<p>At the moment I am attending a school known far and wide in my state for being far more difficult than its competition (it's a private college prep, and I live in arizona, where the public school system sucks).</p>
<p>I've had friends who barely managed a 3.0 here, were expelled for misconduct, and now have 4.5's in the local public school.</p>
<p>Would an out of state college unfamiliar (when compared to in state colleges) with my school take into account its relative difficulty when deciding upon admissions, or would it treat all GPA's and the like equally?</p>
<p>All of this is addressed in the secondary school report. I am actually in a similar boat as you; my school is out of 4.00 unweighted; no one in my grade or the one below me will have a 4.00 when they graduate. The secondary school report tells colleges about the grade distribution, academic rigor, GPA/SAT averages, etc. at your school.</p>
<p>Thanks JBV - that's what I'm looking into. Because if you go to a school with a bad or lower reputation, is that going to hurt too. I can't choose where I go, those 2 power hungry beasts in the bedroom across the hall do.</p>
<p>No, if you cannot go to an amazing school (or even a mediocre school) colleges will NOT hold that against you. Some will argue that people who go to Exeter/Andover/the best prep schools in the country get a little bit of an advantage (and certainly if you believe that better schools will result in better SAT scores), but the general consensus seems to be that a college will judge your application based on the opportunities you have. If your school only has 3 or 4 clubs and 3 AP classes and you took all 3 AP classes, participated in 2 of the clubs and then maybe even founded another one, you'd be considered a competitive applicant (assuming GPA/SAT scores were up to par).</p>
<p>I think where negative prestige hurts the most is in SAT II scores. For instance, I steered clear of Science SAT IIs because my school science classes totally suck. My Physics class covered less than half of what's on the SAT II.</p>
<p>I just took the subjects where I have really good teachers. My scores will probably still be below what I'd like them to be, but that's life. If colleges don't like my scores, then I guess they'll reject me and I'll move down my list. It's not a tragedy.</p>
<p>What if you were to go from a small town to Exeter/State Magnet school etc.? Would you still have to really stand out? Would colleges see your effort to go to a better school if you had full tuition free or something?</p>
<p>If anything, going to a small, poorly funded, inner-city, or otherwise "not ideal" school may help you. A kid who rises to the top despite "handicaps" will be lokoed favorably on in admissions. A kid who looks like they've had everything, including an expensive education, handed to them? Not so much. A student can overcome going to a crappy high school by performing well on standarized and national tests and fully utiliziling the few resources avaliable to them. (Taking leadership in an academic honors program or becoming a standout in extracurricular groups are two examples.)</p>
<p>Going to an awesome private school may get you a better high school education in the short term. But what's more important than your high school--be it "good" or "bad"--is what you DO with your education. No matter where you go to school be sure to be involved with clubs, activities and groups. A kid who goes to a ritzy private school is no more or less disadvantaged in the admissions process than a kid who goes to a not-so-good school. It's all in how you find your niche and stand out from other applicants.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If anything, going to a small, poorly funded, inner-city, or otherwise "not ideal" school may help you. A kid who rises to the top despite "handicaps" will be lokoed favorably on in admissions. A kid who looks like they've had everything, including an expensive education, handed to them? Not so much. A student can overcome going to a crappy high school by performing well on standarized and national tests and fully utiliziling the few resources avaliable to them. (Taking leadership in an academic honors program or becoming a standout in extracurricular groups are two examples.)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This is the intended purpose of the school report that guidance counselors are supposed to create for applications. Unfortunately, a lot of counselors like to over-hype their school and not be honest about the real circumstances. It makes me really wonder if colleges do know the truth about schools other than the top or if they use other forms of school profiling.</p>
<p>I've wondered the same thing myself. My school is definitely tries to over-hype, to the point where I'm sure colleges see it for what it is. When a school boasts about how 50% of students go on to 4 yr colleges and is proud that 75% of students get a 3 or over on AP tests (all 10 APs that it offers) , I'm sure colleges do see through the hype. Don't get me wrong. Going to a not-so-good school has ended up doing me a world of good. But it is a little funny sometimes to see how it sees itself. The kids think there's lots of room for improvement and the administrators swell up with pride over it and refuse to change a thing.
Seriously, though, adcoms are a lot smarter than we give them credit for. I'll bet they can get a pretty good idea of what most schools are like. (Sometimes despite what the school report may say!)</p>
<p>Ooh...I'll have to try to convince my counselor to not over-hype the school. My school recently won a national award for excellence, just because a high percentage of students performed well on the state standardized tests and met other random criteria. But my school's ACT average is 23, so you know nothing spectacular is happening there.</p>
<p>^ Let me guess, a blue ribbon school of excellent?
If so, these "awards" are kind of "dime-a-dozen"
Ask yourself, what is the easiest way to make the No Child Left Behind Act seem like a success?
Answer: bogus awards for everyone!!!</p>
<p>Yes, but only so much.
Your rank will have to be impressive to combat a lower GPA. Yeah, you may be better off at a local public, but privates in general will teach you to think critically, write well, and otherwise push you far harder than your public. Maybe you're not the kid who rises to the challenge and will have that 3.0 GPA. You have to consider whether it's worth it to have a better education or slightly increase your chances of getting into a slightly more competitive school via the easier school. I think you'll be disappointed if you expect too much from either track: No, colleges won't immediately accept you because your school is hard, but they won't accept you for doing well in a bad environment either. It's all relative; work hard.</p>
<p>Also, I think it's worth noting that in Texas, with the top 10% at any school guaranteed admission to the UT's, kids from more difficult schools, even if they just missed that mark, have a good chance of getting it. They're not guaranteed a spot, but UT understands that schools vary greatly and look for promising kids. Sometimes the kid with the most promise is the top 11% from the better school versus the top 2% from the crappy one.</p>
<p>I'm pretty sure colleges have quotas from each school (i.e. no more than 8 students from Joe-schmoe school based on how well teh current Joe-schmoe grads are doing and how many selected joe-schmoe students attend). I think people at my school are doing badly at the top schools so selection has shrunk from ~25-8 in 2003 to about 6-8 in 2008</p>