<p>^^ Forgive me for being under the misconception that truly learning ANYTHING means you understand it. In any case, learning English etymology is only a passable substitute for being proficient in reading English, which one can only achieve by actually READING of one's own accord. GPA -can- measure understanding, at some schools; those would be the schools that tokenadult cites, where GPA/rank are not easily gamed.</p>
<p>^Hiring expensive tutors. I consider that gaming the SAT in a sense. </p>
<p>GPA and class rank can't be gamed at some high schools, but I believe it can be gamed a lot of high schools. At my school it's pretty out of control.</p>
<p>How is GPA gamed if everyone's gaming it? The SAT can be gamed (studying excessively/expensively = gaming it) because a lot of people don't game it.</p>
<p>game game game</p>
<p>
[quote]
GPA -can- measure understanding, at some schools; those would be the schools that tokenadult cites, where GPA/rank are not easily gamed.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So? This just proves that GPA is different everywhere, and thus is not an accurate way of measuring anything. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Hiring expensive tutors. I consider that gaming the SAT in a sense.
[/quote]
I'm not rich enough to hire tutors, but so what? I don't see why people are against tutors. I mean, it's not like they bribed collegeboard to give them a high score, right? They still had to study their asses off to learn everything they need. The tutor merely offers some help and shortcuts. they aren't a magical potion to guarantee a high score.</p>
<p>and if you people call studying "gaming", then GPA SAT and everything is gamed. Unless you are somehow magically born knowing everything, you gamed it.</p>
<p>I don't believe expensive tutors are effective at raising SAT scores (at least, not to the degree that some students who can't afford tutors fear they might be). </p>
<p>I said "excessively." At a certain point it's too much. There's a difference between familiarizing yourself with the test and the topics it covers and hiring a tutor and relearning everything you should have learned in middle school and before.</p>
<p>Studying for regular classes is completely different.</p>
<p>Yeah...I think the SAT just takes gaining familiarity with it, which can be attained through a few practice tests.</p>
<p>Let me contribute my own $0.02. </p>
<p>I'm an international and my high school GPA is around 3.0 (believe it) at the end of my 3rd year of high school. And yet my SAT score is above 2300, my SAT Math Level 2 is 800, my SAT Chemistry is 780, my AP Chemistry and my AP Calculus are 5. I hope that's evidence enough that some high schools have it tougher than others do. I'll be applying to several Ivies and Ivy-caliber schools for the Class of '14. </p>
<p>To the OP, I personally believe (if only to comfort myself) that your GPA will be considered keeping your school profile in mind. At my school, the entire graduating class this year (applying for the Class of '13) were AP Scholars with Distinction. So I cannot imagine how our GPAs will be considered on the same level as a public school student who has a 4.0, but cannot hit a 2100 on the SAT or score straight fives in a handful of AP tests. </p>
<p>But one thing everyone agrees with: do your best both in school and in standardized tests and what happens next isn't really in your hands.</p>
<p>
[quote]
This just proves that GPA is different everywhere, and thus is not an accurate way of measuring anything.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Very true. Did you see anything in my previous posts disagreeing with your broad point? GPA and SAT are both equally flawed, so in a flawed system, they are the best we have.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Let me contribute my own $0.02.</p>
<p>I'm an international and my high school GPA is around 3.0 (believe it) at the end of my 3rd year of high school. And yet my SAT score is above 2300, my SAT Math Level 2 is 800, my SAT Chemistry is 780, my AP Chemistry and my AP Calculus are 5. I hope that's evidence enough that some high schools have it tougher than others do. I'll be applying to several Ivies and Ivy-caliber schools for the Class of '14.</p>
<p>To the OP, I personally believe (if only to comfort myself) that your GPA will be considered keeping your school profile in mind. At my school, the entire graduating class this year (applying for the Class of '13) were AP Scholars with Distinction. So I cannot imagine how our GPAs will be considered on the same level as a public school student who has a 4.0, but cannot hit a 2100 on the SAT or score straight fives in a handful of AP tests.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Agreed.</p>
<p>For internationals it can be very different. I come from a school that sends virtually everyone to college. I have four GCE A Levels, three of them As, and a Higher 3 Merit for Literature. (My A for Higher 2 Literature is worth 8 credits at most US universities; my Higher 3 Literature is worth nothing in terms of credits.) This puts me, believe it or not, at approximately 50% of my school cohort - a public school, no less. I have a SAT score of 2270, no tutoring, although I did try the practice tests. My SAT score is slightly above average over here, and virtually no one gets tutored for the SAT (at least, I don't know anyone who did. We prepare, but we don't pay for SAT tuition.)</p>
<p>For internationals, the SATs are a big reassurance, because if GPAs vary so much by school standards and strength of schedule as it is, what more when you try to assess students from two different education systems?</p>
<p>Seriously, GPA is useless.
There's no way a college can keep track of which school is competitive and which school is not, EVEN IF they have regional representatives.</p>
<p>SAT I is, to a certain extent, accurate in measurining someone's ability.
Smart people will score better, but scoring low doesn't mean you're stupid.</p>
<p>What I think should be considered most important are academic tests (SAT II, AP, IB).
How can you say someone with 4.0UW but 600s on SAT II, 3s on AP, and 4/5s on IB is more likely to succeed than someone with a 3.6UW but 750+ on SAT II, 5s on AP, and 6/7s on IB?
The British system is actually a better way of admitting students in my opinion (maybe not the stick-to-your-major-from-the-beginning part).</p>
<p>I would agree that SAT'S are valuable, but it is more about confirming a GPA not replacing it. Plus, I would say that not all kids "test" well in a bubble format. The SAT screws the kid who has been trained to take risks and guess. ACT does not punish you for making an educated guess. I swear my son's scores are most representative of his inability to leave bubbles blank on the SAT. </p>
<p>Also. when it comes to international students. I get they are extremely driven, often for mere survival. And in this case, I don't know if perfect scores are indicative of what they bring to a campus beyond their academic acumen. </p>
<p>Third: Students who are permitted to take the tests with extended time definitely have an advantage regardless of their disability. It used to be they flagged tests and now my s is compared to kids who are very very smart and get 800s simply because they don't have the time constraint. He has friends and where some might ONLY need the extra time in Math, they get it across the board and can work as fast or slow on some parts as they can. Part of me thinks they should level the playing field by giving kids 4 hours to take the test and let them break down the sections anyway they want! Now THAT's a level playing field with those having extended time. And before I get jumped. I also have a kid that does get extra time, so I understand the value of allowing it. I just think we're assuming that everyone does everything in the same amount of time and that's not accurate in the least. My S ends up with time to spare on Math and feels rushed in Critical Reading.</p>
<p>I also get sick and tired of people thinking that just because you go to a private school or that you're white that your parents have the extra cash to pay for a really expensive prep class. Making assumptions about any class of people is just as prejudice.</p>
<p>For college admissions to the USA’s top universities, it is rare to find a student who does not have a good COMBINATION of GPA and high test scores. However, in choosing among the two, there is one thought that I urge you to keep in mind: </p>
<p>You will likely find that poor standardized test scores can keep you out of a top school while good standardized test scores on their own will almost certainly not get you in. </p>
<p>From a college admissions perspective, absolute GPA (and its importance in determining class rank) is not that insightful for judging a student’s intelligence and potential in a college setting. The key distinction is looking at GPA achievement in college prep courses. That data, combined with the overall curriculum strength and standardized test scores, are consistently rated by college admissions counselors as the most important factors in evaluating applicants. </p>
<p>Here is a full listing of how the National Association of College Admission Counselors (NACAC) views the relative importance of various elements of a college application:</p>
<p>National Association of College Admissions Counselors (NACAC)</p>
<p>Considerable Weight , Moderate Weight , Limited or No Weight</p>
<p>75.9% , 17.4% , 6.7% , Grades in college prep courses
61.5% , 25.3% , 13.2% , Strength of curriculum
60.4% , 27.9% , 11.7% , Standardized Test scores (SAT, ACT)
51.2% , 36.4% , 12.5% , Grades in all courses
27.9% , 30.6% , 41.5% , Essay and/or writing sample
23.1% , 38.6% , 38.3% , Class rank
21.2% , 40.7% , 38.0% , Counselor recommendation
20.8% , 31.2% , 48.1% , Student's demonstrated interest
19.5% , 41.1% , 39.3% , Teacher recommendation
10.4% , 23.1% , 66.5% , Interview
7.6% , 37.0% , 55.4% , Extra-curricular activities
7.6% , 23.5% , 68.8% , Subject test scores (AP, IB)
6.3% , 13.4% , 80.4% , State graduation exam scores
5.2% , 8.5% , 86.3% , SAT II scores
2.9% , 21.5% , 75.5% , Work</p>
<p>GPA is clearly better than SAT in importance. </p>
<p>The SAT is too commonly related with people who score high not doing so well in school and vice versa. Its like playing the lottery, no matter how hard you study or how much you dont study its truly a luck of the draw.
Those who say that the SAT is more important lack with their GPA. No matter how many people say that the SAT is more important, the GPA will always provail because it is an ACCURATE representation of your 4 years of high school. Saying the SAT is more important is like saying that everyones final exam in math junior year is more important. The SAT really represents nothing. Its like one big exam everyone in the country takes. And if anybody begs to differ, admissions counselors usually accept students with high GPAS and low SAT'S but often NEVER accept a student with a low GPA and high SAT. Dosent matter what classes the student took or how easy or how hard they were. a GPA is a GPA and the SAT can never makeup for four years, no matter how well you did or how bad you screwed up.</p>
<p>I think GPA is generally more important. There is a video of the Amherst admissions process floating around this site where an admissions officer says that GPA (and course rigor) is always very important, but SATs are variable, often depending upon income, SATs are considered more important for those who have had many opportunities in life and who come from more privileged backgrounds.</p>
<p>GPA is just the cumulative result of how numerous teachers at your school decide to base their grading scale, and how difficult they make their classes.</p>
<p>Two classes that use the exact same textbook can vary greatly in how hard it is to get an A. Some teachers accept partial credit; some don't. Some teachers grade with a curve; some don't. Among teachers that grade with a curve, there are various ways of facilitating a curve, some harder than others. Some use scan-tron tests; others make students show all their work.</p>
<p>Seriously, GPA is not ideal in the least bit.</p>
<p>SAT, on the other hand, gives you a fair leveling with everyone else. If the tests is skewed towards being more or less difficult, it'll affect EVERYONE, and thus it won't be an issue. Plus, instead of grading how well you can do busy work or attend irrelevant events in order to get extra credit, it'll measure how well you can actually think critically and logically.</p>
<p>
[quote]
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).
[/quote]
Yeah, all poor people are dumb and all rich people are smart. wait, what?</p>
<p>I've said this before and I will say it again.
What our society needs is an economics-based affirmative action and to focus more on test scores!!
If those of lower incomes are really doing worse due to fewer resources, we should reward the smartest people of lower income with acceptance to top colleges AND generous financial aid.
Someone who goes to an elite private school or an upper-middle class area who doesn't do well on the SATs doesn't deserve to be at one of America's best colleges.
I don't care 'how good they are' or 'how hard they work', they don't need a Penn or a Brown.</p>
<p>I personally think the SAT is a much better test, while still flawed, than GPA. At my school, I have a 4.0 UW, a 750 Lit, 800 History, two 5's on Lit, History and a 2250 SAT. Compare to another student in my class: she has about the same average as me, but got 550 and 580 and a 1 and a 2 on the Lit and History exams. Her SAT is 1870. </p>
<p>Who would you say learned the material better? Our GPAs are identical, but the standarized scores tell a different story. </p>
<p>That's not to say that there aren't people who "are bad test takers"...(I know another friend who has a 4.0 and a 1500/2400 on the SATs but has gotten 5's and 750-800's on SAT IIs-the SAT was just not her test). but at some point, it's whether you know the material or not and whether you can perform under pressure.</p>
<p>WOAH Mondo. </p>
<p>"Someone who goes to an elite private school or an upper-middle class area who doesn't do well on the SATs doesn't deserve to be at one of America's best colleges."</p>
<p>thats me your talking about. and thats not true. as far as im concerned, everyone should make the best of their situation. if you have an advantage of a private school, a btter gpa, EC'S, better neighborhood. WHATEVER. then your luck. if you dont. then your lucked out. it almost seems like college admissions is like a competition, and if you dont give it your all, no matter where you are in your life, you wont get where you want to be. </p>
<p>college admissions officers to me wont feel bad for you because you have a lower income, and they wont care if you have a higher income. dont use an inconvience as an excuse. now THAT is what wont get you into a Penn or a Brown.</p>