<p>I agree with the OP. That's why I like my school - anyone with straight A's is TRULY Ivy-caliber. </p>
<p>I hate seeing people pull straight A's in a subject and get a 500 on the SAT II. That just shows how much an A at their school is worth.</p>
<p>Man, to think of it, I like the SATs... :)</p>
<p>ctygal, i see your points and agree</p>
<p>Sometimes, you have kids that have always gotten As, and the teacher just churn out those As, I have seen it</p>
<p>CityGal55: Let's say that many public schools give unfair grade inflation, which I agree is true. Are we really to place this flaw on the shoulders of the students who attend those schools? Do they really, in other words, have a "choice"?
Why should kids who went to crappy public schools, who may in your opinion be "not as smart as private school kids" or at least undereducated, not get a great, amazing education at a great college?
That's the whole premise behind affirmative action. There is a much larger %age of minorities attending bad public schools- the same schools that you cite as shelling out unfair grade inflation- who are able to attend great colleges because affirmative action requires that colleges give them a somewhat heightened opportunity to do so. Do you have a problem with that?</p>
<p>Citygal55, I completely agree with you. I go to a public magnet school where the competition is intense. 4.0 UW at my school is reserved for the truly genius..There's such a disparity between the GPA's around the schools. A 3.6 at my school is equivalent to 4.0's at other schools... </p>
<p>I hope those regional directors will closely look at each individual's school and take things in context.</p>
<p>OP</p>
<p>your GPA has very little to do with your level of intelligence.
your GPA has very little to do with the dificulty of your school</p>
<p>a GPA is just a reflection of how hard you tried. </p>
<p>i'm sure the posters directly under this post will yell at me for saying it, but it is pretty true. there is people who say they work incredibly hard, and there are people who actually work incredibly hard. </p>
<p>i go to a particullary competitive high school taking some hard classes....but i'll be the first to tell you, i'm not that intelligent... but i can pull a 4.0 uw because it all comes down to how hard you will work for it.</p>
<p>Not necessarily. Some people are just intelligent and can get a good GPA without trying that hard. On the other hand, some people just find school challenging and can't get a 4.0 no matter how hard they try.</p>
<p>Anyway, I kinda agree with what the OP is saying. Seeing the number of people on CC alone with GPAs like 4.7 and 4.8 is a little ridiculous. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Yes, I think a lot of public schools in America suck. Not all of them, but a good majority of them. And before someone else attacks me, there are definitely a lot of horrible private schools, as well.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Wellll...I think some public schools are definitely not very good. I wouldn't say a "good majority." But probably enough to have a serious detriment on the overall secondary education quality. So, I agree that many public schools need to fix some problems. Maybe cutting down on GPA inflation is one of them. I'm more concerned with the style of teaching and management. It seems to me like some schools are short on money, or waste money, and students aren't learning much due to poor teaching methods.</p>
<p>Anyway, back to GPA inflation, I think colleges adjust for it, so at least when it comes to college admissions, it shouldn't be a huge problem.</p>
<p>no... it doesn't matter how smart you are...it takes dedication to earn a 4.0</p>
<p>people who want you to believe that they don't try in school and still get a 4.0 are deceiving you </p>
<p>innate ability has nothing to do with memorizing facts or learning new data</p>
<p>guys...there is no way around it </p>
<p>gpa measures effort</p>
<p>i'm not saying a 4.0 at one school will equal another in the colleges eyes, but there isn't that big of a difference</p>
<p>I disagree..GPA is simply not an accurate measure. Schools vary far too much w/ all this grade inflation and deflation...etc Colleges need a more standardized way of measuring one's true ability.</p>
<p>Yes, a 4.0 takes lots of dedication, but not at some schools.. I bet the top 60% at my school can get a 4.0 at other schools with little effort</p>
<p>Personally, I don't care if a school inflates its students' gpa's. However, it is just wierd when the students' SAT scores and stuff don't correlate with the grades. (Btw, I think AP Scores are not a great way to use as correlation with grades, most of the tests require like 60% or something for a 5, which could be challenging for some courses, but not for most of them)</p>
<p>4.0 is a joke. I have a 4.0 in my high school classes and community colleges classes. So easy. Schools and test companies should really kick up the difficulty. They made teh SATs too easy that so many people get perfect scores in SAT IIs. SAT I is just a test of whether you are careful or not. They should test some real **** on it like AIME problems and grammar rules.</p>
<p>I agree that the SAT is not a very accurate measure of intelligence. I am not good at math and I still managed to do pretty well; I am good at reading and writing and therefore have always scored nearly perfect on every standardized test in the reading and writing sections. Any disparity between scores on reading and writing of the times I have taken the ACT and SAT have nothing to do with my intelligence; they are a reflection of my mood, environment, energy level, etc. These tests don't measure how hard one is willing to work to college, which is where evaluation of GPA comes in. But, as so many have admitted, if so many students can acheive a 4.0 with minimal effort, then aren't 4 years of high school kind of like a glorified, never-ending SAT? </p>
<p>Colleges say they look at GPA within the context of one's school, but I saw FIRST HAND how many places don't really care where you go. Most east coast colleges are only familiar with a small, elite group of private boarding and day schools where it is a given that all the kids there are smart. Beyond that, I really do believe they are somewhat ignorant of the caliber of many private schools. Especially if the turnover of the college counseling department is rather high, some very difficult private schools suffer because no one is there to vouch for the kids or build up relationships. And, at my school, although it does provide the percentages of kids getting such and such GPA, even that is pretty meaningless considering almost everyone is very smart and willing to work hard. But colleges these days have so many applicants that the don't have time to concern themselves with learning about such and such school. </p>
<p>Here's a great example: I applied to the honors program of a school that most people on this board would consider a safety. It barely broke the top 100 in the rankings (I try not to care about that stuff but what can you do?) I was refused admission to the honors program because the GPA cutoff was 3.75. The ACT requirement (in conjunction with GPA) was 27 I believe. I had a 32 on the ACT and they wouldn't budge. They assumed I wasn't "as smart" as the other kids because I couldn't pull off a measely 3.75, and when I tried to go in an explain this to them, the admissions counselor was so ignorant and just kept spewing off nonsense that sounded like a brochure. It was a large state school and they really didn't care. They had no interest in hearing about my school, didn't care about my essays, etc. </p>
<p>Until we can even up the GPA's and distinguish CLEARLY what a 4.0 looks like, I really feel like interviews and ECs should count for a little more in the admissions process. How many kids have you known who are pulling a 4.0 in science class who couldn't tell you what an electron in? Maybe if questions such as, "Well, you seem to excel in science, Billy, what motivates you to do so well? What interests you about Physics?" were asked, colleges could get a clearer idea of who has passion and will contribute to the life of the school.</p>
<p>that's why there is a school profile. if you have a 4.0 uw gpa, great. if 200 other students at your school do as well, ehhh maybe not so impressive anymore.</p>
<p>I go to the most competitive public high school in nj. I have a 3.85 and I am not even close to the top 10%.</p>
<p>I don't think any school that uses gpa grade cutoffs can have taken into account grade inflation/deflation.</p>
<p>yeah really. any school that is that numbers-driven is obviously not a good school to go to.</p>
<p>Senritsu, I would like to give you a little insight into the real life of private school. Just because you pay through the nose for school it does not give you any special considerations. The school I attend has a 75 passing average. If you fall below this grade you must repeat the course. I received a 70 average in Chemistry and passed the regents with a 67(state passing grade accepted). This would have been totally acceptable in public school. I on the other hand am attending summer school. The fact that the teacher wouldn't give me the extra points really upset me at first, but now I want to thank her. I never want to be in this position again and I really feel that if the teacher threw those extra points at me I would expect it from others. This is definitely a hard lesson to learn.</p>
<p>Thats why it was my safety; I wasn't exactly going to apply to WUSTL or something in case I didn't get in to my top choices! A lot of large, non-competitive schools are numbers driven. They have so many applications there is no other way to distinguish one person from the next, and they don't really care about you winning freshman year science fair, so they just make a cut-off and say, below it, not in, over it, in. It sucks, yes. </p>
<p>I am also happy my teachers never gave me special allowances. Why do public school people think we are not in a real school, or that we get extra credit whenever we need it, or that the teachers need to keep parents happy? Extra credit is a RARE thing in many private schools. The only time I ever got it were when I went to the teacher and we sat down to make a plan for improvement after visible effort was shown on my part. I was refused all but one time in four years. I don't see Andover and Choate starving for students, and a lot of those kids reguarly get C's on exams because of their difficulty. I don't go to boarding school, but my school is difficult, and anytime a kid has problems with grades, they are given a stern warning, then thrown out the door. There are tons of other students dying to get in who will do a satisfactory job. That is one of the nice things about private school; they can choose to be picky and therefore only kids who WANT to learn are there. There really isn't anyone around paying for A's.</p>
<p>everyone---</p>
<p>the SAT does not measure if your school has inflated or deflated grades</p>
<p>c itygal55, you had a 3.6 at a private school and a 32? I went to a public school and got a 3.95 and a 33 SAT 1520 (which is a 34-35). I wonder which school type is better? Is my GPA inflated as well according to your logic?</p>
<p>As a person who has been to both public and private schools I see one clear difference between the two.</p>
<p>Private schools care, public schools don't.</p>
<p>Yes, I will say that my grades were lower at the private school, I generally got high B's and low A's, whereas at the public school I get straight A's. But one thing I clearly saw was that if I ever struggled at the private school, or if a friend ever struggled, the teacher would swoop in to ensure that they stopped struggling and got back on track.</p>
<p>At a public school, if you struggle a teacher will just be like "ok, F." That's it. </p>
<p>So which is easier? The school where teachers swoop in to help, or the school where you have to help yourself?</p>