<p>I keep seeing threads for kids who have 3.3 GPA etc. What about kids who have high GPA because they work really hard and are good writers but their scores are good not great? My dd who is a junior is in that category. Just wondering on what types of schools should she be looking for - more with the score (probably around 28 ACT) or more with the GPA (3.96 uW)? My oldest had great scores and slightly worse grades (3.92) and he got in most places he applied but he likes the cold. She is looking for schools in warmer areas.</p>
<p>My son had similar stats and did very well in admissions. I think it’s a better position to be in than high test scores, low GPA. I wouldn’t rule out any college just because of the test scores, esp. if the ACT comes in at 28 or better.</p>
<p>DD had a very high GPA and class rank…but couldn’t seem to crack 1250 on the SAT (CR/Math). She is a college senior at her first choice school. There are TONS of colleges out there for students like this. Have you considered looking at schools that are SAT optional?</p>
<p>There is a growing number of very good SAT-optional schools. Look into them.</p>
<p>Many state schools have a “formula” for admissions (a GPA/SAT(orACT) combo. In this case a high GPA will make up for low scores and vise versa.</p>
<p>Yeah, high GPA / middling ACT is a much easier sell than middling GPA / high ACT. Everyone admires hard work (and distrusts a slacker), and people feel pretty ambivalent about what the standardized tests measure anyway.</p>
<p>A kid with that profile may face problems looking for competitive merit scholarships, since colleges often use them to improve their numbers. And Stanford or Duke will still be big reaches (as they would have been with much higher ACT scores). Maybe Cal and UCLA, too, and UNC (out of state). But I don’t think there are many other warm-weather schools where a kid with that profile wouldn’t look terrific.</p>
<p>He may want to think about trying the SAT. Folklore says that lots of kids do better on the ACT, but statistically it has to go both ways.</p>
<p>Hi…</p>
<p>If your D is a junior, then she has time to bring up her ACT 28. </p>
<p>My point is this…</p>
<p>Toooooooo many kids have GPAs in the 3.5-4.0 range, so when it comes to awarding merit scholarships, schools have to further weed thru the many high GPAs and also demand a high test score. </p>
<p>I’m not saying that the high GPA isn’t important. It is. But there are too many kids with high GPAs. Some schools have freshmen classes where 30% (or more) have high GPAs. </p>
<p>So, to “separate the men from the boys” when awarding scholarships, schools expect high scores, too. Because the number of kids with both, are much fewer. :)</p>
<p>IF money is an issue, then none of the OOS UC’s will work because they don’t give non-fed aid to non-residents, and they give very few get big merit (usually only some with super scores - like ACT 34+).</p>
<p>Besides warm weather schools, what are you looking for? Elites for reaches? Merit schools for match/safeties? Both?</p>
<p>What is her likely major and future career?</p>
<p>I volunteer helping high schools kids through the college and financial aid application process. I almost never see kids who have very high test scores but middlin’ grades – although there are a rare few. But I see kids with tip-top grades but unimpressive test scores all the time. In fact, that is what is typical in my experience.</p>
<p>It’s probably some mix of kids just not testing well, not being properly prepared for the tests, and also --at least at the high school here-- I think it’s a function of grade inflation and the fact that you can boost your classroom grades with all kinds of extra-credit things, attendence, class participation, etc. I also can’t seem to convince the kids to really study and practice for the test. This area does not have “prep” classes and that sort of thing. Either the student does it on their own or it doesn’t get done.</p>
<p>But they still seem to do okay with admissions. (The only ones that get into the really selective schools seem to always at least get above 2100 on SAT.) Most kids, though, even with perfect and near-perfect grades don’t even get close to that. Most of the “A students” I see seem to bat closer to 1800, some quite a bit lower than that.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>High GPA can easily be a result of severe grade inflation, which is why standardized tests are still necessary.</p>
<p>Well she won’t need merit aid so that is one blessing. I don’t have any idea about grade inflation since I don’t know what other kids get. I do know she has said that other kids aren’t turning in assignments and doing the work on projects. She is an incredibly hard worker and extremely tenacious but her math problems work against her. SHe is only getting 25 in math and more like 28 in science and 30 in English and reading. While she was able to get A is Algebra and Geometry, Algebra 2 will lower her GPA a bit. On the other hand, her work in science is solid if not advanced while her work in social sciences and English tends to be A’s in honor and college classes (dual enrollment). So I think the scores are fair as well as the grades. They show hard work plus more ability in verbal areas and less but still competent in math.</p>
<p>*I almost never see kids who have very high test scores but middlin’ grades – although there are a rare few. But I see kids with tip-top grades but unimpressive test scores all the time. In fact, that is what is typical in my experience.
*</p>
<p>That is very true. That’s why test scores are the dedicing factor when schools get so many scholarship apps from kids with high GPAs.</p>
<p>*Well she won’t need merit aid so that is one blessing. *</p>
<p>Will the GI benefits pay for all costs of any school? If not, then why not seek merit, too?</p>
<p>My daughter got into excellent colleges with a 28 ACT, high end GPA (around 3.85 uw, probably between 4.1-4.2 weighted). (She will be graduating this year from Barnard, but turned down spots at Chicago & Berkeley). </p>
<p>I don’t think you can ignore test scores entirely, but there’s no reason to exclude any school from consideration. Do keep in mind that its more than GPA & test scores-- my d. also had strong recs and of course there were good reasons for the schools she aimed for to accept her. We did our homework identifying schools that were good targets for her, and of course she applied to safety schools as well.</p>
<p>I do want to note that my d. was offered merit aid at schools like Northeastern & Fordham – not enough to meet our financial need, but you may be pleasantly surprised at the awards your daughter might get from schools in the match/safety range.</p>
<p>I have seen you make this claim many times in the last few months, calmom; but isn’t it true that your daughter was fluent in Russian? And that she took time off in high school to spend time there? Don’t ask my why this sticks in my mind (perhaps because my S is also interested in Russian). I think it is somewhat misleading to repeatedly point out that your daughter was accepted at Chicago and Berkeley with relatively low SAT and ACT scores without mentioning her highly (for a high school student) unusual Russian skills.</p>
<p>Of course, it could be that I’m nuts and off-the-wall on this. However, I seem to remember reading this about your D a long time ago. Correct me if I’m wrong, and I apologize in advance if I am!</p>
<p>**Calmom **quote: *my d. also had strong recs and of course there were good reasons for the schools she aimed for to accept her. *</p>
<p>What were the good reasons? Did she have an unusual major? hook? URM status?</p>
<p>cross-posted with mummom. If the above is true, then I can understand more. My niece had a much higher ACT and was rejected by Barnard, which is why I was wondering.</p>
<p>I must say I also tend to disagree with high gpa/lower SAT scores being more highly desired. Mainly because of grade inflation. High test scores show potential, and if a kid has at least a decent gpa, in my experience competitive schools will go for the high scorer most every time (assuming equally decent recs, ec’s etc.).</p>
<p>Taking this back to the original question, having a high GPA is usually much more important than having high test scores. Yes, the high test scores can give added push, they can qualify students for merit scholarships, but if you have the test scores but not the GPA (or the GPA but not the rigorous course load) selective schools are going to look elsewhere. After all, the idea is to accept kids who will then succeed academically at your college, where they will be challenged at a level much higher than that of the SAT or ACT. </p>
<p>If your D has “just okay” test scores, she should look at selective colleges that are still SAT optional schools (like Smith! Ha ha, wanted to get that in there, though it isn’t that warm all the time, it’s not frigid either…) There are lots of them, many more than you might think, it is a growing trend among LACs at least.</p>
<p>I disagree with mummom, for reasons I stated in my post. The SATs and the ACTs are tests that do not really measure potential for highly selective colleges because they measure skills that are really below college level. An AP test is a different story. Yes, there is the concern about grade inflation, but that’s why colleges have regional counselors and committees and ask for high school profiles, so they are able to compare GPAs at different schools in context of the schools overall academic quality. </p>
<p>Of course, if two candidates are exactly equal, and one has a higher test score, the higher scorer will get it. But if there is say a 3.7 with a good SAT and a 3.9 with an “okay” SAT, the school is going to go for the student with the better GPA, unless that GPA was achieved in easier classes (i.e. the 3.7 took APs, the 3.9 did not).</p>
<p>Remember the old story about the five blind men and the elephant? They each felt a different part. “An elephant is like a live snake” says the man who feels the trunk. “No, the elephant is like a tree” says the man who touches the leg. “No, the elephant is like a leather rug” says the man who feels the big, flappy ear. And so on. No one correctly describes the elephant because no one feels/sees all the parts. </p>
<p>So it is with admissions. There’s lots of parts. GPA and test scores are two parts. Next we add teacher recommendation letters and then rigor of classes and extracurricular activities and, finally, the essay. OP is only looking at two parts of a (at a minimum) 5 part situation. The student that does well in 4 of 5 parts (pick any 4) is going to be a stronger candidate than someone who is strong in 3 of 5 or 2 of 5. </p>
<p>Rather than beating the SAT score into the dirt as a discussion topic, why not focus on 1) enthusiasm and maturity in class; 2) extracurricular activities that the student loves and 3) an essay that wows.
Good luck!</p>
<p>I must say I also tend to disagree with high gpa/lower SAT scores being more highly desired. Mainly because of grade inflation.</p>
<p>I agree. Grade inflation has caused way too many kids to graduate with high GPAs. Also, having the option of taking less rigorous classes to boost GPA also fosters this occurence. A person can have a 4.0, yet not have taken APs, Calculus or even pre-cal.</p>
<p>I think it’s more complicated than any simple formula. It may matter whether a candidate has extraordinary achievements in some fields but shortcomings in others. It obviously matters whether her school is strong or weak, whether her curriculum is challenging or not, and whether her GPA reflects grade inflation. I don’t think any simple characterization applies to places like Harvard or Princeton. No one has a great chance of getting into either based only on GPA, test scores, or any combination of the two. If some low/high combination is accepted, it’s probably for different reasons entirely.</p>
<p>But once you get down onto more rational rungs of the selectivity ladder, I continue to believe that actual academic achievement (as reflected by grades and class rank, taking into account difficulty of schedules, local standards, etc.) is valued more highly than test scores. If you take two kids from the same school, with equivalent courses, the one with the higher GPA and class rank is going to do better than the one with higher test scores (assuming that the differences are meaningful) most of the time. I think you can see that in most Naviance scattergrams I have looked at: for any high school and selective college, the accepted students usually have a much wider range of test scores than of GPAs.</p>