<p>No, they measure a student’s determination to do well in school and nothing more. Anyone can have a good GPA with enough work. Case in point: One of the stupidest (and most hard working) people I met in high school graduated with a 3.89 GPA.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This I’ll agree with.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Wrong. Nobody I know who’s scored 2250+ on the SAT actually spent money on it beyond the registration fees (our school library has a few prep books, so people don’t have to buy them). Yes, money might be a factor for some, but smart kids score higher than less smart kids regardless of their parents’ financial situation. I suppose it’s comforting to tell yourself that you’d have scored above 2300 if you could have afforded an expensive prep course, but it’s not true. Self-study is much more effective anyway.</p>
<p>I made no assertion about the absolute value of grades v. test scores. I do believe that, given a well-calibrated and administered grading system, grades (along with course selection) should be a better indicator of student qualifications than test scores. This should not be considered a controversial statement (nor one at odds with common admissions practices). However, when the average entering student at UCSD has a 3.96 average, it suggests to me that grades in California public schools are inflated. Of course some alternate explanation is possible. I see that 100% of UCSD students ranked in the top 10% of their hs classes. So maybe the California state university system does an good job of identifying over-achievers whose GPAs truly reflect high standing in their schools, despite relatively modest test scores. </p>
<p>I think the more important point, if cost is no object for the OP, is that top private schools tend to be less numbers-driven than top public schools. They take a holistic approach to admissions. An applicant whose scores and grades are imbalanced needs to consider the potential effects of this difference in choosing schools. Specifically, if you are just outside the top 10%, but your other qualifications (including scores) are excellent, you may have a better chance of admission to a top private school than to UCSD.</p>
<p>True based on Berkeley’s own numbers. His GPA is also on the lower end for UCLA.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Irrelevant since the OP is from California and is being measured on the same presumed scale. If there truly is grade inflation then the OP is “below average” for Berkeley. If there is no grade inflation in California schools then the OP’s 3.75 is still low for Berkeley.</p>
<p>To the OP, I think warblers list is the best; I agree with those who see little value in paying out-of-state tuition for a state college - this eliminates UVA & UNC. I suspect the strength of the Lehigh recruiting has to do with engineering grads, a track you don’t seem to be interested in. You may want to consider Boston College for the Match list.</p>
<p>Using warblers list, my gut feeling is that Columbia, Duke and Berkeley are No; Penn, Dartmouth & UCLA are Maybe; NYU, CMU, USC and BC are Yes.</p>
<p>Studies show that students that perform higher on the SAT are typically students of higher income. Although this includes a variety of factors like schooling, environment and access to resources. </p>
<p>“Self-study is much more effective anyway.”
According to who?</p>
<p>“Nobody I know who’s scored 2250+ on the SAT actually spent money on it beyond the registration fees” These are not statistics.</p>
<p>I think smart kids will eventually do well on the SAT. The SAT is a familiarity test. Take many practice tests and study concepts that you are having trouble learning. </p>
<p>Anyway: I think OP you have great schools on your list. If you are interested in IB banking, I think you should keep Penn, Columbia, Northwestern and maybe even Dartmouth. I think you should remove UVA and UNC even if money is not a factor. You have other great schools that you have a good shot at acceptance. I think you should apply to the UC’s of course, but I also think that CMU and NYU are matches. I don’t think you should include Emory, but I think you should look at other schools like Chicago, Michigan (Ross). Keep Duke. I think Michigan would also be a good choice because it has rolling admissions and it is fairly easier to get into. Also it has a top BBA program.</p>
<p>No two high schools are sure to be on the same scale. That’s the whole point of using standardized test scores. But if a college has an arbitrary GPA or rank cut-off, then policy precludes it from considering the meaning of his grades in the context of course rigor, local competition, and other factors (including scores). Schools with holistic admissions (and better-staffed admissions offices) can and do make those distinctions. </p>
<p>Years ago, your state university was an easy safety school choice. That is less frequently the case today, even though top private schools continue to choose more highly qualified student bodies overall (even as measured only by grades, rank and test scores, but all the more so by other factors).</p>
<p>I think your choice of targeting wall street is great. But you may already aware of that Investment Banking career is kind of boom and bust. I work with a lot of Private Equity companies, the owners of these companies are successful ex-wall street type, so I know the careers on the wall street a little bit. Most ppl work as IB got busted, nevertheless, becasue they have to be successful in the lower level(stock brokers) before getting into IB and the attrition rate is huge, as it is a sales job. Just let you know.</p>
<p>Other than that, your choices of schools are great, go get it Tiger…</p>
<p>CMU is definitely a match. They have a great computational finance degree and this is in the HSS school not Tepper. You would get into HSS pretty easily, I think. Not sure how well they do on Wall Street, but CMU has great job placement in general.</p>
<p>Consider that the CA schools often place in the investment banking industry in San Francisco. You might prefer that to Wall Street.</p>
<p>^ Computational finance is even harder to get into than Tepper since the program takes only about 10 people each year. You have to apply into the program separately after you actually get into CMU. However, if you do get in, your job opportunities are incredible.</p>
It’s usually both; to get good grades usually requires ability and effort, though some may get good grades without effort, and even some without ability if the teacher is, well, lenient. ;)</p>
<p>Don’t expect so much out of getting into UCLA and Berkeley. (Kinda knew that already considering what happened with the last graduating class and who got in/who didn’t)
My GPA isn’t so good. (Kinda knew that already, but thanks for reminding me! :P)
UVA and UNC out because OOS to a state college = eh.
Consider Michigan-Ross, Boston College . (I’m pretty sure BC is going on my list for sure)
Keep Duke, but consider removing Emory and Lehigh.</p>
<p>So making all recommended changes would bring me to:</p>
<p>Boston College<br>
Carnegie Mellon University<br>
Columbia University<br>
Dartmouth College<br>
Duke University<br>
New York University<br>
Northwestern University<br>
UC System (Berkeley, LA, SD)
University of Chicago<br>
University of Pennsylvania (CAS - Can anyone give insight regarding IB from CAS vs. IB from Wharton if I can maybe get into CAS but long shot for Wharton?)
University of Southern California<br>
Villanova University (I dunno, should I consider this? From qazwsx1! post)</p>
<p>Now based off of this thread + other advice…</p>
<p>Sounds about right; but remember, declarative sentences aside, we’re all just making semi-educated guesses.</p>
<p>Personally I suggest applying to 2-3 of the “No” group, 3 of the Maybes and all of the Yes, (though CMU is very math oriented, if that’s not your style you may want to drop it). I can’t say I see a true safety on your list, maybe Nova - consider looking at Wisconsin or Indiana as safeties.</p>
<p>I could probably apply to most schools on there because the UC app combines Berkeley, UCLA, and UCSD. Taking out Columbia (I think I have lowest chance there anyways) and adding IU-Kelley, it’d be</p>
<p>No from: Duke, NU, Chicago
Maybe from: Dartmouth, Penn
Yes from: NYU, CMU, USC, BC, Nova, IU
UC App: Berkeley (no), UCLA, UCSD (maybes)</p>
<p>I like this list a lot. I could see myself liking my college experience wherever I go hehe.</p>
<p>Cubecul, I agree with vinceh about not seeing a true safety on your list. Also, Dartmouth and Penn are actually a little more selective than Duke, NU, and Chicago.</p>
<p>OP, if you want to get into IB or MC that much, you should consider Michigan-Ross very strongly. It is at least as good as, if not better than, Duke for IB. I’m not sure if Ross would offer scholarship to OOS though. But Ross is certainly a top school for IB or MC jobs may it be in the Midwest area or WS, NY. </p>
<p>Dartmouth, Columbia, Stern, Ross and Duke. All these schools definitely perform better than Berkeley for WS jobs, but not necessarily for IB or MC jobs.</p>
<p>You should consider Indiana University’s Kelley School of Business. You can apply to it directly. If you get your app in early you will hear back from them in a few weeks.
This may lessen the need for other safety schools.
Also, my brother-in-law is an investment banker and his favorite schools to recruit from are Carnegie Mellon and Princeton. He likes the work ethic of the kids he has hired from these schools. Next on his list to recruit from is Georgetown. Anecdotal, so take it for what it’s worth.</p>