<p>I haven't taken that many AP or honors classes to be honest, but I have a 4.0 UW.</p>
<p>My friend has a 3.7 UW, but he's taking a LOT of AP classes and honors classes. I think he's taking the most AP classes in the entire school, plus he's the only one self-studying APs. </p>
<p>I hear he's planning on taking online AP classes as well. His reason is that he loves learning and he doesn't want to miss out on anything.</p>
<p>Would his schedule and GPA be seen as more appealing to college admissions due to his class rigor?</p>
<p>Look at common data sets. Class rigor is almost always “very important” for admissions committees. </p>
<p>Who’s better on paper: the kid who took algebra II as a senior in high school and graduated with a 4.0 UW, or the kid who took multivariable calculus at the local college and got a 3.5 UW?</p>
<p>
Neither is better than the kid who reads Gödel, Erdős, Fermat, et. al. for leisure.</p>
<p>“Who’s better on paper: the kid who took algebra II as a senior in high school and graduated with a 4.0 UW, or the kid who took multivariable calculus at the local college and got a 3.5 UW?”</p>
<p>For insanely selective schools, they’d probably both be rejected. Lots of people get straight As in hard classes.</p>
<p>It depends a lot on what the school offers too. Online AP classes are only available to people who can pay for them or otherwise have access to them. Not all local colleges have multivariable calculus (the closest college to me doesn’t even seem to offer single-variable that often), and not all states have policies that make dual enrollment free. </p>
<p>But yes, they do care that you’ve taken the most challenging classes available (unless doing that would give you a genuinely low GPA, in which case I would advise taking regular classes and applying to less selective schools).</p>
<p>I don’t know…GPA seems PRETTY important.
A 3.7 is pretty low for top colleges.</p>
<p>Challenging classes don’t really make up for a “low” GPA, but you can’t get in with a high GPA and no challenging classes.
You kind of need both, really.</p>
<p>So I’m of the understanding that we would probably look around the same in terms of college admissions?</p>
<p>No, I’d say he looks better because a 3.7 is still high. If he had like a sub-3.5 GPA you’d look about the same. But the person getting into the top schools will in a lot of cases be the person with a 4.0 and challenging classes.</p>
<p>And plus, by not taking rigorous classes it kind of implies that you’re not as passioned for learning. And “passion” is what prestigious colleges look in a student…</p>
<p>I think you guys are missing the point of my post. You’re dissecting the GPA aspect and my point was that people who take hard classes look objectively better on paper. I think it’s stupid to argue otherwise.</p>
<p>Norweigia4eva is exactly right. Colleges don’t measure APs by the pound…they want to see a student who has challenged him/herself to the fullest measure possible. If you take “Math 1” as a freshman and get an “A”, and you have the choice between “Math 2” and “Math 2 AP” as a sophomore, colleges want to see you take the AP class. If you scored a “B-” in “Math 1” and you get an “A” in “Math 2” that shows that you challenged yourself to work harder. It’s all relative.</p>
<p>After reading many pages of criteria of individual schools, I am convinced that taking rigorous classes is significantly more important than GPA. Regular classes in many schools in the US are not so difficult. Unless you are in a school known for being difficult, a test-in school, a top private school, getting As just isn’t special. A’s are hardly exceptional these days! Dime a dozen. Your friend will look much better.</p>
<p>^
Honors/AP classes aren’t all that difficult either, and doing well in hard classes isn’t really unique. </p>
<p>“You’re dissecting the GPA aspect and my point was that people who take hard classes look objectively better on paper”</p>
<p>I would imagine you’d have a better chance at getting into most colleges (as in, colleges that aren’t particularly selective) with a high GPA in regular classes than a low GPA in harder classes. Taking hard classes and doing badly in them doesn’t make you look better than someone who did well in regular classes - it just means you checked different boxes when you picked your classes. For example, if someone knew they would end up getting multiple Cs if they took honors classes, I think it would look better for them to take mostly regular classes and apply to less selective colleges. At a lot of the public schools it seems that grades are considered above class rigor, and frequent Ds and Cs just don’t look good.
But a 3.7 isn’t a low GPA, at all, and I imagine for the most part someone who can get As in regular classes will be able to get mostly As in honors classes too. The difficulty isn’t that much greater.</p>
<p>I don’t know where you go halcyonheather, but at my school someone getting straight A’s in normal classes probably wouldn’t even be able to keep up a B average in honors and AP classes. For example, I know 4-5 people who failed out of Honors Chemistry first semester (If you get a D or F my school automatically drops you to regular), and all of them got A’s or A+'s in regular chemistry for the second semester.</p>
<p>To answer your question HollowSunsets, the person getting a 3.7 would be much better off in my eyes.</p>
<p>i laugh at everyone who is taking lesser classes than I am</p>
<p>gpa doesn’t even matter</p>
<p>Assuming people have at least a 3.5, the person with the more rigorous schedule will be considered the stronger applicant.</p>
<p>Class rigor is important to an extent. Once the most rigorous schedule box is checked, GPA is more important.</p>