<p>That is probably true, but more due to student selection of majors. For example, some studies found that SAT-R math has no correlation with college GPA over all majors, but it would not be surprising if students who did poorly in the SAT-R math chose low-math or non-math majors. However, a different study did indicate that, for math and physics majors specifically, students with SAT-R math under 600 had an almost nil chance of success in those majors (but no such threshold existed for other majors, or for other parts of the SAT-R).</p>
<p>But note that, while a poor score on the SAT-R math indicates a low chance of success in a math-heavy major, a high score does not necessarily guarantee success, since the math on the SAT-R math is only up to high school level geometry and algebra 2 (necessary, but not sufficient, to succeed in more advanced math-heavy subjects).</p>
<p>Thank you, that is a very interesting study ucbalumnus. I wonder if the same 600 SAT-M threshold is also true for engineering, math and physics majors at top universities such as Berekeley, Cornell, CMU and MIT etc? I guess there is no way to know since these schools probably do not admit students with those scores. Can’t help but notice nobody with above 700 SAT-M got less than a 2.6 GPA in physics/ math.</p>
<p>As said before, grades aren’t standardized, some schools have a lot of inflation, while others are overly deflated. I have been to two schools, a public and an international private, and my GPA for both of them are… apples and oranges, to put it idiomatically. </p>
<p>My wGPA for all the class I took in the public was around a 4.88(uW would be about 3.89), which would put me at around the salutatorian’s level, if my memory is correct. While the cumulative wGPA(And uw, since that school did not offer honors) for my private was a …2.2, relatively average for the class. But comparatively, the private is clearly better than the public. </p>
<p>My public sends about less than half of its seniors to college, mostly to small in-state schools such as Campbell and ECU, while the private often sends most of their small class(Usually about 15~25 people per class) to some of East Asia’s best schools, such as Nanyang and the Chinese University of Hong Kong. They’ve actually sent one of their students (an international, to add) to MIT last year.</p>
<p>Anyway, I am not exactly worried about admissions/how I will fare in college. My public school, while not perfect, does have some respect in the region, and my standardized test scores are good/somewhat excellent (All subjects and sections of my SATs except for the CR and W portion are 750 or above and all but one of my APs are either 4s or 5s.)</p>
<p>The SAT might not have a lot of predictive power on college grades, but not any less than high school GPA does. I don’t think high school classes are even comparable to college classes, and I can personally say that I haven’t accomplished anything grade wise, 4.0 or not, to deserve to go to a top college.</p>
<p>Does having a 4.0 GPA ensure that you will maintain that GPA in college? Possibly, but not always. Maybe you were just so pressured by your parents to do well in high school, and now without them by your side in college, you lost all your motivation. We can all agree that a person who scored a 2200 on the SAT is fairly intelligent. Is he going to be any less intelligent in college? Probably not, unless he/she went through a traumatic brain injury. </p>
<p>I’d also like to debunk a myth about going to a top high school. Colleges might be more sympathetic towards a student with a low GPA who goes to a high caliber school, but that does not make it easier for him/her to get into college, quite the contrary. They will be competing with even better and smarter students, students that colleges can’t all admit. Therefore, GPA is flawed because it only represents the abilities of a student relative to his/her own school, and does not account for how they would’ve performed in other schools.</p>
<p>89wahoo wins. That is EXACTLY why GPA is more important than the SAT, and why it should remain that way.</p>
<p>People, you seem to not understand that colleges have seen people from most of the schools they are applying to, have school reports, etc. They know that Bob from TJ with a 3.5 tried harder than Joe with a 3.7 at random, not so good school. That’s why GPA/Rigor isn’t an issue.</p>
<p>GPA shows dedication and motivation, SAT shows how well you studied.</p>
<p>The point about going to a top school is that having a low GPA doesn’t hurt them as much, where you were saying that having a low GPA at TJ would hurt you, because it’d look bad, completely ignoring school reports, and reputation.</p>
<p>The studying argument, as said before, goes both ways. If anybody can study their way up to a high score, why don’t they? Don’t give me that people “have bad days” the exact 3 days of the year that they need to take the test… had a bad night’s sleep? Sleep earlier for the next test. Hungry? Bring food next time. The chances of you having something COMPLETELY out of your control those exact times is slim to nil.
And what’s wrong with studying 500 points, anyway? If a student sends a 1700 and then sends a 2300, I guarantee you from the bottom of my heart that this is a good student, even if their GPA is low. That is not easy at ALL and deserves to be commended -the kid was probably holed up in their room studying all day. If that doesn’t show commitment to work, what does?</p>
<p>Or the kid had a rich parent who forced them to go to an expensive tutor. And if they were holed up in their room all day, most colleges wouldn’t want them. It shows they have no life outside of studying for a stupid test, and it shows they aren’t dedicated to whatever EC’s they did before. Just saying…</p>
<p>Now you’re just jumping to conclusions, lol. The majority of colleges in the country don’t care about extracurriculars, and the primary competitors for the few that do have neither low SAT’s nor low GPA’s, so it’s irrelevant to this conversation.
And trust me, having a parent that forces you to go to a tutor doesn’t do much if you yourself don’t want to learn. You can’t buy intelligence and work ethics, no matter how much money you spend. It might help the process, but it’s not enough. I’ve taught in quite a number of prep schools, and it’s exceedingly obvious which students are forced to be there. Needless to say, their stats don’t go up.</p>
<p>I definitely think the SAT is considered more than people think it is-in large part, I believe people say that “it doesn’t matter that much” to alleviate the fears of supposedly poor test takers. The top 3 students in my high school who graduated a few years ago were good examples of the GPA/SAT argument. The valedictorians mother was a teacher, and the student was in her class as a senior. To avoid getting edged out for #1, the mother switched the weighting of the class from an academic class to an AP class, changing the GPA dramatically (although of course I know colleges have their own ways of calculating your GPA). The girl had an SAT in the 1700s. The 2nd and 3rd students did not go this far but their parents both did their homework for them throughout high school, wrote essays for them, and read the books they were reading in English. They also did mot do well (at ALL) on standardized tests and in fact i visited one at bowdoin who said that she feels that she is not as naturally smart as the other students there and that she needs to study a lot harder than everyone else. she took a semester off actually because she couldnt handle the pressure
alongside them.</p>
<p>Agree with devrybound and lwilson96. Would colleges really admit that a four hour test is more important than the grades a student got through 4 years in high school? Of course not, they’re just trying to save face. SAT is definitely considered more than people think it is.</p>
<p>Look at the SAT ranges for top colleges vs the GPA ranges. Some top 10 schools have SAT ranges that look kind of low, compared to what you’d guess, whereas they have like 99% in the top 10% of their school. SAT is important, but it’s secondary to GPA/Rigor. I never said it’s unimportant, it just isn’t the #1 item.</p>
<p>My point is that all of these studies are saying GPA is a better predictor, or at least that SAT isn’t good. Why should something that doesn’t predict future success, but claims to, be more important than it already is?</p>
<p>Because no matter how much you dislike it, there has to be some sort of standardized test for all the high schools, and the ACT and SAT serve that purpose. Is it perfect? Not even close, but it’s the best they can do. Just because you don’t like it doesn’t mean it’s a bad system.</p>
<p>I don’t think it’s a bad system, I just don’t think it just be more important than GPA. I never said it’s a pointless test, there should be a completely objective, standard measurement for students, but it shouldn’t take over 4 years of hard work.</p>
<p>Again, nobody here said it should be more important than GPA. That’s a figment of your imagination, lol. We’re just saying it should be more important, period. Devry said that it should be relatively equal, with neither being more important. I personally think it should be worth only a small step less than GPA - important enough so that it’ll warrant a much closer inspection of essays and EC’s if the SAT is significantly higher than the GPA, but not important enough that it can eclipse a low GPA completely.</p>