<p>Does anybody have an updated CRS chart - one that they are confident is valid?</p>
<p>If the AI numbers are Ivy-regulated, it seems all schools must use the same one.</p>
<p>The only one floating around the internet looks ancient and is hard to reconcile with the numbers reported in the NYT article on or about December 25, 2012.</p>
<p>Also, when I break down AI's reported elsewhere, they don't reconcile with the old chart I have.</p>
<p>For what it’s worth, class rank was eliminated over the summer as part of the AI formula. (and the floor was consequently raised to 176 from 171)</p>
<p>Here’s spreadsheet/calculator I put together for the new method of calculating the AI-
<a href=“http://■■■■■■■.com/9svj4dd[/url]”>http://■■■■■■■.com/9svj4dd</a></p>
<p>(it’s editable to allow you to plug in your own values - if anyone knows how I can protect the formulas/macros that would be appreciated as they are regularly deleted making the spreadsheet non-functional)</p>
<p>Also, since it’s an openly shared document, you may find another user is using it at the same time</p>
<p>Thanks, varska.</p>
<p>It looks like you’re using the same CRS table I have, but when I look at the AIs that result when using that table they all seem very high compared to information that we’ve received in conversations with coaches, etc.</p>
<p>It almost seems like the AIs we’ve been told use the CRSs on that table for the weighted GPAs and apply them to the unweighted GPAs, so for example a 3.75 unweighted GPA would have a CRS of 71 not 77. This is the exact example given in the NYT computation sheet (12/25/11) which says a 3.70-3.79 GPA (on a 4.0 scale) has a CRS of 71.</p>
<p>Am I incorrect in thinking “on a 4.0 scale” means unweighted?</p>
<p>(And by the way, I don’t know how you can fix the values in the spreadsheet so they can’t be deleted, but maybe if you put the formulas in a column far off to the right or bottom then they won’t be so easy to inadvertently delete.)</p>
<p>Thanks again.</p>
<p>varska - on your spreadsheet - if you put in both an ACT score and an SAT score it brings the AI down from the AI you get if you only put in the higher of those 2 scores.</p>
<p>Don’t the schools use only your highest score? If so, the calculation should not be effected by putting in a lower score.</p>
<p>Thanks.</p>
<p>The formula is use will only use the ACT if the SAT I is empty. I’m basing on the preferred method being SAT I’s, GPA and 2 SATii’s</p>
<p>Thanks for the input - the number on on this (or any) AI calculator certianly isn’t written in stone- just a useful approximation</p>
<p>Varska - do schools NOT combine ACT with SAT IIs if they produce a higher AI?</p>
<p>Varska,</p>
<p>This link explains how to protect your formulas. Pretty straightforward. I tried it on a test spreadsheet I set up.</p>
<p>[Protect</a> individual cells in Google Spreadsheets : Google Apps Tips](<a href=“http://gappstips.com/docs-tips/view/109/protect-individual-cells-in-google-spreadsheets]Protect”>http://gappstips.com/docs-tips/view/109/protect-individual-cells-in-google-spreadsheets)</p>
<p>Cool - thanks, ThanksToJack</p>
<p>Allout - yes, I believe a coach will take either your ACT composite or SAT I depending on which yields a better score. </p>
<p>SAT I is preferred - that’s why I gave it precedence - but you can run it with the SAT I fields blank to see what your ACT-based score would be</p>
<p>alloutforivy - you said
</p>
<p>The NYT article that you’re referencing says “on a 4.0 scale, a 4.00 - 4.09 is worth 77 AI points” That’s a weighted GPA, since it’s not possible to exceed a 4.0 otherwise.</p>
<p>Good point, varska. I must have missed that even though I’ve looked over that sheet hundreds of times!</p>
<p>So maybe that old CRS chart that everyone is working from is right after all?</p>
<p>^ I think it’s best if you don’t think of any of these AI calculators - mine included- as being THE definitive number. Good approximations are the best we can do.</p>