<p>Okay, this is the age old question: Which is more influential in college admissions: The GPA or SAT? I know there are a million threads on this discussing back and forth, but this thread is strictly a running tally. Please vote for whichever one YOU believe is MORE important for getting into a good school (please note the MORE.. because they are both very important). No need for any explanations or anything; just a vote.</p>
<p>GPA: 0</p>
<p>SAT: 0</p>
<p>Which is more influential? GPA
Which SHOULD be more influential? SAT</p>
<p>put the point where it goes.</p>
<p>I vote SAT</p>
<p>It effectively compares you on a level national playing field, and there is no variation. Your score DOES effectively model your true cognitive ability, and if you think otherwise, you didn’t put enough effort into preparing beforehand.</p>
<p>GPA’s are honestly a joke. There realyy is no reason why they should exist, because teaching styles, quality of teachers, quality of peers, the school’s overall academic reputation, your life events, grade inflation/deflation, difficulty of courseload, etc. play HUGE roles in your GPA. College admission officers do not know if your “advanced” Chemistry class had rampant grade inflation, or if your English teacher grades only by the reputation associated with your name. They also don’t know if your Americans at War class, to most a fluffy elective, is taught at an extremely difficult level or if your Freshman Honors history teacher would not let anyone earn an A. </p>
<p>My GPA has experienced all of the above plus more, and I have proven through testing, extracurricular activities, and pure ambition that it is not accurate. Heck, I’ve even seen at least a dozen different methods for calculation GPA in the first place, so it is honestly a loose standard. The main reason why colleges even consider it, IMO, is because it shows a general grade pattern and work ethic of the student. Beyond that, it is truly useless.</p>
<p>SAT for sure.</p>
<p>GPA combined with AP and Subject Test scores. High AP/SAT II scores should validate a high GPA. Low ones show grade inflation.</p>
<p>GPA: 1</p>
<p>SAT: 2</p>
<p>SAT
it standardizes GPAs across the board, and displays cases where grade inflation has gotten out of control, or even where deflation is present. having a 4.0 has lost a lot of value in recent years. IMO, SAT/ACT should be most weighed, = to a combination of GPA and SATIIs/APs</p>
<p>While it is true that GPAs are not standardized and vary from location to location, they provide a more holistic evaluation of the student. You can be a 2400 student but have a bad test day and your whole score becomes skewed. Of course multiple testings reduces this, but I’m still going to say that GPA should be given more weight.</p>
<p>That said, SATs are probably currently looked at as more important with regards to colleges.</p>
<p>GPA should be more important. SAT really caters into certain people’s favors while others are just crap with it.</p>
<p>I know a girl who is SO intelligent and backs it up with so much effort. Her GPA is amazing and she aces everything. The SAT came and she scored in the lower 1400. She took it again and got the same score and she even studied.</p>
<p>After the 4th time she concluded it was just too much for her. 
She is going to community college now while graduating 2nd in the class.</p>
<p>Class Rank: 1</p>
<p>gpa…not close</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I hate this argument. I suck at school(3.4 GPA, which pegs me as the either the dumbest smart person or smartest dumb person at my school), but am good at the SAT. This got me rejected from 2 of my top choices (GT, UF). Then you have schools like Wake who don’t even require SATs. Why can’t they have a GPA-optional schools.</p>
<p>SAT, also I’d say Class Rank over GPA</p>
<p>rsxwheeeee…Your GPA reflects 4 years of your life while the SAT only shows what you accomplished within 3-5 hours on a Saturday. :)</p>
<p>For the GPA, it depends on the student in question. If it’s a student who’s taken really hard courses and has challenged himself/herself over high school, then definitely GPA. It shows a student’s level of dedication and effort over four years that the SAT can’t. </p>
<p>If it’s a student with a pretty average course load in a mediocre school, then the SAT should count more. </p>
<p>In conclusion, I won’t add to the tally either way because it depends on each student’s unique situation. The student must be looked at as a whole picture, and then you can determine which one is a better indication of that student’s potential collegiate success.</p>
<p>But when ppl cite lack of ability to “take a test”, that’s just bull to me. I lack ability to work hard in school, I get penalized. They suck at tests, “they’re poor test-takers” and get a free pass. It’s BS to me. There are quite a few Saturdays in 4 years.</p>
<p>I go to a tuition-paid (aka free) private boarding school which (pardon me if I sound pompous) caters to “clever” students, so basically my school is filled with the top students around in physics, chemistry and math. </p>
<p>my GPA was a 5.6 at my old school on a 5 scale, at this school it is a 3.5 (on a 4.0 scale) simply because the caliber of the teaching is radically different than my old school. My school does not release class rank or GPA to colleges because of this. </p>
<p>I find it irritating when I hear anyone say their GPA. Why? Because 95% of the time a 4.0 (out of 4) simply means that your school isn’t challenging you and that is NOTHING to be proud of. Sure, it is fine if you are in a large school that has >3000 people, because in that case you are probably going to be challenged, but if you are in a school with less than 1000 people than chances are extremely high that the classes you are taking are no where near the degree of difficulty of other people. </p>
<p>GPA’s are god awful. Hell someone can take home-ec and wood shop and get a high GPA. GPA’s mean nothing and the only people that cling to them have no confidence that they can actually demonstrate what they learned when they were earning that A in a real situation. </p>
<p>I never took the SAT, I only took the ACT because I knew what colleges I wanted to apply to. But what I do know is that after ~30 any higher score is practically irrelevant. </p>
<p>I scored a 33 my first time and a 35 my second, the difference between them is only a handful of questions (around 10). </p>
<p>The difference between say a 31 and a 34 is drastically less than a 28 and a 31. </p>
<p>I don’t believe that tests are GPA’s accurately tell what a student is thinking or how well they can perform. What I think is the most important factor is the “whole person.” Writing skills and being able to demonstrate one’s knowledge in say an interview is infinitely more important than studying random facts for a week and taking a test or sleeping through half your classes and getting a 4.0</p>
<p>I seriously can’t believe many of the above posters. How can you feel that such a variable factor like a GPA is more accurate than a test that shows your true abilities in a set time?</p>
<p>At my school, a lot of grading is on name basis, and ALL students cheat. Heck, even I have purposely taken longer on tests to ensure that I would need to come back the next day and I used my time on the first day to memorize test questions. However, we are a small school, so cheating methods get around quickly. People have done stuff so ridiculous at my school that if I posted it, it will truly leave you in shock and awe. The sad part, though, is that our top students, especially our valedictorian, usually cheats their way there. Then, they always get insanely low test scores for someone of their caliber, like a 26 or 25 ACT, and they then go on to one of Ohio’s fourth-tier universities. They always act like “poor me, I’m a bad test-taker”, but everyone around them realizes it’s BS. They are as dumb as a log compared to those “of their caliber”. If they didn’t cheat and have name advantages, they would have a B average at best.</p>
<p>Coming from a, well, more honest environment, this was true culture shock. I am currently at the cutoff for the top 20 percent of my class, yet I have the highest SAT score, a 1350/2100 and the third highest ACT score, a 30, and I only took it once as a SOPHOMORE!!! In my class of roughly 100 people, almost everyone has now taken their ACT’s, and they all took them midway through their Junior year when I took my SAT. This fact I find to be truly sad. My GPA/class rank will hurt me dearly, but I am one of the few honest people there (I’ve only cheated 2 or 3 times, and my last name generally has a negative impact due to moronic relatives), and one of the ones who can overall be considered the “most-valuable student”. </p>
<p>I can guarantee you that none of the above will EVER happen with the SAT. Ever. So there is no possible way that a GPA can even be considered accurate.</p>
<p>I would say Core/Academic GPA is most important. Then again, some high schools are more strict than others. At least GPA tells the College that you are an A student or B student or whatever. A decent SAT score just shows that you are not a slacker the same way a 2390 shows you are a perfectionist.</p>
<p>You can pay money to have SAT classes to get better scores.</p>
<p>You can’t bribe teachers for better grades.</p>
<p>It depends what you mean by GPA…</p>
<p>I think that school grades as a whole are more important than your SATs, but the actual number of your GPA is not. </p>
<p>As stated above, your actual GPA is only relative to your school and the classes you took so it isn’t very important. But I would say that the grades you get in high school paired with your strength of schedule are definitely more important than your SAT scores.</p>