<p>How much is each weighted? Is freshman year less important than sophomore, and sophomore less important than junior?</p>
<p>Can anybody give rough percentages on how much each is weighted? I really hope that adcoms will see that my cumulative GPA is more than a number because I'm really working a trend.</p>
<p>Thanks.</p>
<p>Most top tier schools actually don’t look at your GPA unless your school doesn’t report any class rank information. Top tier schools have an formula that takes into account your class rank or GPA (preference given to class rank data if available) and your testing information. Some schools apply a modifier based on the difficulty of your courseload.</p>
<p>If the college’s adcom does consider your GPA, it is either a) informally as a tie breaker or additional piece of information used to make a difficult decision, or b) as a single number as reported on the most recent transcripts you submitted. If your current GPA is a 3.8, then they will use 3.8. It doesn’t matter how that breaks down over your high school years.</p>
<p>what if my school does not report class rank?</p>
<p>If your school doesn’t report class rank, then colleges will rely on your GPA. For the first several stages of the admissions committee process, officials will rely solely on the numeric value of your GPA. You will almost definitely be accepted or denied without admissions officials looking at your GPA as anything other than a number. If they do look beyond the number into how you’ve done each year, it will only be because you’re neck-and-neck with another applicant (or ten) and they need to decide which one to take. Such neck-and-neck close calls occur with a tiny percentage of applications.</p>
<p>They will look at your gpa, both as a whole and looking for a trend. In general: jr>sr>sop>fr</p>
<p>hey accessacademics, can you tell us the source of your information? it’s completely contrary to everything we’ve heard from private and school counselors and admissions officers at selective schools. They all say that once over some hurdle rate, ad officers with a specific knowledge of schools in their assigned regions will dissect GPA to get a thorough understanding of composition quality, academic rigor and trends.</p>
<p>I’ve worked in admissions, so that’s my source, and here’s the thing. What you’ve heard about breaking down and carefully examining GPA isn’t wholly untrue. Note that in my posts I said: GPA is used “informally as a tie breaker or additional piece of information used to make a difficult decision,” and “If they do look beyond the number into how you’ve done each year, it will only be because you’re neck-and-neck with another applicant (or ten) and they need to decide which one to take.”</p>
<p>Most guidance counselors get their information from admissions officers, and most admissions departments want people to think that every single application is getting as much attention and being treated as absolutely fairly as possible. Admissions officers will take ideas and practices that are true in very narrow circumstances and talk about them as if they were applicable to everyone. This illusion just isn’t the case. </p>
<p>The vast majority of applications get a brief, fairly cursory reading. If the regional admissions officer doesn’t think an application has a chance of acceptance, then he or she buries it, and it’s likely to never seriously see the light of day again. You see, regional admissions officers are sort of like trial lawyers. It’s their job to find the applicants they are most passionate and excited about, and argue their case all the way to the supreme court (the adcom). At select schools, each admissions officer usually has, at most, 5% of applications that they are totally absolutely going to bat for. Ninety-five plus percent of those applications will get in. Then there’s another 5-10% that the admissions officer is excited about and is going to definitely stand up for and show some loyalty to. These applications have a better than 50/50 chance of being accepted. Then there’s another 5-10% that the admissions officers think have a chance but aren’t necessarily really excited about. These people’s chances are less than average.</p>
<p>Typically, GPA of one of the top applicants won’t be dissected. Most of these people are a surefire bet. If their GPA does get dissected, it’s done by their regional admissions officer to counter a concern that another admissions officer has. GPA of the next 5-10% isn’t that likely to be dissected either. At this level of competition, the tiebreakers are much more likely to be a novel essay or evidence of passion, creativity, or perseverence as shown by non-academic factors. In the next 5-10% of applicants, you have two types of people: The really strong academic types who are lame at non-academics and the really strong non-academic types who have an academic record that’s on the edge. People in the latter category are the ones more likely to have their GPAs examined very closely as has been described to you by “the experts.”</p>
<p>Remember, admissions departments are working on a definite deadline. If a department at a school that receives 25,000 applicants looked carefully at even half of that number’s GPAs, you’re talking about a huge time investment without that much payoff. Ten minutes to carefully dissect and examine an applicant’s GPA is a pretty reasonable amount of time. Ten minutes times 12,500 is 125,000 minutes, or 2,083 hours worth of work, or 260 work days worth of work.</p>
<p>My school doesn’t rank, and considering what someone else in this thread said about officers relying solely on the numeric value of GPAs when it comes to students from schools that don’t rank, would I be at a significant disadvantage if I was strong in all other areas (ECs, test scores, etc.) but had a 3.8 GPA when compared to another student from my school who had a 4.0 but wasn’t all that great in other areas? I really hope colleges don’t just rely on the numeric value of your GPA, I’d hope that they looked at grade trends (improving, getting worse?) and also the rigor of your courseload.</p>
<p>so the top tier schools will automatically reject you if you arent in top 10% even though your junior year’s GPA goes up a lot? (how about if i have some excuse that i consider as reasonable…?)</p>
<p>Yipyip, nothing in admissions is absolutely automatic. Adcom members or other senior admissions officers sometimes grab a few files and browse over them. If something jumps out at them, like a great essay or a really cool EC, then there’s still some kind of chance.</p>
<p>Also, 10% is lower than the numbers would suggest in my previous post. 5% + 7.5% (5-10%) + 7.5% (5-10%) = 20% (15% to 25%).</p>
<p>I think all years have a equal perspective put on them, mainly when speaking of GPA.</p>
<p>Your testing is more important than your GPA at most top schools. They tend to roughly use a formula of 1/3 SAT scores, 1/3 SAT II scores, and 1/3 GPA/class rank. How you do also depends on if that’s a 3.8 unweighted or weighted GPA. A 3.8 GPA, plus a 750 average on your SAT/SAT II tests would make you an extremely competitive applicant at top schools from an academic standpoint. From an academic index standpoint, you’d be somewhere around 220 to 225. The Ivy League average is about 212 in recent years, and 240 is the absolute highest (top of the class, all 800’s).</p>
<p>These numbers are terrifying…
I have a really heavy upward trend, starting with all B’s freshman year, and will have at senior midquarter a cumulative 3.5 UW (with all AP’s senior year). My SAT’s are 2300+. Class rank - second decile in all likelihood. </p>
<p>Will top tier schools even bother to read the transcript and notice the upward trend? Would the SAT’s make them curious?</p>
<p>EDIT: most recent post is somewhat encouraging, if they still use a formula like that. Will get 800 on Math II and should be able to scrounge up some other 750+ scores.</p>
<p>A 3.5 unweighted isn’t that bad, and with test scores like you have/will have, you’ll definitely get a look. Here, very briefly, is the essence of what I would tell someone in your position who I was counseling:</p>
<p>With a GPA that reflects being an underachiever as compared to your test scores, it’s important that you prove to colleges that you know how to work hard. Extracurriculars which require hard (especially physical work) could help a lot, as could serious job or volunteer commitments. If you can somehow convey the impression that your grades “suffered” a little because you were intent on doing something else really meaningful and important, that would be great. If you can somehow communicate that your intelligence is more of creative or mechanical (or whatever other) intelligence (as opposed to sheer book smarts), then that would also help explain the discrepancy between your grades and test scores.</p>
<p>What if the discrepancy became less evident as HS went on? I find myself in a similar position as lockn, although my test scores aren’t quite as good as his. I will have a 3.5 core class cumulative GPA, but will have a 3.94 junior year.</p>
<p>I just hope this extra effort is worth it.</p>
<p>Sorry if I was unclear above, I am in the same position as NJ.</p>
<p>A more detailed record, not including religion/gym/art classes:
All B’s 9th grade.
2 As and 4 Bs in 10th grade.
5 As and 1 Bs in 11th grade (not exactly set in stone).
Senior year, maybe straight A’s, maybe a B in English? Trying to predict the future.</p>
<p>The 3.5 is spread out over all of high school, including senior year.</p>
<p>If you have a 3.5 unweighted GPA and really high test scores, a great essay, a great interview (if applicable), and great ECs and such, then you’ll be a competitive candidate. If your essay or ECs are uninspiring or your test scores don’t pan out, then you’ll become much less competitive.</p>
<p><em>If</em> the discrepancy between your GPA and test scores becomes an issue, and <em>if</em> you’ve impressed an admissions officer to the point where you’re one of his “cases” (i.e. people he wants to argue for), then the higher junior GPA could be a definite benefit. Whatever the case, it sounds like the extra work your junior year was definitely worth it. If you had a B average your junior year and your overall GPA was only 3.2 or 3.3, that’d really hurt your chances.</p>
<p>Do you have any comments on the “percent of students in top 10% of high school class” statistic? Are the 90% and above numbers caused by the simple refusal to admit unhooked people with lower class ranks (which would completely count me out)? Or are people with such a high SAT and low GPA so rare that they don’t make an impact in the numbers when they do get in?</p>
<p>I’m trying to tell the difference between a high reach and a quixotic venture. MIT, for example, has been my dream school for a long time.</p>
<p>There are very few candidates who have 750+ SAT scores and aren’t in the top 10% of their class. And note that 90% plus in the top 10% is not the same thing as 100%. Not being in the top 10% of your class with high test scores doesn’t make it impossible to gain admission, but it does make it an uphill battle.</p>
<p>If you really have your heart set on MIT, then I suggest you definitely take a course load chock full of math and science. Make sure you have some wicked recommendations, too – MIT can be influenced by really good recommendations. And if you can win some type of award, invent something nifty, win some sort of big math, science, or engineering contest, or whatever else, that’d be huge. Maybe you could even start a summer engineering enrichment class for local elementary students! (Seriously… I’m not joking. Schools love that kind of stuff.)</p>