GPA, SAT I, SATII, which one is most important?

Colleges and Universities A-Z Columbia University
101

<p>Some people study their butts off and still cannot reach a high score.</p>

<p>Those who study for the SAT and get a high score show that they are actually INTELLIGENT. Those who study and still score poorly… well, they’re not as intelligent. </p>

<p>The SAT is something you need to study for, and it’s the score after studying that shows how smart you actually are. The kid who’s ranked 5th in our class has a 1900 SAT, and I always believed he was just a hard working kid but not so intelligent. </p>

<p>I think the SAT does have a strong correlation with intelligence. I know a lot of people who have low GPAs (including myself) but I always thought of as intelligent - they all scored 2200-2400 on the SAT. There are those who have 4.0s UW and score 1800s on the SATs. We all studied, but the high scorers actually studied MUCH less. I’m not sure what this says or if this is normal but… I do think it is somewhat of an iq test.</p>

<p>xandra- that looks fine, what’s your cr+m score?</p>

102

<p>

</p>

<p>I respect everything else that you said, with the exception of this statement. See my post in this thread where i talk about those that do not have time to study. </p>

<p>To make a generalization that everyone studied for this is ludicrous. I’m sure we would all like to think that everyone studied for it, however, for example: Hamburgler did not prepare for it once. (He’s just one example, think how many more (thousands) didn’t study). He managed to do very well without studying, but others might not</p>

103

<p>@loopyz. CR: 740 M:720, so 1460. This was only my second time (1st was 2040) and I wanted to take it over, but my parents said it would look worse to have taken it three times than to have a 2170. And now everyone’s saying that the “cutoff” for Columbia is around 2200… </p>

<p>Plus, I would like to add that you can score very well on the SAT by studying and not be the most intelligent…there’s a kid in my class who gets very high grades and got a high SAT score, but it’s quite commonly known that he studies extremely hard, and without that he’d be lost.</p>

104

<p>^loopyz, once again I must disagree. I am to god a TERRIBLE test taker. I psych myself out and convince myself that I am a failure at life while I am trying to solve math problems…my anxiety has caused me never to get over a 680 in math although I have maintained a 95% in AP Calc…</p>

<p>Besides, if you have a low GPA that DOES show you’re not a hardworking student, and I look just as negatively upon that as I do upon natural intelligence. Colleges should want students who don’t just skate by on their “natural intelligence”, but who strive to excel at ALL times, not just during a 4 hour test.</p>

<p>Xandra, you’re definitely a candidate for the ivies. Particularly because you’re an URM with an over 2100…:slight_smile: As long as your SAT II scores aren’t terrible and your essays are strong, i’d say you have a very good shot! And yay for being biracial. :slight_smile: Only sadly I’m half asian and white, so that gives me no advantage as far as affirmative action goes.</p>

105

<p>I just have a question… aren’t there tests in classes? o___O </p>

<p>I understand the horrible “test taker” thing… I am one too. Tons of careless mistakes, bubble in wrong, skip a problem and shift answers, etc. etc. But I do think that though anxiety has an affect, there’s a reason why the cut off is at… let’s say 2200?</p>

<p>2200-2400 just means that the person is not as good of a test taker. But no matter how bad you are, it shouldn’t affect you several hundred points. </p>

<p>680 in math isn’t considered bad though… ivy standards, yes. That’s funny though… 95% in ap calc but 680 in math… what problems are you usually missing? o_o Maybe it’s the wording, because I find most of the problems straight forward math-wise.</p>

<p>doctor- those who do well without studying are the ones who are truly intelligent. but yes, lots of people take it without studying - i was one of them. i utterly failed :D. but just a week of studying helped my score a LOT (it was mostly in the writing section >.>)</p>

<p>the thing with the SAT is… it’s easy to improve in the writing but in math and cr is harder. math can be done with LOTS of practice (but who has the time to do that much o____O), but with cr the only thing to really study for is vocabulary. (GAHHH.) </p>

<p>Now i’m about to vent so i’ll end my post. :D.</p>

<p>… i lied. <em>edits</em></p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Hmm… I’ll agree with that for the most part. I’m not a hard working student, but I’m not lazy. Lazy in school, maybe, but I spend a lot of my time working on my businesses and making money to help out my family. I guess I didn’t exactly balance my life out, but I’m hardworking when I do what I love and extremely successful at that :D. Plus there’s facebook… LOL</p>

106

<p>I would have to agree that a high SAT score should usually be less important in admissions than a high GPA. It just shows carelessness if you are that intelligent and you don’t apply yourself, which leaves the college much worse off than someone who isn’t necessarily intelligent but works very hard.
@naomikt-I don’t know about my SATII’s- not the best. Got a 750 in US History, but a 660 in Lit (ugh.) which I have already sent, so there’s no way to retake</p>

107

<p>xandra- Some people have a reason for the high sat low gpa though >.> I put my focus on something else which I think would look good to colleges. Not only that, the classes are take are extremely rigorous and a solid A doesn’t even exist in the grading system. Therefore, the highest UW anyone taking rigorous courses in our school could end up with is a 3.67… </p>

<p>I think you’re a strong candidate though. Your SAT math + cr is pretty competitive, and as long as your not going in an english major your SAT II Lit won’t matter too much.</p>

108

<p>Aye, mostly it’s wording, some careless mistakes, but mostly if I have trouble at say one problem, it affects me when I move on to the next problem. The one problem haunts me, and I cannot complete the section because I get so anxiety ridden. :stuck_out_tongue: It’s really horrible. When I am in class, yes there are tests…but the pressure isn’t on quite as much. And also they are much more straightforward - we are tested on what we have learned a month ago, not on stuff we may or may not have learned three years ago. </p>

<p>So yes, I guess I see why the “cut-off” might be considered around 2100-2200. Because even my test taking anxiety didn’t stop me from getting a 2220 (after my 3rd try, granted). But it does annoy me that there is a marked percentage difference between students who get in with a 2200 and students who get in with a 2300+, when the difference in intelligence between them is sooo slim. </p>

<p>But lol, I’m so glad my strong point is CR. I would have gone up a wall if THAT was the score that needed improvement. -_-</p>

<p>Ah well, honestly there’s nothing we can do about it. Colleges need SOME way to compare students, and it’s saddening that the SAT is such a huge part of it…but I don’t see that changing anytime in the future.</p>

109

<p>That’s true, colleges should and do take into account the school’s grading rigor/system. And a low GPA can be mitigated by demonstrated passion and excellence elsewhere. But there are still people out there who are very intelligent, but just plain lazy…they should not be admitted over people who work hard to achieve the same results just because they have higher scores on something that took them 4 hours of their life. </p>

<p>-on a side note, I’m considering majoring in economics, but eventually want to go into law. Hope sat lit scores won’t leave a lasting impression…</p>

110

<p>@Loopy - </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Of course there are tests in class, but like i previously said, a student learns a teacher’s style on how he/she conducts exams. Additionally, from a psychological standpoint, one cannot compare the anxiety that is recognized with standardized testing to the anxiety (or lack thereof) of an in-class test. First off, the in-class test matters for MUCH less than the Standardized Test. Yes, you can re-take the SAT, but each time you re-take it (like past 2 or 3 times) there is a little part inside of you that feels let down and gets a little more demoralized with each passing re-take. </p>

<p>In school, you have tests quite often, several tests make up a quarter or trimester grade. Think about it this way, if you fail or do very poorly on the first 4 out of 5 tests in a quarter, then alot of pressure is riding on the last one, you HAVE to do well (if you wish to receive a somewhat decent grade for the marking period). It’s the same thing with the SAT, if you take it several times, and you don’t get the intended results, you’re going to put alot more pressure on the next (maybe last time that you can take it) - thus, resulting in a possible increase in the Test Taker’s Anxiety Syndrome.</p>

<p>Also, while the SAT plays an important role in the college admissions process, we cannot overlook the fact that higher institutions take a holistic approach on application reviewing. Poor scores won’t destroy you if you have other things to make up for it ( i.e. amazing GPA, incredible Essay and Recs, athletics, etc)</p>

111

<p>& yeah I understand that loopyz. As long as there is SOMETHING you are passionate about and show dedication at. Btw, what kind of businesses do you own? :)) I used to be really into web design, and I wish I had stuck to it and maintained my own website…something tangible I could have talked about in my college applications.</p>

<p>I do work quite a bit though, so I know how that is. Junior year, I missed a lot of school for some fairly lucrative jobs, and it was definitely a strain keeping up on my course load. I kind of wish I had highlighted that more in my application…I did in others but not on my commonapp.</p>

112

<p>@confidentialcoll wrote:

</p>

<p>I think it is crucial here to define: What is a “good score”? It differs. A 1700-1800 might be good for a certain college. But for other colleges they might laugh at it. With that said, since we are in the Columbia section, a good score is a 2100<x .=“” i=“” believe=“” that=“” columbia=“” views=“” anything=“” less=“” than=“” 2100=“” in=“” the=“” low=“” category…so=“” it=“” would=“” be=“” other=“” things=“” get=“” a=“”>x person in. Of course a x>2100 isn’t the only thing that’ll make a person go in, but it definitely helps, unlike a x<2100.</x></p>

<p>If courses did not make that difference, then why do you think that they are getting popular? You might say that its a trend. But Kaplan wouldn’t sell a $1000 course just because of a trend. It simply doesn’t make any sense. There has to be solid proof (stats) that this course gets the top grades and that’s probably the proof that Kaplan uses to sell its courses.</p>

<p>@Hamburglar wrote: </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>It’s actually not as ridiculous as you think. And it’s very plausible too. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>[The</a> SAT Test - Fairness](<a href=“http://homeworktips.about.com/od/standardizedtests/a/SATfairness.htm]The”>Canisius College: GPA, SAT Scores and ACT Scores)</p>

<p>The SAT is a failed equalizer.</p>

<p>Furthermore, no. We don’t have tutors. Tutoring is something that any NYC public high school offers. You don’t pay a penny.</p>

<p>As for the SAT prep course. Yes, most of the people that did do well (2100+) did indeed take a course. </p>

<p>If you did good, then good for you. I speak for the general public, not for exceptions as I said before.</p>

113

<p>

</p>

<p>Ughh lol try having -0 in the passage based reading but - (not even saying) all in sentence completions t_t not fun haha.</p>

<p>naomikt, I had that exact same problem, and all I’m going to say is that practice makes perfect for the anxiety problem. I learned different methods and weird ways to stop my anxiety from haunting me on the rest of the problems :stuck_out_tongue: It’s kind of weird, but it works. I’ll admit it hasn’t completely stopped yet. It’s the first section (well technically 2nd) that determines the rest of my score :stuck_out_tongue: </p>

<p>2200-2300… the intelligence IS slim. It’s all about careless errors there, so don’t worry about that. Colleges know that. Of course 2300 looks better, but 2200 is still in the 99th percentile.</p>

<p>I’m actually glad the SAT exists though. It irks me when people taking regular classes (or even math 3) have 4.0 UW gpas and rank number 1 with some easy APs. </p>

<p>As for tests… hmm I find the tests at school much less straightforward :stuck_out_tongue: I guess I can see the “more pressure in SAT” argument though. I wasn’t particularly worried for the SAT since I’m a junior, but anyone else I can see worried. </p>

<p>I guess I’m taking on the whole “SAT is an iq test” because our school’s system annoys the heck out of me. Math 3, Art, Drama, Regular classes all over… rank number 1? -_-.</p>

<p>“oh em gee you have a 4.0 your so smarttt!”</p>

<p>no you’re not, your taking math 3. </p>

<p>T_T no offense to anyone taking math 3. it just makes me feel a teensy bit better when the SAT score differentiates us.</p>

<hr>

<p>High income families generally have smart parents. Smart parents force their kids to work, therefore resulting in higher SATs. It’s just the pressure.</p>

<p>As for prep courses… here’s my take on them.</p>

<p>You don’t learn ANYTHING. From what I heard, it’s the motivation and forced learning. The parent pays $1000, the kid feels guilty and has to work for the SAT score. I know at one place, if you don’t get higher than a 90% on a quiz, you fail and get kicked out of the class. Therefore, they work harder.</p>

<p>So you can say SAT prep courses is forced study but still, you won’t do well in one unless your actually smart. There are people who improve 300 points because they had it in them, but some don’t improve at all. Not to mention they give a ridiculous test in the beginning and then one on the first day of prep. Funny how their score improves dramatically on the first day… and their score on the SAT is only a couple points higher from that day…</p>

<p>Yea, I hear my friends vent a lot :)</p>

114

<p>Silence 1113: “Furthermore, no. We don’t have tutors. Tutoring is something that any NYC public high school offers. You don’t pay a penny.”</p>

<p>The fact that public high schools in NYC offer tutoring just serves to further in-equate the SAT. Public schools in California are so poor right now that they cannot support sports anymore, let alone tutoring. Example: I never took a practice PSAT, or even saw any of the questions and got a 210. A couple weeks later, I was talking to someone from the private school up the road (which, incidentally, is closing after this year due to financial troubles), and they said that they had been taking practice PSATs since freshman year. How is that fair? I know that if I had known somewhat what would be on the test, i could have done much better, and had a better chance at getting scholarship money. The PSAT is run basically the same way as the SAT. The SAT not only favors affluent areas, but cities and states with more money to give to their school systems.</p>

115

<p>^^^Not really. Look at the Stats for those who go to tutoring…rarely. I was simply stating this fact for Hamburglar’s “High SAT, Low GPA…didn’t get a tutor” situation.</p>

116

<p>As someone said “…According to many admissions officials, there simply must be some sort of uniform measuring stick. Grades can be misleading, since there is no real standard for high schools… Standardized tests give students a tool for measuring ability and achievement…”</p>

117

<p>

</p>

<p>That’s really tough for those schools in California. However, tutoring doesn’t need to come in the form of an official program. A student can go in for extra help during a study hall or after school with a teacher. Or, sometimes students will offer to tutor others out of the goodness of their hearts (I do that for other students struggling with French).</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>That’s so relative though. Personally, I think essays, recommendations, and extra-curricular activities help to separate students in the admissions process. I mean let’s take Harvard for example, or any ivy for that matter, the majority of kids applying there have great SAT scores, great GPA’s, how can they differentiate them, you can only accept so many kids that have 2300’s+. EC, Essays, and Recs make the difference. In the case of some students that don’t have as great of scores, but have impeccable “everything else,” they deserve a shot at the ivys. The bottom line becomes: will a student contribute to the school? If a student with a lower score will make a difference in that school’s community, then watch, they will get in ( not guaranteed, but you get what i’m saying).</p>

118

<p>As detailed in UCSD website ([UC</a> San Diego Comprehensive Review Admission Process: Freshman Selection](<a href=“http://www.ucsd.edu/prospective-students/freshmen/eval-process.html]UC”>http://www.ucsd.edu/prospective-students/freshmen/eval-process.html)), GPA counts up to 41% of admission weight, standard tests 29%. But for some elite private schools, after you reach a certain threshold, other factors such as recom, EC, leadership, interview, legacy,donation, financial situation (don’t trust need blind at most cases), etc will play an important role which will determine the final result.</p>

119

<p>@ww1205: Well colleges already know how to equalize the GPAs, my college office advisor said so. </p>

<p>A 90% in my school might equal 100% in another school. Surely colleges know about this.</p>

120

<p>“As for the SAT prep course. Yes, most of the people that did do well (2100+) did indeed take a course.”</p>

<p>Do you have any data backing this up? At all? As I said, I didn’t study. And of all the people I know, 3 have taken an SAT prep class. 1 of them scored 2100+. Overall I know about 10 people who have 2100+, so the vast majority that I know who did well did not take these prep classes.</p>

<p>Also, where I live (Los Angeles) there is no “free tutoring”. That’s a joke. If you have a tutor (real one, not a student tutor), you’re probably very rich.</p>