<p>SOmewhere I read that UCLA compares you and you also compete with the other students from the same school when they evaluate you. So who are we competing against?</p>
<p>for admissions? </p>
<p>well, i would assume that you’re competing with every single application they receive… i mean, they’ll take things into consideration like you’re HS and such but, you’re still competing with every other applicant…</p>
<p>Rank plays a huge factor. I would say going to a hyper competitive school hurts your chances.</p>
<p>But how would they know the rank if they dont get transcripts?</p>
<p>i think yahoo meant ranking within your school</p>
<p>well the rank within your school give you ELC which plays a factor in admissions</p>
<p>Your school sends the data for ELC</p>
<p>Basically, what I meant is that if you go to a hyper competitive high school, it would be harder to get good grades, which means your GPA would be lower, which then means you can’t get ELC…etc</p>
<p>Contrast this to a student who goes to some easy random school. Standards are lower and thus it’s easier to get a higher GPA. GPA and ELC is all that really matters. I’ve seen a lot of low SAT stats students get in.</p>
<p>but you can’t really blame the low SATs sometime, I know people that don’t try hard, don’t study in school… take some SAT class to make up for the gap between them and the hard working kids</p>
<p>SAT classes don’t guarantee results. If you’re not that bright, you’re not going to get a competitive SAT score anyways. But if you go to a less competitive school, you WILL see grade inflation significantly more. Even depending on your classes, your GPA may go down despite the rigor of your courses. I have yet to see UCs penalize anyone for going to a good competitive HS. If the SAT demonstrates that your GPA is underestimating your capability, or gauging it with a different measurement, then you’re going to get in oO;;</p>
<p>but GPA should definately weigh more than SATs simply because GPA is a consistent measure of your progress and used to compare you with others while SAT is a half day multiple choice test that can be prepared and even get lucky on</p>
<p>The thing is that the SAT provides colleges with a national (even worldwide) benchmark that GPA may not provide.</p>
<p>thats true, but if you can prepare for it yet like at some areas there are more preparatory classes than others leaving some areas in bad situation, like back in highschool there are absolutely none SAT prep programs, I had to drive 30 min to the closest place, so of course kids from my area won’t have as high SAT as other kids… i mean if you really want a worldwide benchmark just have all the kids take an IQ test and simply base admission on that then… :(</p>
<p>The merits of the SAT has been long disputed, but I think they’re here to stay–or at least some form. It standardizes all students applying, and that is important for admissions as top-tier universities will have students will similar GPAs. A GPA is on the 4.0 scale or the 5.0 scale, which leaves much to be desired in regard to a distinguishing factor. The SAT on the other hand is on a 2400 scale.
Also, I don’t think the SAT prep programs are that special. They do help, there’s no arguing. But a student who cannot go to the courses but really is determined/motivated to get into a decent school will have the willpower to study on his or her own.
The GPA alone cannot be very helpful. Less competitive schools only have a few superstars and the rest benefit from lack of competition. They will have higher ranks and, theoretically, would be able to get in really good schools–even though that might be less qualified than student X who has harder courses with competitive classmates but a lower GPA and thus not an ideal applicant.<br>
Had their circumstances been switched, Student X would be a superstar at the easy school. So the argument that GPA/rank determines one’s abilities and “compares you with others” is flawed, as it only compares students in the context of their respective schools.<br>
I believe a standardized test is needed for admissions. Whether it should be the SAT (which can be practiced and mastered) is another case.</p>
<p>Let’s bring this away from the SAT debate. I’m sorry; I didn’t mean to derail this thread into one.</p>
<p>Yes, I’ve heard that you are essentially competing against those in your school. Berkeley and LA have admissions policies that are similar to private schools, if I recall correctly, in that they do not use a simple plug-and-chug type system using numbers. They look at your school’s context and so in that same vain, I’m sure you’re competing against your classmates. “Student X could have challenged himself more like Student Y who took some more honors and AP courses,” etc.</p>
<p>what if the school does not rank and it is hyper competitive?</p>
<p>Your school probably has decile ranking then. And the competition’s not going to help either because it will be harder to get higher GPA’s.</p>
<p>It doesn’t matter about deciles if the only data they get prior to admitting students is whether they’re top 4% or not. I can tell you as fact that the overwhelming majority of the 50some kids that got into UCLA and Berkeley from my school were not ELC (our class was 500ish people), so the idea that you’re competing against your classmates is not exactly on the money there. If you have the grades, and the SAT as well as the ECs, UCLA and Cal aren’t going to reject you. You might not get a scholarship, but you pretty much will get in o O;;</p>
<p>I’m not sure about the UC’s, but many private schools go by a regional system whereby admissions officers are appointed by region. Consequently, students from the same school will have the same admissions rep and would probably be measured against each other. If the UCLA and Berkeley do this, and it is not unlikely that they do, readers will be reading your classmates and forming judgments therefrom.</p>