@Hermit9, where did you find the admission stats for IS vs. OOS applicants? I can’t locate those on the GT website, but would be very interested in reviewing them. Can you possibly post the link? Thanks!
@3567monroe My school uses Naviance, so that’s where my IS stats arecoming from. If you look at the ratio of OOS to IS, compare the holistic scoring averages to those of IS, you should be able to calculate an OOS average score range.
@Hermit9 I don’t have access to Naviance. Could you please give us more information on those numbers - basically the difference between IS and OOS scoring averages? Thanks!
Not the best idea to apply to Tech as a safety. Schools also have weird yield protecting strategies when they see that sort of thing…given that the other schools(except maybe Caltech) OP applied too are generally very holistic (and thus chances are even more random and probably much less), a school where you are rare (not Tech I don’t think) and offers a CS major should be chosen as an actual safety. However, I hear that even with Tech’s newly improved stats…many people in a certain range from solid Ga HS’s get in. I was surprised when one friend told me that there were many people still getting into Tech but not Emory (more so than the reverse) which makes no sense to me because Tech’s scores or higher. My guess is that there is a mixture of less holistic and yield protection strategies that explains a lot of the admissions decisions. They really did take advantage of the common app. (and the increase in application numbers) to raise stats very quickly whereas many elite schools, especially privates do this much lesser so (they select based on stats, but then diversity, and intensity and depth of EC’s. Essays and interviews also matter a crap ton). However, there may be the concern that those in Tech’s top 75% which is pretty high, are aiming for else where, whether it be another STEM-oriented school or not. This can lead to a desire to be careful about how many super high stats applicants are accepted because they know that many are not that interested in it as a 1st, 2nd, or even 3rd choice unfortunately. Applying to selective schools clearly doing this sort of balancing act is dangerous.
I would not consider Georgia Tech a safety school for you - or for anyone else. You are instate, which is a big leg up, but many of my sorority sisters had biological sisters apply last year with better stats than they had a few years ago and the younger siblings were not admitted. Recently, the acceptance rate has been about 30%. Will you get in? Quite possibly. Will you definitely get in? No, I think Georgia Tech is more of a “match” or “target” school. One thing admissions has done recently is say if you attend any other USG school for the first year or two and have a certain GPA, we will guarantee transfer admission. I think you can probably bank on that option. Good luck!
GT should not be considered a safety. After they joined the Common App your chances of getting in are not much better than in some of teh universities that your mentioned. Get Alabama or Auburn or Clemson as your safety you should qualify for in state tuition.
Although your GPA is a little low, you should get accepted into GT based on your other credentials.
Hey guys just an update–I was accepted to georgia tech early and recently (through an interview process) became a Presidential Scholarship Program Finalist. In case you guys are curious, I was rejected by Caltech, accepted by MIT (Regular Decision), Yale, Cornell, UCLA, and waitlisted at Harvard, Duke, and UC Berkeley.
Many congrats to you! I’m sure you’ll do well wherever you choose. Thank you for updating the community on what ultimately worked out. A lot of students ask questions on CC but never update the community, and so it kind of just leaves everyone hanging (and people can never tell what if the advice they gave worked out). Congratulations again!
@InPursuit You say, “Tech will not consider the non-core classes that the OP noted are padding her high school calculated GPA”
So you think Tech would not view non-core courses favorably even if they were in line with a students intended major? That means a student should pick courses only to maximize their GPA not take courses they are passionate about (core and non-core). Tech would consider a B in English Honors for a computer science applicant as a deal breaker even if s/he earned an A+/A’s in computer science electives? Really? I hope admissions will look at how an applicant chooses to “pad their GPA” as you say - subjects s/he is passionate about and not just easy A’s. I get that there are other applicants who have all A’s in core AND non-core courses and Tech is just competitive, but for those on the cusp, I’d like to think there’s not such a general assumption that only core courses matter.
You also said, “Also note that weighted GPAs are not particularly useful since every school has a different system, which is why posters often ask for the unweighted average.” I can attest that my DS would still have an unweighted 4.0 if he’d not switched high schools this year. A few B’s this year at his new high school, which is a top rated high school with many more AP/honors classes, has been very beneficial. I can attest that…unweighted GPAs at high schools are no more equivalent as using weighted GPAs. All A’s in a “few APs” curriculum is not the same as A’s/some Bs in a “mostly AP/honors curriculum”. That’s why colleges look at the school’s profile (APs offerred) and how a student ranked among their peers (if not a ranking high school).
Based on a self-reported site, it looks like most students who receive admission offers to Tech have an UW GPA of 3.3 or higher and a 1200 SAT or higher, the outliers probably quotas, athletes, donor parents or legacies.
Again, I’m not naive to the competitiveness of admissions for top colleges… and even less naive that using any top school such as Tech as a safety is just an entitled applicant.
CSinPA: Historically, Tech has not considered non-core classes as a part of an applicants GPA. This has changed somewhat with the introduction of the common application. The new policy is as follows (http://admission.gatech.edu/freshman/academic-preparation):
"•The GPA we consider is the one taken directly from your high school transcript. We will use a 100 point GPA, if available, and weighted, if available. If not, we’re happy to consider a 4.0 GPA or similar and/or unweighted GPA.
•If your high school does not provide a GPA or you have attended multiple high schools, we will recalculate a weighted 4.0 GPA (0.5 points added for AP, IB, Dual Enrollment & AICE courses) using core courses only."
So, for your son, they would look at only core courses from both high schools and weight AP classes to determine his GPA. My comment was not meant to imply that Tech does not consider non-core classes. They do, and those classes are a part of the analysis of the breadth and rigor of an applicants profile. However, for some applicants, like your son, grades in non-core classes are not a part of the GPA calculation. Also note that Tech does not consider class ranking. They do track data on how students from certain high schools have done at Tech but I’m not sure what role, if any, that plays in admissions.
I would also not rely on “self-reported” sites. Tech publishes data on its accepted class and on its matriculants each year. The 25th and 75th percentiles for the most recently admitted class were a two-part SAT score between 1390 and 1530 and an ACT score between 32 and 34. GPA wise, 85.7% of the freshman class of 2015 had a GPA above 3.75 on a 4.0 scale. The 3.3 GPA you cited would put an applicant in the bottom 5% of the class (http://www.irp.gatech.edu/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/CDS_2015-2016-5-31-2016-updated.pdf). Not many students with a 3.3 unweighted GPA and a 1200 SAT get in. Such a profile has not been a competitive at Tech for many years, and I would not rely on sites that are telling you that those figures are competitive.
I would consider Tech a match and Georgia a safety. Tech is as selective as some of those other schools especially for engineering.