<p>Alleviate - I think you meant 3.92, lol. And just to be clear, that 3.75-4.04 range was “GT weighted”. They convert everyone to an unweighted 4.0 scale, except they then do add 0.5 for every AP, IB or college course. I think the 65% having 3.75 or more is using that same GT adjusted scale. It really makes it hard to compare GT to any other school for that stat, but the stat itself isn’t that meaningful in the sense that schools all grade so differently anyway. That is why class rank probably means more, but a lot of schools don’t report that either. Ah well.</p>
<p>Thats what I meant, haha. Do they weigh honors as .25 more? And are electives weighed? Foreign Language?</p>
<ol>
<li><p>No weighting for honors. </p></li>
<li><p>The 65% above 3.75 is for matriculated students, not accepted students and is a year old. The 3.92 average is this year for admitted students. 3.89 is the average for matriculated students. Both unweighted. There’s a big difference between Tech’s 2009 numbers (60% admit rate) and 2010 numbers (40% admit rate).</p></li>
<li><p>The reported numbers by Tech are unweighted. Weighting is used for the Freshman Index calculation and is sometimes reported to students, especially in-state.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Agree that those SATs need to come up to be competitive. Assume you’ve looked at FIT in Melbourne and Embry-Riddle (if interested in aeronautics). U of Central Fl has some engineering, and lots of good scholarship $$.</p>
<p>It is absolutely absurd to think that GT (or really any school) has a 3.92 unweighted GPA average for incoming freshmen. I tried to be nice about it, but common sense says that it is absolutely ridiculous. Since BanjoHitter refuses to give a link to where he is getting that number, we have to assume it is unsubstantiated. Not sure why he pointed out that it was for matriculated, not admitted since no one said otherwise. He should also make up his mind if the 3.92 is for this year or last year, although of course in reality it is for no year.
post #7, repeated in post #14. I have scoured the GT website and I find no indication of an unweighted GPA in that range.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The CollegeBoard data is for last year.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s for 2010 applications, which is last year (i.e. it has already ended). </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Think whatever you want, but a simple mathematical analysis shows it’s not that ridiculous.</p>
<p>Let’s say Tech’s weighted average GPA is 3.92. Tech weighs +0.5 to AP/IB. The average student has 5 AP courses (say 2 junior year, 3 senior year - which is being generous since the real average is probably closer to 3 in Georgia). Half way through senior year, the student would have 56 semester grades (8/semester for 7 semesters). Of those, 56 grades, 7 would be weighted (4 junior year, 3 first half of senior year) +0.5 or an extra 3.5 quality points. 3.92*56 = 220 (rounded) quality points. 220 - 3.5 = 216.5 unweighted quality points. 216.5/56 = 3.87. </p>
<p>So even if 3.92 is the weighted average, the unweighted would be 3.87, which is really not very different. If 3.87 is actual, I can’t see how you can argue that 3.92 is “absolutely ridiculous”. </p>
<p>One thing Tech will do in a GPA is convert it from an A/A-/B+/B-/ etc. GPA to an A/B/C/D/F GPA.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t have time to go through their blog again. Go here: <a href=“http://www.facebook.com/GTadmission[/url]”>http://www.facebook.com/GTadmission</a></p>
<p>Just to give some comparisons, here is the average unweighted incoming freshman GPA from some higher ranked schools, rankings by USNWR, GPA’s as listed in Princeton Review:</p>
<p>Princeton 3.88
University of Pennsylvania 3.83
Columbia University 3.90
Johns Hopkins 3.68
Emory 3.84
Vanderbilt 3.70
Carnegie-Mellon 3.62
University of Southern California 3.70
University of Michigan 3.75
Brandeis 3.77
New York University 3.60</p>
<p>These are all the schools that are ranked higher than GT that report unweighted GPA, or at least they appear to be unweighted unless they are doing a “GT weighted” type of calculation. But if they are it would make Banjo’s case even worse. I feel pretty confident these are true unweighted GPA’s. So unless we are to believe that GT has the highest GPA of any school out there (at least those that report), it seems extremely unlikely that 3.92 is a true unweighted GPA for the incoming freshmen.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>By your argument, even a GT weighted 3.92 would be incorrect, since that 3.87 puts GT up there with Princeton*.</p>
<p>FWIW, you can visit the IRP website at GT (not admissions, but Institutional Reporting and Planning that reports data to the common data set - which are unweighted). You can see the status of deposit-paying freshman there. Average GPA of 3.89/4.00. So it’s not really all that much of a stretch to have an accepted average of 3.92/4.00. <a href=“http://www.irp.gatech.edu/content/reports[/url]”>http://www.irp.gatech.edu/content/reports</a></p>
<ul>
<li>And for the third time - why is there a weighted GPA sometimes discussed? The State of Georgia has laws about who can be admitted to what university based on a GPA and SAT combination known as the Freshman Index. The FI is based on the GT weighted GPA. A student that does not have a sufficient FI score cannot legally be admitted to Georgia Tech (or UGA) unless there is an appeals process made for a “special admission”. This usually applies to recruited athletes and prevents schools from admitting an unqualified student because he or she can shoot a basketball or throw a football well.</li>
</ul>
<p>Well, I will check your math later, but I found the place in the blog you are referencing [Admission</a> Buzz | Facebook](<a href=“http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=200098955626&topic=8608#topic_top]Admission”>http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=200098955626&topic=8608#topic_top)</p>
<p>Here is the quote:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So first of all the drop in admissions rate wasn’t from 60% to 40%, but from 59% to 48%. Quite an exaggeration on your part. Second, no where does it say that GPA is weighted, GT weighted, or unweighted. No where at all. You kept insisting it was unweighted but it says that no place. Third, and most important, that is for admitted students, not matriculated students and therefore was meaningless from the start. Yes, you said it was for admitted students so you did not misrepresent that, but admitted student stats are always higher than matriculated except at the top 10 or so schools.</p>
<p>Even though colleges are asked to report unweighted GPAs, many report the weighted score.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, admitted stats are more meaningful than matriculated stats for the OP. If you want to compare schools (as you attempt to do above), then you need an apples-to-apples comparison, which is matriculated data. However, if you’re trying to gauge admission prospects, you want the admitted student data, not the admitted, since that adds noise.</p>
<p>You, however, seem to be much more concerned about comparing schools and proving a point than helping the OP, hence this pointless debate.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That wasn’t a primary source, but it was a source that I remember seeing posted. The weighted was over 4.0 Also, Tech would never average a student’s weighed GPA, since Tech does not keep data on weighted GPA. They collect unweighted GPA only, and GT weight it for FI calculation, then report both GT weighted and UW when appropriate (but never a student’s high school’s weighted average).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ad hominem, anyone? The 59-and-change to 60% isn’t anything special. The 40% was coming off memory (I think it was around 40% earlier before the wait list decisions, or it was possibly 40% of early notification was accepted). Either way, it was a substantial drop that signals a marked improvement in admitted students from 2009 to 2010 and proves my point that the 2009 data is outdated.</p>
<p>Comparing the 3.92 which is a weighted admitted student average to the Princeton unweighted matriculated student average of 3.88 is apples and oranges. But you got me curious, so I called GT and asked the admissions department. For all reports, they use the GT weighted GPA. Now I did some calculations and I think you are a bit off in the effect the weighting has. I get an effect of about 0.1 if the student takes 5 AP’s. But it was a quick simulation and I would have to spend more time on it. But if I am right, that puts the unweighted GPA of students that made deposits at about 3.77, which I can believe. It is actually still quite an impressive number.</p>
<p>And the percent of women is increasing at GT too. Must be those smart women pulling up the GPA averages :D</p>
<p>Look up ad hominem, it doesn’t have anything to do with what I said. If you are going to throw numbers around, the credibility of those numbers is very important. Since it took you forever to give the link, there was no way to check until then. And I would say representing something as a 20% change when it was an 11% change is pretty significant. If that was off from memory, how could we know if the others were “off” from memory or not? Anyway, the OP can try and take in all these numbers and decide if GT is right for them or not. I just personally think it is important they know that 3.92 is, in fact, not unweighted.</p>
<p>I’ll call in a little bit. </p>
<p>What I’m curious about is how you got a 0.1 difference for 5 AP classes. See my back of the envelope on the previous page.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, I know the phrase. You attacked me personally as a means to attack my argument. </p>
<p>But if we want to get into technicalities, you incorrectly used the phrase “simulation” in post #32.</p>
<p>I never attacked you in the least. “Quite an exaggeration” is hardly an attack, I would call it an accurate description. You misreported the percentages, and that is a fact, based on your own reference.</p>
<p>And I did run a simulation. Definition: imitation or enactment, as of something anticipated or in testing. How do you know what I did to make the claim that I didn’t? I ran a spreadsheet of courses and grades with true unweighted values, and then an “enactment” with those same grades weighted 0.5 higher for 5 AP courses. I got a 0.13 difference through 7 semesters, actually. That is a kind of simulation. Now I did it very fast and I could have made an error, but that is what I got. You are free to refer to your envelope.</p>
<p>Haha, you guys really try to prove your points. </p>
<p>Anyway, good chance for me or no? What about UMich?</p>
<p>Hi Alleviate - Yeah, things get off track sometimes. I think your chances at GTech are really good. No matter how you parse out the GPA argument, yours is at the top of anyone’s range. Your SAT should be good enough, but certainly getting it to 2000+ would help a lot. You are under the GT average with your current score but within the 25-75% range I think (guessing a little since you didn’t give the CR score), and your 8 AP’s are great. Being Hispanic will definitely be a plus for you.</p>
<p>Michigan is always a bit of a crapshoot to predict, but if you are interested in going there I would definitely apply. Again, your GPA with your AP’s is a plus, and your SATs don’t knock you out of the running, especially being a URM.</p>
<p>The other thing you might want to consider is taking the ACT. Some people have more success with that than the SAT, although I would still take the SAT again. 2000 is kind of a magic number for you I would think. Anything more is a huge plus, especially if you can get that math to 700.</p>
<p>Thank you fallenchemist, you have helped a lot. </p>
<p>I know I can get the math to 700+. The questions are too easy. I just do ■■■■■■■■ mistakes like multiply wrong or stuff like that. I got a 700 on writing without practice… so I’m sure I can raise it a bit. As far as the reading, I bombed it and got a 590. The Vocabulary is hard for me because I don’t read… and the passages are so boring that I have to read over the same paragraph over and over to get it in my head. But I’m aiming for a 650 on the reading.</p>
<p>I know for a fact that I can improve a lot if I take the October SAT, but I’m not sure as to what to do. I already took the SAT twice (first one was just terrible because of timing and pacing and honestly it was the first one so I didn’t really care which was stupid of me.) I signed up for June (if anything I can cancel it) but I haven’t really studied due to AP Exams, projects, upcoming finals, and other stuff. </p>
<p>So my question is shall I take the June SAT, although my reading score will probably stay the same, or should I cancel/move it and take it in October after months of mass-studying with the SAT Blue Book, Vocab lists, etc. Or, the third option, shall I just take them both? I want to do this just incase I score over a 2000 on the June one but then colleges will see that I took it 4 times… so I’m not sure what to do. Any help please?</p>
<p>EDIT: Oh and the reason why I’m not sure about just taking it in October is because that’s really late and already in my senior year… how will these scores get sent to Early Decisions like UMich? I don’t want a college to open the application and see a 1930 from me… </p>
<p>Thanks again!</p>