<p>Lets have a little debate going with GPA and SAT. I honestly think that SAT should be considered more over GPA because GPA at one school is not the same at another school. This is the same for ranks. One school may have more smart people than the other. I may be a little biased since I have a 2200 and a 3.3 GPA but my low GPA is due to the competitive school I go to. So what your guys take on this?</p>
<p>it's GPA that wins, hands down.</p>
<p>grades aren't based on the number of "smart" people. That's class rank.</p>
<p>colleges recalculate GPA anyway, so no need to worry about whether your school does it weirdly.</p>
<p>your GPA shouldn't have anything to do with anyone else. It's your work. Other people have no effect on how you perform on tests, etc, unless you are intimidated by them, which is silly, or unless there are weird curves in EVERY class, which is impossible.</p>
<p>stop blaming other people. Just face it- YOU earned your 3.3, now work with it.</p>
<p>IMO the SAT should be rendered worthless, it just tests your speed and application of basic concepts..</p>
<p>I agree, to an extent. </p>
<p>Grades at different schools vary ALOT and getting a 3.5 at one school could be much harder than getting a 4.0 at other schools. However, admissions do look at school rank, along with AP classes taken etc, so that is off-sets things a bit, although certainly not completely. But you need to have GPA in the decision process somewhere...</p>
<p>SAT isn't perfect either since it favors richer students who have the ability to study and take classes, which just about ensures them a 2000 or more. But everyone takes the same test, thus comparing students from different states and regions, which is also needed. </p>
<p>There is no perfect system but once you combine the grades with the sat score along with all the other ECs including your background, it becomes obvious if you are qualified or not for that prestigious university. </p>
<p>If I had to give a breakdown, I would put it 40% GPA, 40% SAT, 20% EC.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I honestly think that SAT should be considered more over GPA because GPA at one school is not the same at another school.
[/quote]
Each University or College weights a student's application according to their school's rigor. Therefore, when your index is found, it is matched up fairly to each applicant. </p>
<p>
[quote]
This is the same for ranks. One school may have more smart people than the other.
[/quote]
Okay..yet again, colleges will know the competitiveness of your school. Lets say you went to a fancy boarding school compared to some random public school, colleges will understand the difference. Each college has its own academic index and that's how they can match up each applicant fairly to make a decision. </p>
<p>
[quote]
I may be a little biased since I have a 2200 and a 3.3 GPA but my low GPA is due to the competitive school I go to
[/quote]
Again...when your resume is all weighted out according to whichever college is looking at it, it will be a whole different number. A student from a public school with a 3.7 won't necessarily get the upper hand compared to your 3.3 at your competitive school. Each college will get the course rigor of each school and then evaluate the numbers.</p>
<p>Plus, the SAT is a couple hour deal that is TIMED. Your GPA is 4 years of HS. BIG difference.</p>
<p>how exactly do the adcoms know whether or not your school is competitive?</p>
<p>My son's HS sends out a school profile with recs and transcripts. So did older D's -- and she went to a different HS. Plus, most adcom reps have territories and they get to know the HS in their areas.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Again...when your resume is all weighted out according to whichever college is looking at it, it will be a whole different number. A student from a public school with a 3.7 won't necessarily get the upper hand compared to your 3.3 at your competitive school. Each college will get the course rigor of each school and then evaluate the numbers.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I highly doubt they give different weights for every different school they are in contact with. That's just not possible and too subjective.</p>
<p>Grades really are based on the amount of people who study hard or "smart" people. However some schools are incredibly messed up and have grade inflation where as some schools are very tough. For example in one of my classes the teacher makes a curve so no one can receive greater than a 95 on a essay, because " no essay is perfect".... There is another school in my district where the students have quizzes which are very general, the tests are alright, and have numerous in class or outside of class assignments which count as tests.</p>
<p>At my school only 10 people out of 800 have a 5.0/5.0 W and this is only sophomore year... The people who do have a 5.0 really have no EC's either, and just want to be admitted to UTA by top 10% rule..... I go to a top public school in texas, and it's located in Austin.</p>
<p>Personally I think colleges should be flexible at what they look at for example what if a student has made four 4's on an ap exam and six 5's, yet has a GPA of 3.65 UW, and also has a SAT of 2150? There is no reason that student should be held on the same academic score as a kid in a run down public high school that has a gpa of 4.0 UW, with a 2000 SAT, yet only 3's and one 4 on an exam..</p>
<p>I personally think SATs are stupid. They favor wealthier students who have more resources to study. People say that is measures intelligence, but only to some degree. I know plenty of people who are not that smart, they just work hard to get high #'s. I know one girl who has been studying before she was even a freshman. Also some people are not that good at test taking. The test taking environment could be bad and some people just can't concentrate, esp when they are nervous. Also the curve is really stupid. I missed 4 math questions and I got a 720.. I think Sat 2's are better to see how a student understands the subject. Some schools may have grade deflation, but I am sure colleges already know the rigor of most schools.</p>
<p>See the FAQ mentioned in my signature line for balancing grades and test scores, and getting the best admission results you can with either one or the other, and see </p>
<p>for why test scores will continue to matter to college admission offices.</p>
<p>In a better world, there would not have to be an SAT or GPA. Kids would be admitted based on a thorough review of their academics, personal qualities and extracurricular activities.</p>
<p>Both serve as quick means for admissions officers to evaluate students. Neither is self-sufficient in determining an applicant's qualities, nor is either a perfectly standardized means of evaluating kids.</p>
<p>In all honesty, I think strength of schedule is far more important than either--provided, of course, that you're not failing all of your rigorous classes.</p>
<p>
[quote]
In all honesty, I think strength of schedule is far more important than either
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think so too. A student who takes easy classes to keep a high GPA probably shoots himself in the foot.</p>
<p>i can't tell you HOW many times i've seen this "gpa vs sat" debate. in all truth, just do well on both. anyway, class rigor IS the most important thing to consider in terms of gpa, and sat's aren't everything. remember, LOTS of 2400s get rejected every year!</p>
<p>GPA is a farce. It's mostly your ability to suck-up and work really really hard at every single assignment. There is a good correlation between intelligence and GPA, but I feel a much stronger one exists for intelligence and the SAT.</p>
<p>The only reason colleges downgrade the SAT is because some groups (let's be honest, URM's) don't score well on them. People hate the SAT because of its objectivity. It makes all those white suburbanites unhappy that their child can't do well on it even though they get good grades, most likely due to their sucking up and helicopter parents.</p>
<p>And stop with this farce that socioeconomic status DEFINES your score. It's pretty simple: Jobs that pay higher salaries, thus creating the higher economic levels, are the ones that require the most intelligence. Given the hereditary nature of intelligence, is it any surprise that the sons of engineers, doctors, lawyers, accountants, and teachers get the best SAT scores? And go to your library and get free test prep. It's actually better than any of those garbage Kaplan classes (this is coming from a Kaplan tutor).</p>
<p>seriously, if you went to a super easy public high school like mine, you would love the SAT. EVERYONE got 4.0s at my school. if i didnt have the SAT to differentiate myself, i would have been SCREWED.</p>
<p>I kinda think the SAT is necessary. I know a lot of kids who got average grades in middle schools but now have 4.0s at private schools because of serious grade inflation. In my public IB magnet high school only like 5 people out of 800 have perfect GPAs. These kids also get 2300+ on SATs.</p>
<p>Many of the private prep schools have it so that no on can get lower than a 3.0 gpa because they want their kids to go to top colleges.</p>
<p>All the people who say GPA should be more considered than Standardized tests are just whiny ass students who worked way too hard in high school and actually aren't that intelligent. They're called standardized for a reason.</p>
<p>
[quote]
grades aren't based on the number of "smart" people. That's class rank.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So not true. First of all many schools don't have class ranks. Also, while classes like math have a definite answer, most don't like english, history etc. For the teachers to mark those, they HAVE to compare you with other students to know how well you're doing.</p>
<p>Even in math some teachers teach harder material than others, depending on the strength of the class.</p>
<p>Those who say SAT is worthless are the ones who scored poorly on them. period. Although SAT isn't great, at least it shows how much you know to a certain extent compared with other students. I seriously think that America should implement something like "GaoKao" in china. Test everythhing to see who actually knows more.</p>
<p>I don't see why "slackers" should not be accepted. Hey, if they know their stuff, who cares if they don't do much work? The purpose is to accept people who can do the work, right? Besides, a slacker may be slacking only because the work is too easy. They might not even be slacking, but instead learning challenging stuff themselves.</p>
<p>I definitely agree with what dontno is saying. How good your gpa is, really defines the amount of effort you have put in, not how intelligent you are. While, I'm not a big proponent of correlating intelligence with the SAT, I would have to say that the SAT shows more intelligence than one's GPA, but that's just my personal opinion. Of course, there are those who score well on the SAT through sheer hardwork (SAT classes or a barrage of practice tests), but what about those who do the sheer hard work (SAT classes and barrage of tests) and still score averagely (IE not even breaking 2000) ? I'd say that's where correlating intelligence with the SAT kicks in. </p>
<p>So I guess, to some degree, the SAT and GPA are equally important, because colleges want hardworking students and GPA definitely shows how hard working you are, though definitely not intelligent. Couple a good gpa and a decent SAT together, the colleges probably see a hard working and to some degree, an intelligent student.</p>