<p>All right men! And ladies and ladies who dress like men!</p>
<p>Coming from the "devaluating of the class rank" thread, I decide to spark a friendly and fiery debate on the value of the different merits used in college admissions. So how about an argument on HSL about what is the most important factor?</p>
<p>We all know that grades are important, as they are a measurement of four years of hard work, but some 4.0s are more equal than others, so should a number be the end-all to admissions? Grade inflation is real and often pervasive at certain schools, so this number may not be objective as it seems.</p>
<p>And now for the controversial issue of standardized testing, should one test decide whether one goes to Harvard or to McDonalds for his or her future? Of course all SAT results are equal, but how much hard work, a value necessary for college success, is used when one takes the test?</p>
<p>Since humans are competitive by nature, how should class rank be factored in admissions? Everyone wants to be the very best, like no one ever was, but is the average man in Beverly Hills richer than the richest man living at a random small village somewhere in Africa? Should one be penalized for his or her peers' ambitions?</p>
<p>The idea of one test taken on a Saturday morning that questionably tests your college readiness counting more than four years of classwork is just dumb in my opinion. Yes, all GPAs are different, a 4.0 at an inner city public high school with crazy grade inflation and easy classes counts less than a 4.0 at a rigorous private college-preparatory boarding school, but admissions counselors know this. They can compare applicants from past ones at the schools that were accepted or rejected, and use the school report that the guidance counselors send to get a good measurement of the rigor in the school.</p>
<p>Class rank is tricky and can only be used in certain situations. Following my example from above, a 3.5 could place a student in the top 10% of that inner city school but not even in the top half of the class in the private school. So, in that case, class rank really can’t even be used.</p>
<p>In my opinion, it should go GPA (along with courses taken, class rank (when applicable), rigor of high school, trends in grades, etc.), then test scores, then the subjective stuff.</p>
<p>i used to hate the idea of standardized tests, but now I’ve grown to like them much more. It seems that anybody who is dedicated can get a 4.0 in high school; you don’t have to be smart, you just have to do your work, study for tests and you’ll do well.</p>
<p>With SATs it’s different… Yes, you can study and practice, but in order to get a high score, some people practice for months while for others it comes naturally. I don’t know how to explain it, and some may think its unfair (i do too somewhat), but i like the idea of having one test where everyone is equal and i can get a higher score than a person whose GPA might be much higher than mine, yet that person has teachers who give extra credit, allow re-tests, etc. where if given higher importance to GPA, i would “lose”.</p>
<p>A high GPA can be earned easier in some high schools than others, and SAT/ACT scores can vary immensely. For example, first time I took the ACT I earned a 29 on math then a 34 my second time (without any studying between both test dates). Therefore, it can vary… in my opinion. </p>
<p>SO, they should ALL be viewed equally! Lol.</p>
<p>SAT…my school is so easy. Tons of people have 4.0’s and get their huge egos bruised with crappy test scores. It’s because my schools all about memorization. There is no expression of concepts or understanding of what’s actually happening. Just a: formula sheet, memorize, fill in numbers, done,100). It makes me so angry that people dont understand how my gpa (a 3.998) is lower but I still have the highest test scores with a huge discrepancy for the second highest score.</p>
<p>Class Rank really doesn’t mean anything unless you are applying to colleges in Texas where class rank is the deciding factor! I’d say GPA matters most then your test scores</p>
<p>GPA=SAT>>>>>Class Rank
Note that GPA should be considered in conjunction with the school’s average GPA and class rank to see how the grade inflation works out.
Class rank on its own really shouldn’t be used for admittance into a college, only to compare the grade inflations of different high schools.
Personally, I see GPA as an indicator of work ethic, and SAT/ACT as an indicator of knowledge and aptitude. If you work hard enough, you can probably get a high GPA. However, studying can only help one’s score so much with standardized testing. Therefore, both should be considered in conjunction with one another.</p>
<p>I think all should be valued, but I am not sure to what extent. I go to an inner city public, but the AP/Honors classes are known throughout the city to be difficult. When kids from other publics come to my school, they talk about how much harder our AP classes are. </p>
<p>Oddly, the top kids in my class do not score well on the SAT. Other than myself (who was like #26/640 at the end of junior year) and one or two others, no one has gotten above a 2000 this year. The average SAT at my school is a 1500. Our valedictorian has like a 1600 or 1700 I believe. I think the SAT can validate GPA and class rank, which can be good indicators; however, they can also be subjective.</p>
<p>That is not subjective… that says something about the quality of the education in a high school when SATs are consistently low even for most of the top students. (Sorry, just saying…). If kids in your high school get a lot of 4s & 5s on APs, though, that would offset that a bit.</p>
<p>@OP: What about men who dress like ladies? :(</p>
<p>:P</p>
<p>My opinions:</p>
<p>(I’m going to include class rigor.)</p>
<p>I think that the SAT should be the most important. Because as one poster from another thread put it, the SAT is like a snapshot of one’s abilities and potential while GPA is like a photo album of one’s abilities and potential. I think those who are competent enough but also lazy want SAT to be the most important. Because that’s me. :P</p>
<p>I think GPA and class rigor are probably the most important though. Because of the whole “snapshot vs photo album” idea.</p>
<p>But I also think that admissions folk aren’t going to “give you a chance” unless you have a high SAT. I think they look at your SAT first, and then (and only if) if it’s good enough for them, they would seriously consider your other stuff.</p>
<p>I think ranking is intermediate between SAT and class rigor/ GPA. Since ranking is dependent on GPA, it also has a bit of subjectiveness to it since GPA has a bit of subjectiveness to it, because different schools use different ways to calculate GPA, with varying degrees of inflation, as OP observes.</p>
<p>I mean, I would like it if SAT > class rigor > GPA > ranking, since that suits me the most. But I think to most admissions folk, it’s GPA/class rigor > SAT > ranking.</p>
<p>They go together. If an applicant has a high GPA and class rank but a low SAT/ACT score, it’s likely the school isn’t very rigorous, and vice versa.</p>
<p>@inparent I am sorry if I did not make it clear. I meant that gpa, and thus class rank, are subjective. If you are the valedictorian,with very low test scores, something is obviously wrong.</p>
<p>Plus, a lot of the kids get old tests from previous students that they study to prepare for the tests, so a lot more can go into getting an A than just ability.</p>
<p>I think the SAT is very important, because everyone takes the same test so it measures everyone on an equal playing field. GPA is also important. But class rank can be iffy. I know a lot of people in my school who take our easiest AP classes just to get their rank up…and then don’t even take the AP test.</p>
<p>I would agree to a method that involved placing the highest weight on class rank. Compared to the rest of your school, this is the most accurate representation of relative intelligence. I’m ranked in the top 3%, with an UW GPA of something slightly lower than 3.6. If colleges just look at my GPA, they’ll dismiss it immediately. But paired with the high class rank, there are obviously other factors that suggest my school doesn’t practice any form of grade inflation. </p>
<p>Next, I would say that GPA and the rigor of classes taken should be taken into account for admission. I don’t believe a high GPA means much if it’s just basic level classes with a few honors courses thrown in there. It should contain as many AP or IB classes as possible. </p>
<p>Next, but almost on the same level, I think the SAT should be used to validate the students GPA. A 4.0 with a 1500 will be another way to show colleges that the student didn’t actually earn their high GPA.</p>
<p>GPA and SAT equally.
Class Rank secondary …
my school weights APs as 6 so yeah my weighted is godly
(Although my school deflates grades :(((((((((( )</p>
<p>For ME, I’d prefer that they did SAT>GPA>>>>>>class rank. My school doesn’t rank, and if they did I’d be lucky if I was in the top 25%, so… yeah.
But if they’re going to rank, it’s unfair if they fank only GPA. They should also be ranking SAT.
For instance, I know (if only from the general astonishment from kids who I thought would for SURE do better than me once my friend leaked my scores) that I did better on the PSAT than 95% of my grade. My GPA would not equate (though it’s certainly not bad- they just happen to study harder and thus get better scores). If you did rankings based on one or the other, it would be pretty skewed.
I’d say nix class rank, replace with class/school rigor, and consider GPA and SAT equally and separately.</p>
<p>I think GPA should be the most important, BUT, I think the whole system of calculating GPA needs to be more standardized so there isn’t such ridiculous variance. For example, a portion of the grade in each class should come from a standardized test similar to an AP test, that would be universal for the entire country. It should test the basic concepts while giving teachers flexibility to teach what they want. If it’s an honors class, add an additional essay to be factored into the grade. IMO, it’s ridiculous that the only choices are a meaningless number that can vary wildly from school to school, or a single deeply flawed standardized test that has nothing to do with what students learn in school. The British system, for example, is way better.</p>
<p>I think GPA should be the most important, BUT, I think the whole system of calculating GPA needs to be more standardized so there isn’t such ridiculous variance. For example, a portion of the grade in each class should come from a standardized test similar to an AP test, that would be universal for the entire country. It should test the basic concepts while giving teachers flexibility to teach what they want. If it’s an honors class, add an additional essay to be factored into the grade. IMO, it’s ridiculous that the only choices are a meaningless number that can vary wildly from school to school, or a single deeply flawed standardized test that has nothing to do with what students learn in school. The British system, for example, is way better.</p>
<p>I certainly agree. The American college entrance system is… flawed, to say the least. The SAT does not cover topics such as calculus, physics, history, literature, or anything other than basic mathematics, grammar, and vocabulary. While grades can end up penalizing students who attend challenging high schools without a well-known reputation that do not report rank. This is why I believe the SAT subject tests and AP/IB scores need to have a greater impact in admissions decisions.</p>
<p>To tell the truth, I pretty much dislike the usage of HS unweighted grade point average for scholarship cutoffs and in general. It pretty much awards kids attending lax schools and with easy schedules. Not to mention that it pushes teachers to inflate their students’ grades (IIRC, due to grade inflation, the average college-bound student’s GPA is about at around a 3.25, and rising.)</p>
