<p>All I have to say is,</p>
<p>
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>LMAO!</p>
<p>Good GPA can be achieved by having expensive tutor. Some parents told me they hired excellent tutor at the rate of $80-$100/hour to teach their kids "math, physics". Otherwise, their kids would never be able to achive As in these subject. It's cheaper to prep for SAT. So they both have problem. But I think the GPA is technically more PC, ie if you go to a lower performing high school, as long as you turn in your homework, you should get As. It's not always the case with high performing high schools because these students at these schools almost never miss turning homework or extra credit.</p>
<p>SAT obviously. GPA measures nothing more than how hard you work and how much your teachers like you. SAT is a standardized measurement that you cant get the best score in by simply sucking up or wasting your weekends studying for.</p>
<p>I have never seen a dumb kid get a high sat score. I have seen smart kids who score low and then use test prep to score well. But i have never seen a really dumb kid score well. For all the test prep etc they usually level off around 2000.</p>
<p>good point, columbia_student.</p>
<p>And if we're talking about which weighs more to colleges right now, unfortuanately it seems like GPA is. But I am debating on whether that is right. </p>
<p>I'm too lazy to go back and quote, but to the person who said that SAT is worthless, GPA is an accurate measure, people who got low GPA are the ones who say SAT is worth more, etc etc etc, well, you probably got a low SAT score, you hypocrit.</p>
<p>How is GPA an accurate measure in anyway? I know teachers who will give you an A if you join their clubs or give them gifts. I also know a teacher who will give no asian guy higher than a B. Obviously most teachers aren't like that, and they try to be fair. However, you still can't escape from the fact that they'll always have to compare you with other students to know how well you're doing. </p>
<p>To the other person (or is it the same?) who said that SAT is bad for risk takers or something, and that his son didn't do that well because he bubbled in everything, well I'm sorry, but face it - your son deserved whatever he got. First of all, if you know everything, why would you need to guess? And even if you don't, say if you can take away 2 choices, then the probability of you getting a higher score is higher than getting a lower one. If you can't even take away 2 of the choices, that's not really an educated guess, is it.</p>
<p>and keil, i'm not saying that the SATs aren't flawed, but I am saying that GPA is absolutely worthless. Garbage. I really wonder why colleges or anyone look at it at all.</p>
<p>I've made my point-so I'd I' ll just add on to Usernames GPA complaint list. </p>
<p>In my math class, my teacher offers poor performing students an alternative to doing well on exams: Showing effort. He allows them to show effort by keeping a log of notes that explain class problems and problems they make up for practice. This can bring someone's grades from a C close to a B+ or even A, if the student writes in his log on a consistent basis. Now, we all know how easy it is to cheat, especially when your teacher asks you to keep a log at home and tells you to bring it in at the end of the year. These kids copied from the students who actually care, and in turn they are all getting straight A's, because they demonstrated "effort". I can get perfect scores on my test, and still receive the same grade as some kid who copies a entire book of logs two days before the quarter ends. </p>
<p>Oh, and my English teacher offers extra credit to students who donate to student government.</p>
<p>Take that, GPA.</p>
<p>no matter what goes on in the classroom, can we all agree that colleges want to asses your academic preformance in high school over the course of 4 years? if thats so, the GPA clearly is a direct representation of that. The SAT can be a foolproof way of determining those who are really as smart as their GPA's say they are, but the SAT is absoloutley innacurate in determining your progress as a high school student.</p>
<p>guys, let me pose a simple scenario to put things in perspective. say you have a student who is at the 50th percentile (by GPA) in a school where the ENTIRE graduating class takes 5 to 6 APs by graduation, and gets fives in all of them. and say you have another one who is in the top 10 percent of a school in which maybe 10% of the kids take APs and get fives. who would you pick?</p>
<p>@ jarsilver:</p>
<p>My original quote:</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]
</p>
<p>Now yours:</p>
<p>
[quote]
Yeah, all poor people are dumb and all rich people are smart. wait, what?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No whoever said that? Such an all encompassing look at class vs. intelligence is completely misguided. Not every member of a given group can be classified by the average **of that group. **So poor people are, ON AVERAGE, less intelligent than middle class and rich people. Of course there are other factors, like the old boy network, work ethic, etc., but the main characteristic of higher socioeconomic groups is intelligence. I can provide statistical evidence if you like.</p>
<p>I won't agree, dontno.</p>
<p>Maybe I live in a not so deeveloped country, but my mum, for example, is now writing her doctoral research papers, she has her own company (small, though), and still don't have enough money to pay for my TOEFL exam. And there are LOTS of people like her. Only rich people there are actors, singers, politics (not so intelligent), athletes, and ppl who were rich enough in socialism times (high socialist party members) to make huge investitions.</p>
<p>Colleges weigh GPA and SAT scores about the same. Yes, they realize that there can be severe grade inflation depending on the school you go to, but then again, they don't consider a GPA from, let's say, Philips Academy, equal to a GPA from some easy public school.</p>
<p>Personally, I consider the SAT to be better, and this is coming from a student with both high SAT scores and GPA (2380 and 4.0 UW). SAT scores are standardized for a reason - everyone takes the same test, under the same conditions, regardless of background (unless you have a disability, but I won't go there). Because everyone taking the SAT is taking the same test, you can actually compare people with hard data and numbers. On the other hand, GPA is much harder to compare with students from different schools. Many public schools in America have severe grade inflation and literally hand out 4.0's to almost everybody. Private schools like Philips Academy, however, rarely hand out such high GPA's. I don't think it's fair to weigh a 3.5 GPA from Philips equal to a 4.0 or 4.3 GPA from an easy public school.</p>
<p>Also, GPA doesn't really measure intelligence. I think that it just measures how diligent a student is. If a student has a 4.0 GPA, it doesn't mean that (s)he is necessarily smart - that student just worked a LOT (or a little, depending on the difficulty of the school) to get that GPA. Consider my school, for example. Around 10% - 15% of my class (10th grade) get 4.0's, but they usually just get 4.0's because they have no EC's or anything else to worry about. A lot of them literally just study and do nothing else. GPA also has a little to do with whether a teacher likes you or not. There's some students at my school who get A's because they're liked by the teacher, not because they did particularly well on tests. However, other students who got better test scores still got B's.</p>
<p>I don't necessarily think that the SAT measures intelligence. I mean, you can prepare for it, after all. What use is an IQ test if you prepare/study for it a lot? However, I think that the SAT is a better standard for colleges to use because they are standardized. Yes, the SAT have flaws, but so does GPA, and I personally think that the advantages of the SAT outweigh the disadvantages, more so than GPA.</p>
<p>Just my two cents.</p>
<p>I agree with dontno on his socioeconomic thing. Get over it. Doctors, on average, are smarter than garbagemen, on average, at least here in America. It doesn't mean that there aren't garbagemen that are smarter than doctors, but overall you'll find that doctors as a whole are smarter than garbagemen as a whole. I also agree with Mondo, and so do college admissions officers. Good luck getting into a top school if you come from a upper middle class background without a 2100 (I'd really say 2200 for most people, but lets add a little nuance) or higher. I dare you.</p>
<p>I think there is a whole lot of discrimination on the thread. I think colleges definitely look at things holistically. Me, personally, I go to school in a first ring Minneapolis suburb, but it is a good public school. But I am a terrible test taker. Maybe it is because I had a jazz concert downtown the night before, but nonetheless I freak on standardized tests. I think my mediocre test scores about a 2150 don't perse boost my app, but I hope the fact that I go to the U of M full time, where I am taking classes at the level after AP Chem, AP Bio, and AP Calc BC count for something. I think its really how you play it up. I didn't try to come off being savant. I played up the fact that I am not afraid of taking an academic risk even if my GPA suffers. I took on a crazy full time job during overnights, and I actively pursue music at the U of M school of music besides state music ensembles. If you wanna look more that numbers, I think you have to make them see that.</p>
<p>For the elite colleges, I believe that a less than stellar GPA would have to be compensated with not just ultra-high SAT scores, but a stellar list of ECs and awards. Please respond with your opinion on the following scenario - (non-URM)</p>
<p>GPA - 3.6
SAT I - 2300+
5+ APs all 5's
National Merit Scholarship finalist (let's say 240 on PSAT)
State Scholastic Chess Champion (from a big state)
State Novice Debate Champion
State Science Fair Competition - 1st Place
Siemen-Westinghouse Semi-Finalist
School Community Service Chair
Student Gov - Senator
Violin - Senior District, Honor Orchestra
Chess Club Captain and Instructor
Breakdance Club
Fluent in two foreign languages
Poetry contest winner
Passion in Biological Science - Advanced Classes/Research in College</p>
<p>The question - what is this candidate's chance of getting into one of the Ivys? If low, what would the candidate have to do other than improving the GPA to significantly improve the chance?</p>
<p>Doctors may be (on average) smarter than garbagemen, but it's also true that a smart kid in an academically deprived environment--however common or rare he is among his peers--may be disadvantaged when it comes to college preparation and standardized measures. Those measures will not fully reflect his ability and his potential. That's why socioeconomic factors remain a concern.</p>
<p>You might debate about how common vs. rare it is to find a smart kid among the poor, and that side of the argument is likely going to be a little ugly. But we don't even have to go there if we agree that, debates about frequency aside, some smart kids are born poor, to lesser-educated or less highly-paid parents.</p>
<p>hoedown, my view is not exclusive with yours. I fully agree with you and that's why I seconded Mondo's assertion that if you are wealthy and you can't score high you probably have no business in a top flight university. I just don't think socioeconomic factors explain the difference in test scores nationwide. I'd rather take a 2000 4.0 kid from a disadvantaged public hs than a 2200 3.7 kid from a wealthy suburban high school, as would my college and pretty much all top national universities. It's just that some people like to assert on this board that wealth can buy one a top score and that all the SAT's measure are resources because poor kids on average do poorly. It's simply not true.</p>
<p>The impact of SAT vs. GPA really depends on the college. However SAT, in general, is what moves a college up on the rankings. You need to look at what drives the rankings the most: </p>
<ul>
<li>SAT score range (of entering class, NOT admitted class)</li>
<li>acceptance rate </li>
<li>yield rate (number of accepted students how show up)<br></li>
</ul>
<p>So you get in by having a really good test score that helps them move up or retain their rankings AND by showing a college that if you are admitted, they have a good shot that you'll show up. This is why a fantastic SAT score or even a high GPA won't necessarily get you into a pure safety school. They don't want to admit applicants who probably don't really want to show up and therefore most likely won't. It kills their yield and makes them look undesirable.</p>
<p>So, the morale is not to forget to show the colleges you're interested in that you want to go. Visit them if you can, make contact when their reps are in the area, have contact with alumni and maybe current students at their school, and if you haven't done so already, register with CAPS - CAPS</a> - Demonstrate Interest to the Colleges of Your Choice - and put your tokens on your top colleges.</p>
<p>I thought yield is not part of the college rankings.</p>
<p>
[quote]
U.S. News & World Report's recently announced decision to no longer consider schools' "yield rates" when ranking colleges and universities has left industry professionals unexcited.
Higher yield rates mean more accepted applicants actually chose to matriculate at a given school. Though the figure made up only around two percent of a school's overall rank in the magazine's list, many speculated that college admissions officers might put less pressure on applicants to apply under binding early decision programs -- which naturally increase a school's yield -- if the figure no longer impacted their institution's rank.</p>
<p>"If U.S. News thinks that them making this change is going to change the way schools behave..., they really are full of themselves," said Michael London, President of the college admissions consulting firm College Coach.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>'U.S</a>. News' drops yield from its rankings calculation - News</p>
<p>Does CAPS truly work?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Maybe I live in a not so deeveloped country, but my mum, for example, is now writing her doctoral research papers, she has her own company (small, though), and still don't have enough money to pay for my TOEFL exam.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Do you not understand average? Ofcourse there are exceptions... I cut out your next sentence about "lots of people like that". Well, there are lots more who are not so smart. And where did you get this lots anyway? From people around you? well, people are likely to hang around and assiociate with people who are similar to themselves...</p>
<p>SAT does not measure intelligence. It really doesn't. It just measures if you understand whatever it was testing. </p>
<p>for the 3.6GPA example... 3.6 isn't low...</p>
<p>I'm not sure if i said it in this thread or not, but i'll say it again</p>
<p>Why should we do a bunch of homework at a grade 1 level when clearly we already learned it 10 years ago? If all the teachers just give lots and lots and lots of boring, time consuming mindless homework, there is really only three options: Don't do the hw, get a low GPA but actually LEARN by yourself, Do the hw, get a high GPA but don't learn anything, and do the hw AND learn by yourself, but you won't have any time left for relaxation, friends, games etc etc etc.</p>
<p>Why should I be forced to do something that won't help me learn to get a few extra percent and this thing they call an "A"? Shouldn't school be about learning?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Maybe I live in a not so deeveloped country, but my mum, for example, is now writing her doctoral research papers, she has her own company (small, though), and still don't have enough money to pay for my TOEFL exam.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>As username said: you need to understand the concept of an average. Secondly, in America, we have a system based on merit (well other than affirmative action). Social mobility is thus a very common and attainable goal.</p>
<p>
[quote]
but it's also true that a smart kid in an academically deprived environment--however common or rare he is among his peers--may be disadvantaged when it comes to college preparation and standardized measures.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Not really. Test prep is so widely available now for free that it's inconceivable someone could not have access to it. Furhter, many inner city schoosl offer free SAT prep courses for credit. I will however sympathize with let's say an ubran youth who's mother is on crack or some horrible situation like that. However, that situation is rare and if your mother is stupid enough to do crack and your father is in prison, then it's going to take a miracle of nature for you to have been born with a college-able mind.</p>
<p>
[quote]
You might debate about how common vs. rare it is to find a smart kid among the poor, and that side of the argument is likely going to be a little ugly. But we don't even have to go there if we agree that, debates about frequency aside, some smart kids are born poor, to lesser-educated or less highly-paid parents.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't think this scenario is very common, due to the hareditary nature of intelligence, but it surely happens. What then occurs is social mobility. Smart kids born to lower income parents will most likely rise above that socioeconomic class, regardless of cultural influences. I have statistical evidence if you like.</p>
<p>Oh and SAT has a 0.7 correlation with intelligence testing. no one in their right mind would consider the SAT tantamount to an intelligence exam b/c studying does help. bUt a very strong correlation exists. If you factor in SAT II scores along with SAT, the correlation goes to about 0.83. Those are real numbers I just don't feel like finding the relevant link.,</p>