<p>I found a website which offers an explanation as to how grades typically translate from letter grades to 100 point scale to 4.0 scale (educationoasis.com). There is one slight inconsistency in what they suggest, but here is what I derive from their explanation.
A++ = 100 = 4.5
A+ = 98 = 4.3
A = 95 = 4.0
A- = 92 = 3.7
B+ = 88 = 3.3
B = 85 = 3.0
B- = 82 = 2.7
C+ = 78 = 2.3
C = 75 = 2.3
C- = 72 = 1.7
D+ = 68 = 1.3
D = 65 = 1.0
D- = 62 = 0.7
F = 55 = 0.0</p>
<p>A++... -___-"</p>
<p>YES.</p>
<p>Let me put it very simply.</p>
<p>Colleges do not cut off by GPA. They cut off by class ranking.</p>
<p>Harvard slices off the top 1% and admits from there and then moves downward. If you're not in the top 1%, you better have something to make up for it like Legacy.</p>
<p>Less selective colleges slice off at lower points. </p>
<p>For example, my old high school regularly produced 50 national merit finalists a year but we only had usually 1 or 2 harvard admits, usually the valedictorian and the 2nd place guy (forgot the name). Sometimes someone ranked 4th or 6th would make it out of our 800 person class. The cutoff for the top 5% was around a 4.65 at my high school. This happened even though our top 30 students were probably smarter than the valedictorians at dozens of nearby podunk schools, at least half of which had valedictorians who got into harvard (they weren't national merit and they had mediocre gpa's of 4.2 with a similar curriculum).</p>
<p>However, almost never did you see anyone in the the 2%-5% make it. Stanford seemed to cut off around 3%. Etc. </p>
<p>Hence, gpa does not matter, class ranking does.</p>
<p>A++ = 100 = 4.5
A+ = 98 = 4.3
A = 95 = 4.0
A- = 92 = 3.7
B+ = 88 = 3.3
B = 85 = 3.0
B- = 82 = 2.7
C+ = 78 = 2.3
C = 75 = 2.3
C- = 72 = 1.7
D+ = 68 = 1.3
D = 65 = 1.0
D- = 62 = 0.7
F = 55 = 0.0</p>
<p>This is total rubbish....</p>
<p>In my school an 80+ is all u can possibly get... thats not equivalent to B+/ 3.0 odd GPA. And all schools in the city are similar</p>
<p>i dont think colleges cut off by class ranking, as college senior implies</p>
<p>there are plenty of people who got in but weren't in the top 1%</p>
<p>College Senior has it about right.</p>
<p>As college senior said, class ranking is a cutoff point all else being equal.</p>
<p>If you are not in top 1% you usually have some decent edges to get in (such as geographical uniqueness, extracurics, etc.)</p>
<p>Being valedictorian witha 1550 and being president of one club is usually good enough.</p>
<p>If you're top 2-3%, then you'll need more than one club presidency. </p>
<p>Its seemed to work that way at my school too.</p>
<p>I think it depends largely on the school, as in how succesfully your school has sent students to various schools historically.</p>
<p>Right. Like if your school normally sends five or more non-recuited athletes to Harvard, never mind.</p>
<p>Private schools will probably get an edge, you know all those college prep schools in the massachussetts area probably send a lot more than they should with their gpa's and sat scores. In my experience (one good public school and a few friends at good public schools), it doesn't seem to help at all for public schools and if you go to a public high schools school, its better to go to an easy one and do well there then go to a competitive one.</p>
<p>what if the B was in 1st semester of a freshman foriegn language class where you missed a bubble on the exam and they refused to correct it...</p>
<p>and you get a high score in the SAT II subject and/or the AP exams and As for next 3 years. WIll they think it is a fluke.</p>
<p>They don't look that closely. The 3rd ranked person at my school was a well known slacker that took all the easiest advanced placement classes and only the minimum credit hours a week. He started a fake club and got into harvard.</p>
<p>A friend of mine killed himself taking 7-8 classes a semester and doing a lot of EC's (more than the harvard guy). He made a 1550 on his sat's like the 3rd ranked guy and was top 3% but ended up only getting into Rice.</p>
<p>So I would say rank is a more important factor. Colleges only really have 6 semester with which to grade you anyways. I would advise not killing yourself to make up your gpa unless it would pump you significantly in your percentile, like from 97th to 99th percentile with a low degree of risk.</p>
<p>Getting a good SAT and applying and winning a lot of unique awards is probably more useful.</p>
<p>I think people here should not even consider essays or personality as a factor of admissions- not even for a moment.</p>
<p>Wel, basically, this was a fluke that never should have happened, weighted my GPA still should be 4.3 - 4.4, but the unweighted will be about 3.94, is that OK, esp. if I have high SAT II in that subject and A in more advanced language classes.</p>
<p>GPA SCALE:</p>
<p>5.0 - Weighted usually AP or IB A.</p>
<p>4.0 - A in class, B in weighted class.</p>
<p>3.0 - B in class, C in weighted class</p>
<p>2.0 - C in class, D in weighted class</p>
<p>1.0 -D in class, fail?? a weighted class</p>
<p>0.0 -E, F or Fail...</p>
<p>A = 90+
B=80-90
C=70-80 etc.</p>
<p>I believe a 3.9 is more powerful to colleges than a 4.0 because it convinces the colleges that your school's academics standard is much higher and much harder than others.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I believe a 3.9 is more powerful to colleges than a 4.0 because it convinces the colleges that your school's academics standard is much higher and much harder than others.
[/quote]
Uh, no. People can get 4.0s in "hard" schools. If they wanted to find out how difficult a school was, they could look at the average SAT scores, college acceptance rate, percentage of people with high GPAs, etc. You can't conclude that a school is difficult by seeing a 3.9.</p>
<p>I have a 3.7 and i got accepted in Umich, so 3.9 is a good score lol in my opinion</p>
<p>I have a 3.89 (unweighted) with Honors and AP classes. Sadly, I am only 27/381.</p>
<p>I hated freshmen year.</p>
<p>By the way...nice to meet you all (=</p>
<p>I have a 3.83 and I'm like 16 out of 150. If all a college really cares about is GPA...then....whatever. Just because you're not a 4.0 student doesn't mean you won't succeed. Schools that are not like Harvard may be renown in something else. UW-La Crosse is known as a very good business school, for example, but it's not like the best school ever for everything else.</p>
<p>when I was in highschool, I had a 3.9 gpa and was #17 in a class of about 354. i was rejected from UNC-CH, waitlisted for ND, and accepted to Pitt, UGA, UMass-Amherst, TN-Knoxville, and Smith. I don't think that 3.9 v 4.0 is going to be a deciding factor, but other things like your essays, etc. that would carry more weight. So basically, I don't think that there is much of a diff there and I doubt the adcoms put THAT much emphasis on it if there is just a 1pt diff. It's not like a 4.0 v 3.1 .....we're talking minor diff here.</p>
<p>And as to why Chapel Hill rejected me, I doubt it was due to my grades......I kind of applied to that one hastily so I didn't exactly put much care into my application.</p>