<p>To use myself [obviously] as an example: each of my semesters, as of the end of my Junior year, has been better than the last; Freshman Year was good but not great, probably 30th or so out of my class of 250. However, I've progressed steadily and Junior Fall I had the 2nd highest semester average, Junior Spring the highest. This was accompanied by taking the 'rigorous coursework', etc. etc. So my question is: to what extent does great late balance out okay early? [I'm applying to schools like Harvard, MIT, Uchicago, Duke, Stanford] I go to a pretty good private school in a big city, sends maybe 3-7 to Ivies yearly.</p>
<p>Note: ^ are just my reaches</p>
<p>Edit: I saw the "MIT Acceptee" thread above and now I feel bad</p>
<p>Since I’m not really sure about my GPA on a 4.0 scale, I may as well ask about that as well. </p>
<p>Honors/AP Classes presented here unweighted; school adds +5 for each for my cumulative average.</p>
<p>FRESHMAN YEAR - Semester 1, Semester 2</p>
<p>Theology - 97, 96
Pre-AP English - 90, 90
Debate - [only Semester 2] 95
Latin I - 88, 93
Health - [only Semester 2] 94
Honors Algebra II - 90, 94
Honors Biology - 95, 96
Technology Applications - [only Semester 1] 90</p>
<p>SOPHOMORE YEAR</p>
<p>Theology II - 92, 95
Pre-AP English II - 95, 96
Honors Latin II - 94, 96
AP World History - 94, 98
Honors Geometry - 93, 95
Honors Chemistry - 100, 96
Ceramics - [only Semester 1] 90</p>
<p>JUNIOR YEAR </p>
<p>Theology III - 97, 100
AP Lit and Comp - 98, 98
Honor sLatin III - 98, 100
AP US History - 100, 100
Honors Pre-Cal - 97, 98
AP Physics B - 93, 98
AP Computer Science - 97, 98</p>
<p>Thanks in advance to anyone who can make sense of that >_></p>
<p>At the very top colleges, trend doesn’t matter. It’s all about rank and most successful applicants have been at the top of their class from day one. At colleges below there it can indeed help a lot.</p>
<p>hmom5, are you really not aware of the early slacker profile: freshmen slackers who pick up their act and end up with perfect 10th-12th GPAs? Are you suggesting that their freshmen GPA will eliminate them from contention if it was, say, a 3.6? I have a 3.9 freshman year GPA and a 4.0 sophomore year GPA. My school does not rank but I know that I am somewhere near the top of my class. Are you suggesting that I need to pull off a 4.0 cumulative in order to be competitive at HYPSM?</p>
<p>Perhaps this might not constitute a trend to you, but certainly one does not need to have a 4.0 from freshman to senior year in order to be competitive at top schools. The difference between a 3.9 and a 4.0 is often a luck of the draw. And yes, a 3.6 is significantly different, but surely it can be overlooked if a large improvement is made throughout the rest of high school.</p>
<p>I don’t feel like it will really help you that much. Although it is great that your grades have gotten better and better with harder course loads, it is probably the same for most of the other applicants.</p>
<p>I’m not offering this as my ‘hook’, or anything; I’m just wondering how a record like mine would compare to, say, someone who has maintained, say, a record like my Sophomore Year.</p>
<p>I think the extreme bounce back would be like this: You get a 2.0 GPA freshman year to 4.0 senior year (alone), then it would be dramatic and there are tons to write about</p>
<p>Well, the way I see it, theres no way to change the past, so just stay positive. As to how much it will help, I’d be willing to wager than an upward trend is better that the a trend in the opposite direction. Good luck!</p>
<p>Yes, well for all colleges, the order of importance is usually years: jr>sr>soph>fresh. therefore, an upward trend would indeed help since fresh year is viewed the least.</p>
<p>^Wait, so admissions at the school you worked at would really remove people with substantially lower freshman GPAs (lower than 3.7) who have a perfect or near-perfect grade record otherwise? I’m not saying that I’m questioning its existence, since you have worked with admissions before, but it just doesn’t seem like a reasonable and fair way to judge an applicant. I am less than 2 years removed from my freshman year and I can say that much about me, particularly my work ethic, has significantly changed. Do applicants with a perfect high school GPA really have a large edge over an applicant who have an okay freshman year but is superb every other year? I just think that there should be little weight, if any, given to a 4.0 cumulative over a ~3.9. To me, a 4.0 usually indicates a strong degree of luck and often can mean being in a teacher’s favor. I really do not see the purpose of an adcom nitpicking over As and A-s, and I especially cannot understand why freshman year grades should act as anything beyond being a trifle of information.</p>
<p>When a school is accepting under 10 or 15 percent of applicants they have so many qualified candidates they have no reason to parse trends. I’m not saying a kid who had a bumpy year would not be considered, but he’d have to have something compelling because rank is the key and top schools want top ranked students if they don’t have a hook.</p>
<p>If you look at a mid tier ivy–Dartmouth–40% of their class of '12 who we ranked were number 1 or 2 in their class. That percent would represent the majority of unhooked students.</p>
<p>So [hmom5] what do you make of what seems to be a common sentiment around here, that valedictorians etc. aren’t always the smartest kids but are often the hardest workers; is that something adcoms looked for when they accepted those applicants?</p>
<p>But hmom5, by that logic, wouldn’t it also make sense to differentiate between applicants with a perfect score on their SAT and applicants with, say, a 2350? The general consensus on these boards is that earning a few more points on the SAT will not matter at that level, but if an admissions board factors in one’s freshman GPA, wouldn’t it also make sense to compare SAT scores even on the 2300+ level?</p>
<p>My college counselor (who does only work with the top schools) has personally told me that trend matters enormously, contrary I guess to what hmom5 is saying. Hmm. Just another perspective I guess</p>
<p>Pardon me for drifting slightly off-topic here, but I have a personal interest regarding the SAT. I am a rising junior, and I have just begun taking blue-book SAT tests. Right now, My score range is very high (2300+), and I have a good 6 months before I take my first real SAT. Would you recommend that I devote substantial time to studying for the SAT in order to consistently score 2380+ on practices tests, and hopefully a 2400 on the real thing?</p>