<p>I was looking through the boards today and noticed that people below a 3.92 unweighted GPA and 1480 math and critical reading were told that they had a good shot getting in. I was told that the 50% of students had a 1480 combined math and reading and 3.92 unweighted GPA. Was i lied to, because it does seem that way.</p>
<p>Here is stat from ga tech web site. </p>
<p>[Georgia</a> Institute of Technology :: Undergraduate Admission :: Quick Facts](<a href=“Blow the Whistle! (404 error: page not found) | Undergraduate Admission”>Blow the Whistle! (404 error: page not found) | Undergraduate Admission)</p>
<p>The average SAT at Tech is around 2000 for three sections (clearly not 1480 for math and Verb).</p>
<p>The average GPA is probably 3.92, but many students got several APs which Tech give extra .5 points for every AP courses. So the average is close to 3.75.</p>
<p>Also, Tech is using holistic approach for admission (essay, personal leadership, etc). I see several posters who got below 2000 SAT and got accepted in the last year’s cycle.</p>
<p>So do apply.</p>
<p>1480 Math+CR is very high. The average should be closer to 1400. And a 3.92 GPA is about average. But you have to remember that the student who has GT’s average SAT and GPA is a match for Tech. You don’t need to be above average to have a good change at admission - you just need to be about average.</p>
<p>A 1480 is an average of 740 which, including Writing, would be a 2220. 2220 > 2000.</p>
<p>3.92 unweighted is kind of high in my opinion. That would be in the top 25% for GT GPA</p>
<p>I got in with a 3.87 weighted GPA and 1270 math+CR SAT. It does happen, but my stats were cutting it close.</p>
<p>3.92 was the average admitted last year.</p>
<p>I got a 3.7weighted GPA and a 1930 sat (30 act) score but i think i got in becuse of my essay and my strong EC’s</p>
<p>If you are referring to the Average GPA listed on Gatech website, that is the GT GPA which includes some points for AP’s. I dont think the average unweighted GPA for applicants would be 3.92, if so, please let me know where you got that from.</p>
<p>Thank you</p>
<p>GT posted it on their blog last year. One thing to note is that the average GPA of admitted students is different from the average GPA of enrolled students (what websites report).</p>
<p>was that GT weighted or not? I heard that was not GT weighted, just a true GPA (not skewed)</p>
<p>Just because you don’t have great test scores or an amazingly good high school gpa doesn’t mean you don’t have the potential to do well at gatech. </p>
<p>I guess that with the huge number of applications with near identical stats (high grades and sat) , admissions have to look for something that sets others apart. Maybe the person with the lower scores had something special about him or her that would be a positive contribution to gatech, unlike than the typical applicants that are ‘all about numbers(grades)’.</p>
<p>also, you can’t now everything about the applicant pool with just the mean. They use that number to flatter the incoming students and future applicants. They need to give more statistics(st.dev.,etc.) in order for us to be able to make correct assessment.</p>
<p>I think it’s been argued that SAT scores don’t correlate well with college performance. And mid-50 score is indeed kind of useless. We, for example have a slightly lower mid-50 than many of the top 20 peers, however, the “mean” SAT is a bit higher than many of them. In our case, it’s probably those scholars (a scholarship program here) that chose to enroll skewing the mean upward from the quartile range. Whereas at other schools, those in the bottom 25% may have really low scores (perhaps sports recruits), skewing theirs downward. I’d imagine Tech has something similar going on (the presidential scholars maybe). Either way, I don’t think Tech would have admitted such students(lower stats) if they thought they were incapable. Those quartile stats are indeed a way to flatter people and make the school look better for ranking purposes and to perhaps give one an idea of the competition one faces if admitted. However, your high school performance, no matter how good, does not change the fact that Tech is very hard. Tech more or less slaps many people with “amazing” high school stats. in the face, thus kind of leveling the playing field. Nearly every student will have to work hard at Tech. Best not to come into it under or over confident based on what is trivial at the point of one’s entry into college.</p>
<p>^ That is so true. I am doing fine, but it still a huge difference. At first its like, I hope I get an A on a test. Soon you realize that is not possible and hope to pass. I cheered over a 72 on my last Physics 2212 test(I study, go to office hours, and do all the extra HW). Well, the average was below 60. But dont worry, it stops hurting after a while. At first your upset when you get your first 70 something test grade, and then your like “hey, at least im above the average”. It is hard to get used to after being the top of math/sciences classes in high school which most GT students were. And BTW, I know a senior with 4.0s in AE who got accepted with 1200s, and people who are making Cs who came in with 1400s. So, SAT does not really mean anything, it just makes the school look better when people are applying.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t really think it’s about flattery or prestige (except in some cases where schools compete on SAT scores); rather it’s a way to signal to potential students who should apply to that school. The average Georgia 10th grader probably views GT as a “good school” and thus, they feel that if they are a “good student” they should have no problem in admission. This mindset would then risk too many students using GT as a safety when it’s not.</p>
<p>SAT and GPA are objective criteria that’s easy to compare between students so it’s a quick check to determine if you’re competitive for admission.</p>
<p>Yeah, I suppose you are right. Many people probably overestimate their chances. I met one person (Stone Mt. resident) admitted to USC that was denied Tech b/c they were taking summer classes at Emory, but I’m pretty sure he’s happy being BME at USC. He says it’s tough and that the profs. kinda suck, but that’s gonna be the plight of most college freshmen. Hopefully it’s better for him.</p>
<p>Ilyssa. I know how you feel. That’s how I felt in orgo. my first semester. What sucks is that here, normally the really hard profs. are excellent lecturers(offer lots of learning resources/handouts or design separate mentoring sessions aside from SI), so the averages stay relatively high despite the exam difficulty (darn these smart folks over here, oh well now I’m one of them lol), as in 60s to 70. So it sucks when you’re graded on a curve, like in Dr. Weinschenk’s class (if your friend takes him, you won’t here the end of it). Glad I had Soria(if you had a friend in it, you would also not here the end of it) who grades on a fixed scale. Just hang in there Ilyssa, sounds like you’ll be fine. It should get better next semester.</p>