<p>Pancaked couldnt have said it any better.</p>
<p>you guys are all lucky. My school uses a 12 point scale, and I have no idea what it means (you can’t just divide by 3 to get the 4 point scale, that doesnt work). Plus we dont rank.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You must go to a terrible school if your class rank is in the top 3% and you can’t do great on a standardized test or on an AP test. There are plenty of schools in this country where the valedictorian can’t read his/her own diploma. Those people do not get into top colleges, even with 4.0 GPAs, which are given out as a reward for showing up regularly.</p>
<p>There is a very good reason for standardized test scores – they show if you are learning material to the same degree that students in other schools are.</p>
<p>Qwerty: aw:( it’s okay!</p>
<p>Lorem- thanks for answering my original question. (sarcasm if you couldn’t tell)</p>
<p>I’d take the high scores before the GPA. Lots of people have 3.9s. Not a lot of people have 2370s. Besides, there’s too much that goes into an unweighted GPA. Course difficulty, grade inflation/deflation, etc. I’ve known far too many teachers who grade bizarrely to place a lot of stock in the GPA. Furthermore, a straight 3.x doesn’t say where that 3.x comes from. Are the grades only weak in PE? Is there an upward trend? There are too many tings that go into a GPA but a standardized test score can be much more telling.</p>
<p>Course difficulty and grade inflation doesn’t go into an unweighted… That’s what weighted is for. And many high schools in the US use a ten point or seven point system. I’ve only known a handful of people whose things like the required gym/health class factors into GPA. it usually doesn’t, but the schools recalculate our GPAs anyway, so they know.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, the role of the SAT / ACT is to level the playing field for students. A 3.8 in one school is very different from a 3.8 in another . . .</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>. . . and as you can see, different schools have all different sorts of calculating academic performance. It’s standardized tests that “standardize” different students’ performance so that you can equitably compare one from a poor rural public school to another from an elite prep school. Otherwise, the obvious assumption to be made would be that the student with excellent grades from the better school must be a better student than one with excellent grades from a lesser school.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Let me try a different approach: GPA, or more often, class rank, has slightly more value than standardized test scores, because those with super-high test scores but low grades are perceived to be slackers who could do poorly and flunk out of college, despite their obvious intelligence.</p>
<p>Class rank is usually more important than raw GPA, because in many schools the more rigorous classes are weighted, so two sets of 3.9+ GPAs could have very different class ranks because one student took the easy classes and another challenged himself. However, there are schools that give no extra weight to advanced classes – in those cases GPA plus rigor of classes are most looked at.</p>
<p>A student with high grades but low test scores is looked upon more favorably than a student with the reverse – it’s not his fault if his teachers poorly covered the subject material. It’s also possible that the student might have a medical condition such as ADD or dyslexia which make it difficult to do well in timed tests – if so, a medical note of explanation can help the student’s application.</p>
<p>Nevertheless, a student who appears to be near the top of his class yet has poor standardized test scores is not properly prepared for the rigors of a better college (let’s be serious here, the SAT only asks you about 9th and 10th grade material, the questions are not particularly difficult if you were properly taught). The C- student from the elite suburban high school is not going to gain admission to a top college. Stick this C- student into a school where the teachers are easy graders but poor teachers and the same kid becomes an A+ student. That still doesn’t mean he knows enough to do well in a top college – and, in most cases, he won’t get in (poor, first-generation URMs may get a shot if they demonstrate some extra spark, perhaps in ECs).</p>
<p>The bottom line is that GPA and standardized test scores should roughly correlate to one another, otherwise it can raise a red flag with the admissions committee. At a top school that accepts less than 25% of its applicants, a red flag is usually the kiss of death.</p>
<p>I understand what you’re saying now, thanks. </p>
<p>I don’t have a legitimate hatred towards stand. tests. I just have to recall everything i learned in eighth grade because I’ve been on an advanced track since 4th grade, so I learned all of that 3 years ago versus the other juniors taking alg2, geometry, or PreCalculus now at my school. </p>
<p>I’m not really upset about it, though. Even though it seems like it.</p>
<p>Colleges see your transcript as far more important than your test scores. Test scores, while still important, only demonstrate what you were able to do in 4 hours of your life. Your transcript describes 4 <em>years</em> of work.</p>
<p>High GPA, average test scores without a doubt.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Now that is a concern. I would make the time to get a test-prep book or two and carefully review all this “ancient” material – your test scores should make a dramatic jump and help your admissions chances, perhaps even help you get into a better college than you are now considering.</p>
<p>high scores + average gpa is better.</p>
<p>Tens of thousands of kids in america got over 3.9 GPAs. 6000 got over 2300 SAT.</p>
<p>Lorem- I have PR and Barron’s for every test I have to take (including APs.) and sorry for being rude earlier. in my opinion, 4 out of the 9 schools I’m applying to are reaches. Maybe 5. But who knows what could happen!</p>
<p>Jason- I think I’ll just strive for high GPA+high scores :)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s a good balance – line up enough reaches and at least one or two should come through for you. Reviewing for and retaking the test should help nicely. It looks like you’re on your way. Good luck!</p>
<p>It really depends on what you mean by average in both cases. </p>
<p>I would argue that a 3.7 or 3.8 UW coupled with a 2350 is better than a 4.0 coupled with a 2000.</p>
<p>On the other hand, it is probably better to have a 3.9 with a 2250 over a 3.6 and 2400. </p>
<p>Basically, it really depends upon what one defines to be high and average. Also, this analysis assumes equal rigor essentially as most colleges do not consider the GPA to be the most important element but rather the transcript which is some conglomerate of rank, GPA, and rigor…</p>
<p>Original- yeah, it’s all open to interpretation. I wish college admissions was more black and white. I’m not going to “settle” for what I have, but I was just wondering. I’m sure they’d like to see a 3.9 and a 2300 over everything.
And you’re right about that not vein the most important thing. On every college’s common data set page, it says what they consider most important. MIT’s says the essay/your personality, while others say the grades/GPA/test scores are more important. </p>
<p>Lorem- thanks! I’m studying for six tests simultaneously right now 
I’m positive I can do it. If im not at MIT this summer, I’m going to take physics at community college to get ready for the physics subject test (my honors class doesn’t cover ANYTHING on the test, and I’m taking physics AP next year which will be too late.) thanks again! :)</p>