<p>i'm in a somewhat interesting situation, i have a below average uw gpa (~3.75) for the top schools (ivies and top 15), but i think my class rank is alright (top 2-3%). i took a relatively challenging course load (15 or so aps by graduation + more honors classes), so my weighted gpa is padded a bit.</p>
<p>does any one have any ideas how schools view this?</p>
<p>long as you took a tough course load and you are that close to the top of your class (top 2-3%) you should be fine. that's the purpose that class rank serves to see how well your GPA is in comparison in other kids at the school, so if the kid ranked first in the class only has a 3.90 it tells colleges that your school makes it pretty hard to get perfect grades.</p>
<p>Rank is much more important. The only places you can get stuck is at some state schools that go purely by numbers--their loss.</p>
<p>A 3.75 certainly isn't bad- 3 A's for every B. I personally think GPA can be a tricky thing to look at. It's the best measure of student success in college (you'd be surprised how many vals get killed in college because they lack good study skills), but grade inflation at many schools makes it difficult to determine how a student performed in high school. In any case, being in the top 5% of your class would give you an excellent shot at most places- this holds even more true for the top 2%. Remember, however, that colleges like Harvard, Stanford, Duke, etc. reject 60% (or more) of the valedictorians and 1500+ SAT scorers who apply. Good numbers are invaluable, but they definitely aren't everything.</p>
<p>several of the top few people in our grade do have 4.0s though :-/ (out of 400+, I would estimate 3 or 4). although i have taken one of the most rigorous schedules in our school.</p>
<p>does this mean that it's bad to be val?
You mean I should slack off to drop a few places to have a better chance of being admitted????
Sounds kinda dumb to me...</p>
<p>Of course not. Vals have a much better chance at admissions. From the info Penn and Brown post, there seems to be a HUGE boost if you're #1 in your class.</p>
<p>That info can't tell us that #1=boost, just that vals usually get admitted at higher rates.</p>
<p>Anywayz . . . . I like Applicant A better:</p>
<p>Applicant A:</p>
<p>3.73 GPA
1/500</p>
<p>Applicant B:</p>
<p>4.0 GPA
48/500</p>
<p>I think Rank is stupid because my school doesnt use weighted grades when doing class rank. This is BS because someone who doesnt take any honors/AP classes with a 4.0 UW GPA. would be valedictorian instead a person with max AP/Honors and with a 3.99999999999999999 UW gpa....</p>
<p>15 AP's??!! </p>
<p>which ones did you take?</p>
<p>
[quote]
I think Rank is stupid because my school doesnt use weighted grades when doing class rank. This is BS because someone who doesnt take any honors/AP classes with a 4.0 UW GPA. would be valedictorian instead a person with max AP/Honors and with a 3.99999999999999999 UW gpa....
88888888 is online now
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Not all ranks use UW GPA, so you shouldn't say ranks as a whole are dumb.</p>
<p>Badkarma89,
Roughly, at the moment I am looking at: ap biology, european history, physics, chemistry, literature, language, calc bc, statistics, micro econ, macro econ, psychology, ush, government, environ sci, and comp sci. Something like that.</p>
<p>Several are self study though :/.</p>
<p>A high class rank and a not so high GPA doesn't always= difficult school. It could mean that kids at your school are not very motivated. Take me for example. I rank in the top 5 or 6 in a class of 50 at my current school and 54 out of 606 at my old school. All of this with barely a 3.4. I don't think its because my schools are competitive I think its more because nobody at my school cares about grades or college.</p>
<p>quote:warblersrule86
"" A 3.75 certainly isn't bad- 3 A's for every B. I personally think GPA can be a tricky thing to look at. It's the best measure of student success in college (you'd be surprised how many vals get killed in college because they lack good study skills), but grade inflation at many schools makes it difficult to determine how a student performed in high school. In any case, being in the top 5% of your class would give you an excellent shot at most places- this holds even more true for the top 2%. Remember, however, that colleges like Harvard, Stanford, Duke, etc. reject 60% (or more) of the valedictorians and 1500+ SAT scorers who apply. Good numbers are invaluable, but they definitely aren't everything. "" </p>
<p>But aren't most of the applicants at Harvard valedictorians, 2100+ SAT (New SAT), etc, etc?
I'm just stunned to know that statistic.</p>
<p>jerryhathaway : May I ask a personal question? How well do you do in the self-studied AP Courses? (I was about to praise your school for having so many AP courses available~ hahaha~ ^^)</p>
<p>I doubt most applicants to Harvard are valedictorians, I'm sure for every valedictorian there's a top 5%, a hooked applicant, or someone applying for the heck of it.</p>
<p>pikaso,
I did fine, although most of them were pretty easy :). </p>
<p>Comp Sci AB: 5, Environmental Sci: 5, Stats: 5, Euro: 5 (I really had to work for that one :(), Psych: I find out in July :D.</p>
<p>thanks jerryhathaway !
That's amazing! I often hear that AP clases are the hardest courses.. you make them seem easy~ :o
Do you take online courses or just use self- study books such as books from Barrons, Kaplan, Princeton review, etc etc?</p>
<p>ap classes are challenging. however, the ones i self studied were mostly the easiest ones. the only "hard one" that i self studied was euro. comp sci is hard if you don't have a solid cs background, but i thought it was alright.</p>
<p>i used prep books for all of them. i also used the textbook (spielvogel) for euro.</p>