<p>When applying to top-tier Ivies, especially Yale, what is more important: a good class rank or doing well on the SAT/ACT? I am currently 2nd out of aprox. 235 (and will probably jump to 1st after this semester), but my test scores are mediocre (29 Composite ACT, still waiting for SAT scores). How important are great standardized test scores compared to great GPA and class rank. BTW, my unweighted GPA is 4.0, weighted is 4.5.</p>
<p>I have heard (please do not quote me though) that GPA/rank is a bit more important. Despite that though, I think 29 is a bit too low. 32 and up is probably where you need to be.</p>
<p>u need BOTH great gpa and sat. no point debating which is more important…</p>
<p>No doubt about that … I felt much better taking the SAT and I am still a sophmore so I have some time to improve my scores. Thanks</p>
<p>People on this board overweigh the importance of test scores. </p>
<p>The transcript is the most important piece of info in your application, academically speaking. However, a 29 really doesn’t cut it at the Ivy level. It’s a 31 minimum ACT and a 2000 minimum SAT for most. Better chances come with a 2200+ SAT and a 34+ ACT. Take your tests more than once, too. But don’t let it become an EC. Prep for them, but don’t overstress. They’re not everything.</p>
<p>@Ancalagon4554…quote “29 dont cut it at the ivy level”…I somewhat agree with you, but according to the stats i’ve seen 25% of Yale students had below 30 ACT, 25% of Cornell below 29 ACT, and 25% of Brown below 28 ACT…how do you explain that?</p>
<p>^ Hooks, athletes, legacies, URMs.</p>
<p>For the majority of unhooked non-URM applicants, you do need to have a +32 ACT or +2000 SAT min.</p>
<p>What I don’t understand is how people can be at the top of their class yet have a 29 ACT score or below a 2000 SAT score. The tests honestly are not that hard, and I can’t help but think that there is horrendous grade inflation at a school where the valedictorian can’t manage to be in the top eight percent of test takers across the country. In addition, I fail to see how anybody could truly value a 4.0/1950 applicant over a 3.75/2250 applicant. And, please, don’t claim that the former ‘doesn’t test well.’ How do you do well in school if ‘you don’t test well?’ The major determinant of one’s grade in school is how one performs on tests…</p>
<p>I think that there is definitely an issue with the 4.0/1950, because you SHOULD be able to do relatively well on the test (OP, I would re-take a few more times until you get a bit higher), but a 3.75/2250 could be seen as an issue of the student not working to his potential, and colleges want to make sure that the students they are admitting are willing to put in all the effort necessary. That’s why GPA>standardized tests.</p>
<p>I have a 3.75 and a 2220 and I fail to see how I’m failing to work to my potential. Whatever…I guess that could explain my lack of success with college admissions thus far.</p>
<p>A high GPA and high scores are necessary. A low test score candidate will only be admitted if there is some other factor that is overwhelmingly interesting to the university admissions counselor, for example – legacy, URM, athlete, olympic medalist, etc.</p>
<p>I’m 6th in my class with a 2070 SAT meanwhile someone not even in the top 20 has a 2300+. Can you say my school that sends about 20+ people to Ivies and the likes isn’t rigorous enough? I’m NOT a good test taker :(… or at least not good at the SAT. I think I’m going to try the ACT instead.</p>
<p>excuse me for being blunt, my good man, but the SAT has an undeniably recurring formula (which the college board will happily outline for you), and aside from the wealth of information on the test available on the internet (which you seem to have access to), tens of highly recommended books are at your disposal–almost all of these books cost less than one go at the test itself.</p>
<p>though to be fair, I’m totally just bitter about earning a low rank but a high SAT score, just as motion12345 is.</p>
<p>Both are very important. However, GPA/class rank is very slightly more important. However, if your school has grade inflation/is not highly rank, then SAT may be more than for applicants from a more competitive school.</p>
<p>What if your school has grade deflation?</p>
<p>If you have a 3.85 unweighted and like a 4.5 weighted but are #1 out of 600, is it still as impressive as a 4.0?</p>
<p>@Saugus</p>
<p>Your class rank is more impressive than having a 4.0 at a school with grade inflation.</p>
<p>Great thoughts … thanks. By the way, I guess I could officially count as a URM considering I was born in Mexico, have dual citizenship, and am 1/2 Mexican and 1/4 Cuban. Also, my grandfather went to Yale School of Public Health and my aunt studied Sustainable Agriculture at Yale (both Graduate), so I don’t know if I qualify for legacy. Do any of you know?</p>
<p>From everything I’ve read, top colleges tend to look first at the GPA, then look at test scores for confirmation of the GPA. For example: an unweighted GPA of 4.0 should correlate with very high SAT/ACT scores. When that doesn’t happen, it raises a red flag, and admissions search through the application for an explanation:</p>
<p>1) Does the applicant have a declared 504?
2) Is the applicant not a good test taker?<br>
3) Do the teacher recommendations mention anything that would indicate the student is a good or bad test taker?
4) Does the high school have grade inflation?</p>
<p>Bottom Line: GPA and test scores should not be divergent, as they are equally important. You should take the ACT again and try to significantly boost your score so that it compliments your GPA.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Claiming to be a bad test taker is no excuse, unless you had a legitimate medically-certified reason. If you can’t sit through a 3-hour test just a couple of times in your high school career, how do you expect to do well in college when such tests are the norm?</p>
<p>well, let me add my 2 cent. A high GPA shows a pattern over a period of time, while a High SAT/ACT score shows how one tested on a particular day at a particular time. Now, If I took the ACT once and received a 32, while having a 4.5 GPA, would you say that the student that took the ACT 4 times and received a 34 on the fourth seating with a 4.2 GPA is more qualified than I am? I think not.</p>
<p>Also, if i am from an unpriviledged background, and studied on my own and received a 32 ACT on one seating, would you say that the more priveledged kid, who had his/her own private tudor assigned to help him/her for ACT prep for the past two years, and groomed the priveledged kid for the test for 2 years, and that student received a 34 ACT, would you say the kid with the 34 is more qualified? I think not.</p>
<p>Standardized test scores are not everything.</p>