<p>Which is better? I would think that the SAT should be weighted more since everyone takes the same test...and GPA depends on the difficulty of the school (what if someone gets a 4.5 at Grade Inflation High)....but I've heard otherwise...whats the verdict..</p>
<p>GPA is more important.</p>
<p>I disagree that SATs should be more important because GPAs take a period of 4 years to build while SATs are determined in one 4 hour period. Ranks are a part of GPA too, so if you come from a bad school, then you should have a high ranking.</p>
<p>so what if you come from a very difficult school(Distinguished school) and can only pull off a 3.6 compared to someone at a weaker high school with a 4.0...does the name of the high school then come into play</p>
<p>If you're from a very difficult school, then you might be able to show that by getting awesome scores on your SATs, while the other kid would get lower scores.</p>
<p>However, if you come from a competitive school and are a bad test-taker, you get somewhat screwed. Then again, if you do well at a hard school, you could have a REALLY high ranking/percentage with an average GPA. I don't know, it really depends, but grades matter more.</p>
<p>Everyone is saying grades, which I agree with sort of....but there is no other way to prove the difficulty of your school and the method in which you earned your grades and rank. </p>
<p>I personally think that SAT scores are more important. They compare you to a population, and give you a percentile.</p>
<p>I'm not in the top 10% at my magnet school, yet I'm getting around 2100 SAT score...doesn't add up. </p>
<p>I think if you end up getting a good SAT score, but a low GPA in HARD (AP) courses, it's ok.</p>
<p>i personally believe GPA is more important. i know so many rich kids at my school that spent thousands on SAT courses to improve their score, and they did. but as for me............................ gah.</p>
<p>i would consider SAT scores to be more important if all prep books and courses were banned. =P</p>
<p>yet i know a friend from a very low performance school that moved from my school (fairly competitive) and became the top 4% there, ELC candidate, and before she moved and was still in my school, she wasn't even in the top 20%. now she's guaranteed into UCI, while many of the non-ELC students at my school are obviously more qualified than she. not to mention that her sat score is around 1600s. so in this cast, i vote SAT. oh oh! and she gets an extra boost coming from a low performance school, life is just unfair, ;]</p>
<p>umm, if her score is in the 1600s (I'm assuming you mean the new SAT), she won't get into the most amazing college. GPA does matter more, but to a certain extent. 2400 and 2.9 uw doesn't cut it, but neither does 1600 and 4.0 uw. </p>
<p>This may sound ridiculous, but try to REALLY well in both. seriously. there's no other way around it... unless your ECs are like, out of this world.</p>
<p>what about 1960 and 4.04 for UC's, hows that</p>
<p>I hate to say it - - - but prep books and courses can only help so much. The rest of the test is up to you and your application of the knowledge you learn from school. I guess it's different for me.</p>
<p>I was ranked 1/~600 in my middle school, so I decided to go to a magnet school, where I'm probably ranked ~30/200. I'm not in the top 10%. Also take into account if I went to my normal high school, it'd be like 80 people in the top 10%, not 20. GPA is relative to the school. GPA is relative to the teacher. You can't really compare GPAs completely. You can in the sense to gain an idea of where the student is at, but not totally. </p>
<p>The SAT levels the playing field, which I think is great, now! I used to think it was stupid, but that was only because my SAT scores were lousy. You have to prep for the SAT, there is no way around it, whether you use books or courses. I think it's a poor excuse to declare that rich people have thousands of dollars....the thing is they have the prep books at the library, so there is no excuse there. The courses are essentially the books.</p>
<p>It all depends on the applicant's context - namely, his/her school. If s/he comes from a competitive school, a low GPA is excusable with a high SAT. Furthermore, a high GPA and low SAT is excusable too, since it could mean s/he simply isn't good at standardized tests. If s/he comes from an uncompetitive school, a low GPA means s/he is lazy, and a high GPA must be further supported by a high SAT.</p>
<p>the api of my school is 900 and i got a 4.04, but im not good at standardized testing so i got a 1960</p>
<p>I think SAT's should be more important. With SAT's, everyone is in an even playing field.</p>
<p>I used to think that I was just "bad" at the SAT, but the thing is that it tests basic skills. I think colleges should look at your composite score's percentiles and place you according. Let's say that 660 was "90%" meaning that you're in the top 10%. I think it makes more sense like that...a national outlook.</p>
<p>but how much would you have to prep for the SAT? I did about 6 or 7 meaningful tests and reviewed every answer, but my CR remained a lousy 580 and I'll admit that I'm not that intelligent, but I know I am definitely WAY more motivated and hard working than the average kid in my school who can score 2100+. I hope to God my English recs and grades make up for the lousy CR score.</p>
<p>I've only done practice tests, as for prep, I really did a lot of prep in freshman year, and nothing came of it. Neither in tenth either, but it wasn't until junior year did it start to be like easy. </p>
<p>The SAT isn't a test of hard work or motivation - - - that is what GPA is for. The SAT is is a test of raw testing abilities.</p>
<p>Just because you work hard doesn't mean you always get what you want.</p>
<p>SATs are MUCH MUCH MUCH more important. They give college evaluations between others a lot easier. There are many bright students from one school, so evidently the top 20% at one very gifted school might be the top 1% at another school. This is where SATs come in to distinguish these differences.</p>
<p>Personally, I am no fan of the SAT. Let’s face it, one 4 hour test shouldn’t be testimony of 4 years (or prehaps more) of kicking your ass. And while people say it is a good comparison to other kids in the nation, that is not true. Rich people spend thousands to boost their scores, while other folks might have a 20 dollar study book and that’s it. GPA is (and should be) more important.</p>
<p>For highly competitive schools, one or the other isn’t enough. For schools below that, GPA, at least in my anecdotal experience, has come out on top.</p>
<p>GPA is most likely more important. SAT’s play a larger role later in the admissions decisions when they try to distinguish between two similar GPA students at the same school.</p>
<p>Colleges who have admitted students from your school in the past know the level of difficulty of your classes, so GPA’s influence will vary by school as well.</p>