<p>The fact that you even brought up this "debate" is quite a sad. Debate isn't neccesary- noobody cares which one you think should be weighed more heavily, especially not collleges. Their importance solely depend on the on college that is looking at your transcript, what you say and think is pretty much insignificant. Can the SAT be a better indicator of college success than GPA? Yes, it can- but adcoms aren't blind. They look at your entire transcript, and if you have the whole package, then great- but if not, then they will analyze everything in your app, and decide whether you have the potential to do well in their school. There has to be a balance, because this admission is granted to students based on a holistic approach, no single factor will secure your spot in the school. </p>
<p>Now, I don't quite remember who brought this up, but whoever said everyone are guaranteed a 2000+ if they pay for tutoring is an idiot. Sorry. I'd hate to break your bubble, but a 2000 puts you in the 92-95 percentile. Are you telling me that 10% of H.S students earned the score because they were rich, stuck up white kids who payed for years of kaplan and PR? I don't think so. </p>
<p>I also agree with dontno, GPA can be severely inflated. It's much easier to cheat on tests in school, and grading policies are different in each school. However, that is not to say that GPA doesn't indicate anytthing. GPA, like the SAT, has its flaws. But these flaws don't downplay its role in college admissions because colleges know it's flaws, just like they know the flaws of the SAT. Thus in most colleges, SAT and GPA are on equal grounds, and together they are good indicators of a students ability. </p>
<p>Yo, Im out.</p>
<p>PS: Everyone cross your fingers and hope Zenbadabing gets into Cornell!</p>
<p>I think that test scores should be much more important. In my country, test scores are single factor of college's admissions. I think that's quite fair.</p>
<p>But that test shouldn't be SAT, cause it's too easy to get high score. For example, I won't even pass (30%) our matura (final exam) in Physics, but on SAT II I'll have about 780. That's weird.</p>
<p>GPA can be increased if a teacher gives points for things such as "neatness," and "organization" (translation: sucking up), and eventually becomes just a big, inflated number.</p>
<p>SAT/ACT, on the other hand, is a standardized test. Every student that takes it takes it under the same testing conditions. They all have 4 hours or so, similar questions, and the like.</p>
<p>Tutoring can only supplement if the student is willing to use the lessons he/she learned. There are some students at my school that took 2 or 3 tutorings (mostly Princeton, some tutors), and still got 1600s. While it may help, it is truly up to the student to put those lessons into practice.</p>
<p>It's a long standing question that has already been answered. They are EQUALLY important. You can't always have one, and not the other. Hypothetically speaking, if we were to come to the conclusion that GPA is much more important, should the OP stop focusing on the SAT and more on his GPA? The answer is no. It's true, some colleges may have more emphasis on one- but in the end, it's really all subjective because their decisions are based off their own statistics and predilections.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Are you telling me that 10% of H.S students earned the score because they were rich, stuck up white kids who payed for years of kaplan and PR? I don't think so.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No. Tutoring is not a necessity, and not everyone uses it. However if a person who can't score so high AND WANTS TO SCORE HIGH, they can use tutoring to score high. </p>
<p>I don't agree with the statement that SAT is intelligence while GPA is hardworking.</p>
<p>No intelligent person, no matter how intelligent can know the meaning of some random word which most people will never see again in their life without having learned the meaning before.</p>
<p>SAT takes work too, and those "smart" people who didn't get tutored and scored high also did a lot of work. Just not work specifically about SAT.</p>
<p>I think that the difference between SAT and GPA is that GPA measures purely how hard you work, and how much your teacher LIKES you while SAT measures How much you know about a certain subject</p>
<p>And by know, I mean really know. Knowing how to put some numbers in a calculator to find an answer is not knowing how to do it. Knowing is when you actually know, and can apply to any situation which uses it, and can recognize how to do it even when there are minor variations.</p>
<p>I'm serious, I know people who gets 95%+ in math in school, and can't do 1+1 if you replace the + with a ☺ (1☺1). seriously.</p>
<p>and btw zenbadading g'luck on getting into cornell =)</p>
<p>Yeah that is definitely true. Except, The part where the SAT measures how much you know a certain subject. This is true for the subjects, but not so much for the reasoning.</p>
<p>But yeah, I know some people in my school who have taken the SAT 'COLD' and scored well (breaking 2000). But these kids are also the most studious and hardworking students at my school (top 10) and they also took the PSAT their junior year, so it wasn't truly 'COLD'. They read regularly and never neglected a single homework assignment..</p>
<p>
[quote]
No intelligent person, no matter how intelligent can know the meaning of some random word which most people will never see again in their life without having learned the meaning before.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>False. Learn Latin, or just learn prefixes/suffixes (by rote or osmosis). Even if you've never seen a word before, if you've seen enough words--of similar difficulty or "style"--you can infer the meaning. I learned vocab through osmosis just by being a voracious reader; I don't consider that "work."</p>
<p>
[quote]
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..
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Colleges would almost always favor the latter, and for good reason. The quality of the college one gets into shouldn't be determined by the quality of the high school one attends (which is usually determined by wealth or sheer luck).</p>
<p>i personally weigh SAT's more because in my school, i'm only ranked #12, and all the people ahead of me(except our val, who has about the same SAT as me) are scoring in the 1500-1700 range. yeah they maintained GPA well,but what does that say about them anyway? SAT is not useless; without SAT, everyone would have the same GPAs. school here is so easy, getting a 4.0 is easy as heck(but im lazy xD).
this probably has been stated already,but
gpa+sat = good indicator</p>
<p>Ok- anyone who thinks the SAT tests your speed is deficient. When I took the SAT I finished each section around 10 minutes early, and many of my friends did as well. All of us scored well, and none of us studied. For the most part, those who think every question they got wrong on the SAT was "careless" are also oblivious to their own intellectual shortcomings. </p>
<p>In a year we will be in college and have forgotten entirely about the SAT. Ultimately, it is insignificant in our lives. That being said, I think it tests some basic problem solving skills (not knowledge, the SAT tests NO knowledge) which are important for college success. Someone who gets, say, in the 15s is probably more likely to do well in higher level classes than someone in the 11s (out of 16).</p>
<p>"No. Tutoring is not a necessity, and not everyone uses it. However if a person who can't score so high AND WANTS TO SCORE HIGH, they can use tutoring to score high" </p>
<p>Agreed. My point was just that 2000+ is hardly guaranteed at even the most expensive SAT programs. Thanks for the clarification! </p>
<p>"I'm serious, I know people who gets 95%+ in math in school, and can't do 1+1 if you replace the + with a ☺ (1☺1). seriously"</p>
<p>That's stupidity, no matter how you look at it. But you're kidding, so it's all good. </p>
<p>Fo sho. Why settle with a 3.3 GPA when you can just try a little harder and get that 4.0? and 2100 SAT? Just drink a can of Redbull and you're good to go.</p>
<p>
[quote] Learn Latin, or just learn prefixes/suffixes
[/quote]
</p>
<p>There. You just proved my point. In fact, instead of just learning the words, now you have to learn latin and all those prefixes. That's a lot more work than grinding through a kaplan CR book.</p>
<p>Whether learning is work to you or not is beside the point. The point is that to score high on the SATs subject or reasoning, you still have to have learned. A lot. But you also have to understand, something GPA doesn't measure.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Ok- anyone who thinks the SAT tests your speed is deficient. When I took the SAT I finished each section around 10 minutes early, and many of my friends did as well. All of us scored well, and none of us studied.
[/quote]
Completely agree. The SAT give a lot more time than needed. But you can't say it tests no knowledge. If you didn't know 1+1=2, you really can't do the problem solving part.</p>
<p>Reasoning test does test how much you know. Well, maybe not as much of how much you know as how well you know it. </p>
<p>and zebada, unfortunately I am serious. I know at least three sophmores in highschool who get 95+ in math in school who couldn't do that. It took me 15 mins to explain to them, and they still didn't understand -_-</p>