I’ll give the students a pass on this. If the HS counts 90+ as 4.0 (and really 89.5 since most will round), the student is being accurate.
In all instances, the AO will review the transcript and the schools profile and judge in context.
But I don’t believe this is what they OP was referring to. I interpreted as posts where the students plan on getting a 1600, while implying that they already received it. Or the ones who imply that their “research” with Pfizer led to the COVID vaccine, when their real contribution was fetching coffee.
Regardless, the whole concept of chances is simply a party game IMO.
My kids’ HS weighted GPA is only core courses (that’s the only GPA on the transcript). The school profile has the mid-50% range of this weighted, core course only GPA. GCs do know approximate class rank (which isn’t published anywhere) based on wGPA, and they do sometimes share that with AOs.
Chancing is a party game because you think it is ok if a student with an 89.5 (right on the transcript BTW) rounds his grades up to a 4.0 (not on his transcript BTW) and asks people what we think are odds for Harvard.
I do not think the stats are exaggerated that often and when they are, it tends to be noticeable. I definitely do not think that the kids are often exaggerating about having an UW 4.0 as from what we have seen, that is a very common GPA at my son’s school (he has one B). This is one of the reasons many on CC believe there needs to be some sort of standardized test…
You implied it, and have the right to your opinion.
My opinion is that some people here are extremely skillful at predicting admissions and that adds value to CC. In addition, when students paint an accurate picture, things are better for the entire community.
Thee is no proof a 98 A in one school is better than an 89.5 A in other school.
(even same school in different classes).
Why do we assume 89.5 not deserve an A?
Or 98 one is stronger student?
Yes, I have a right to my opinion. And my opinion is that everyone should know the difference between “implied” and “inferred.” I will thank you not to twist my words in the future.
In fairness, you are posting on “how often are stats exaggerated.” I may not be that smart, but I do understand how students and parents have a hard time painting an honest picture for people. Unfortunately, they exaggerate here, discourage peers, get denied and it perpetuates how difficult it is to get into college. Oh, and also, that admissions is a crap shoot.
Fact is there are few students have 4.0 and Act 35 or SAT 1540 got rejected. Or deferred by not only top 20 school but top 50 schools. It is up to other parents to interpret or to gauge their kids’ chance.
Same with student posted with 3.85 GPA and 1450 and got in top school, don’t expect a normal kid with this stat will also get in.
With majority of students are being honest here, reader should take with grain of salt.
GPA’s among the same student are a potentially misleading. My kid’s school lists letter grades only on the transcript (so A, B, C, etc) There are no plus/minus ever. The grading scale is 89.5-100 = A
Her transcript says her unweighted GPA is: 3.86 (correct for A vs B)
Her literal percentage unweighted GPA (nowhere on transcript) is: 92.34
That’s actually very close in the grand scheme of things
I’ve seen people say not having plus or minus is unfair or cheating, etc. But honestly, it all works out in the wash. Most are not pulling in all 89.5 A’s and 89.4 B’s and getting a misleading transcript. There are more likely some low, mid and high A’s and low, mid and high B’s.
Though in my child’s circumstances - if there were no A, B, C on the transcript (rather there were percentages instead) and she or I interpreted a 92 average as a 4.0, it’s both truthful and potentially an exaggeration.
I think we are agreeing. A big issue I see on CC -
Applicant shares something accurate that still misleads a bit - and I think they know it.
Applicant does not share something he/she should have shared and that also misleads.
Those two common exaggerations IMO can drop a student down from a top 10 to a top 50.
The issue is less how often stats are exaggerated on CC or other social media forums for bragging rights (GPA and test scores are easily verifiable and have negligible influence for admissions after the cut off is met for most colleges), and more how often ECs are exaggerated on every sort of application possible, from middle school science fairs to college apps.
This is fairly common. Once families (because parents are not just complicit but actively engage in promote this behavior to somehow show their kids as being “competitive”) start down this slippery slope of deceit, it becomes engrained in students that it’s acceptable, muddying the pond for all other actually deserving applicants, income level no bar.
I honestly doubt AOs have the capacity to do thorough checks of every non-profit created at some point in high school that claims to serve the needy, or go into the nuances of research projects that win national awards and science fairs, starting with how many connections the parents had (or if the kids simply tagged along to their aunt’s or dad’s lab, where their part of the research was limited to helping order takeout and watching undergrads conduct work, and how much the kids were prepped by the scientist parents for “tough” questions that their parent’s scientist friends might pose).
Some “chancing” is rather easy to predict. For example:
“2.5 weighted HS GPA, chance me for HYPSM”
“4.0 unweighted HS GPA, chance me for CS at CSUB, CSUCI, CSUDH, CSUStan, HSU, SFSU”
On the other hand, even those on the forums who may be most skillful at predicting admission do not see things like essays and recommendations that someone asking for a chance would have. If the applicant is in the borderline stat zone (which for the most selective colleges is the top of the stat range), then these other factors become highly important, even though they are not visible on the forums (and the applicant typically does not know how their essays and recommendations compared with the applicant pool at the target college).
… and know how other applications at the applied-to colleges compare (particularly in the subjectively evaluated parts like essays and recommendations).
On the forums, the visibility and comparability of the various application aspects tends to rank as follows:
Standardized test scores.
Legacy and URM.
Previous academic record (courses / rigor, grades / GPA, rank).
Extracurriculars.
Essays.
Recommendations.
It is not surprising that many posters appear to see these application aspects in this same order of relative importance, even though the applied to college may see them with very different relative importance. It is also not surprising that the less/non visible aspects (6, 5, and somewhat 4) to forum posters make the admission process seem like a crapshoot to them.