i only have myself to blame for not preparing and i regretted not taking it again for awhile...i'm pretty much over it now though. cause uh, despite its influence, its still just a test.</p>
<p>
[quote]
So if you're intelligent you can score over 2200 on the SATs?
Where are you getting this from? the SATs do NOT test your intellgence. Yes I do understand scoring under 1600 or so does show you aren't AS inteligent as people with 2200, but frankly, I feel that if you reach a certain score 1900 or so it wont really make you more inteliigenct than a person with a 2200, you know?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You can't even spell the word intelligent correct. Also a person of a high intelligence does have a good reasoning ability. The SAT is highly geared and aimed towards finding the reasoning ability of an individual. A dumb persons ability to have a high reasoning ability is HIGHLY unlikely. High reasoning and intelligence tend to be directly proportional for probably 99% of the population.</p>
<p>By the way the definition of reasoning is: the process of forming conclusions, judgments, or inferences from facts or premises.</p>
<p>You think a dumb person has a high reasoning ability? Come on, in all seriousness they are right.</p>
<p>SAT measures more intelligence. Grades don't measure a spec of intelligence. They measure effort. No matter how high your school is ranked, the grade still measures very little of the intelligence factor. If you go to a neighborhood school or a mediocre one you really can't expect to try and argue that your GPA reflects intelligence because that is BS.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>++++++++
Totally agree with that!!!!</p>
<p>"You can't even spell the word intelligent correct. "</p>
<p>*correctly</p>
<p>sorry...it was bothering me. </p>
<p>I think that SAT's would be a good indicator of intelligence if there wasn't the option to study/prepare/read about it. Along with GPA's, SAT's DO show effort more than intelligence. Somebody who went and took an SAT prep course will obviously do better than somebody with the same level of intelligence. </p>
<p>I do agree though that GPA is not an indicator of intelligence as much as the SAT's in terms of national standards, and even within the same school. There are teachers on opposite sides of the spectrum in terms of difficulty within every school, and it is pure luck that people will get the easier ones...and therefore the A's.</p>
<p>So where are we going with this? colleges want both efforts and intelligence. I guess this means you have to do good at school and get a high score on SAT. Simple. Getting high scores on SAT would be little tough though but if you try, it would definitely make big difference</p>
<p>^^ I was responding the argument about which one is BETTER. Obviously colleges are looking for both intelligence and effort, but which option, SAT's or GPA's show more intelligence?</p>
<p>That was just my opinion about which one.</p>
<p>Nam3less, "You can't even spell the word intelligent correct" omg, I forgot to write the letter "l", Im such an idiot! wow, you really got back at me...idiot. its correctly btw.
so most of you are saying that getting a 2200 makes you more intelligent than a person with a 2000, right? so say you get 500 on CR, you memorize all the words on the barrons word list, do a few practice tests and you raise your score to a 700, so you become more intelligent because you sat down and memorized words?
The SAT does measure your intelligence to a certain extent, but you cant just say flat out a person with a high SAT score is really intelligent and person with a low one is stupid. It just makes no sense.</p>