<p>yamijari21: don’t generalize. Compare the better private to the better public schools and you’ll be surprised. In our neck of the woods there are quite a few private schools whose main purpose is to keep the parents feeling secure and happy, and then they find out that their kids need to go to community college and start with remedial courses.</p>
<p>So far we have:</p>
<p>HIGH SAT 16 VOTES
HIGH GPA 7 VOTES</p>
<p>And we have a few who have said both…that’s a given!:)</p>
<p>For me, it would depend on the rigor of the school. If my school was known for a rigorous cirriculum and a competitive environment I would come to terms with a non 4.0 in addition to a really high SAT score. On the other hand, if my school was mediocre and sent few students to top colleges and I still didn’t have a 4.0 that would be terrible so ultimately:
good school- non-4.0 but high SAT
bad school- 4.0 lesser SAT</p>
<p>Seemed to sit on the fence before, but I side with high SAT.</p>
<p>GPA IS HIGHLY OVERATED. GPA is overestimated. I know this FOR A FACT. Some schools curve, others do not, AND colleges are FULLY AWARE OF THIS. SAT is standardized and compares you directly to the nation. That is the sole reason it was created, grade inflation, and unfair advantages coming from schools that grade inflate. Colleges hate typical “grinds” who work hard to get good grades but really arent that smart. They would much rather a naturally intelligent kid who is actually interested in learning. Id rather a B+ and a 2350, then an A+ and a 2100 any day. Granted, a kid with bad grades isnt usually interested in learning, but colleges take the chance with them. If grades are terrible however, ure (parden my french) ***ed, but same goes for SATs, bad SATs wont get u anywhere.</p>
<p>Then all of you who have voted SAT’s over GPA, how do you explain some very selective schools moving toward not requiring standardized testing?</p>
<p>^ Some of them disagree with standarized testing because they don’t want to be able to compare their applicants to each other, but want to evaluate each on an individual basis that is NOT “COMPETITIVE”. This is mostly a LAC holistic movement. Where Admissions are ‘competitive’, as in person AGAINST person, rather than person evaluated on his or her OWN, then standarized tests are valued highly.</p>
<p>Most of those colleges that dont require standarized testing don’t care much about class rank either, but instead care about GPA, which is an uncompetitive attribute. Your SAT and Class rank exists only because you beat a lot of other people, while your GPA can exist on it’s without competition. Everyone at a school can have a 4.0 UW, while not everyone can be valedictorian and not everyone who takes the SAT can have a 2400.</p>
<p>In short, its the idea of competitiveness against each other versus individual evaluation. If you want to see an example see how the Intel competitors are evaluated in comparison to how Davidson Fellow’s competitors are evaluated.</p>
<p>PS: As a note for why I voted SAT earlier, I’m sure at least 500,000 people per year have a 3.6 or higher. Barely 1000 people per year have a 2300 or higher. High SAT’s are much more rare than high GPA’s, and ultracompetitive colleges need to find a way to weed out that horde of 500,000, and how do they do it? SAT’s, which instantly cuts the applicant pool (that has a chance) down to just a few.</p>
<p>Tens of thousands kids per year have 2300+, especially if you superscore. Nevertheless, a lot more kids have “high” GPAs. Higher test scores turn more heads than grade point averages.</p>
<p>I must second the above. To see a transcript that reads 4.0 or above does not stand out nearly the way that a 2300 or above stands out, I do not think one can “get lucky” as suggested above, or study “non stop” and get that kind of score, I believe it is an inherent intelligence that allows someone to get that kind of score. I personally know of a few kids who are not over the top bright but defenitely very hard workers, dilligent kids who all have about a 4.0 then there is my sons good buddy, Jake who is a naturally super bright kid, but doesn’t really apply himself, got a 2280 while the average with these other kids was about an 1800. If I were a kid I would want to be Josh because fair or not, I truly believe that most if not all of the elite very selective schools will have a hard time turning down a kid with that kind of score, recognizing his potential to succeed. They will likely take that chance and hope to “light his fire” at college, whereas seeing those 4.0’s with 1800’s are unfortunately a dime a dozen (relatively speaking-not as an average kid but obviously above) This is the way I see it.</p>
<p>i’d rather have a high sat and a low gpa. mainly because that’s what i have…</p>
<p>I find it more common that kids have high GPAs and decent SAT scores (2100-ish) than the reverse. Most of the kids I know with high test scores already have the grades going for them. The high scores are just like overkill at that point.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>I agree with some of what you say, but NOT the above statement. “Elite very selective schools” do NOT have a hard time turning down kids with SATs of 2280. Josh would be well advised to apply to some really safe safeties, especially if his class rank and extracurricular activities are not stellar.</p>
<p>The problem a the elite very selective schools is to see who they keep of the ones that have both high GPA and high SAT/ACT. Like I said before, if they notice one of these “discrepants” they are going to have some heavy duty explaining to do to be admitted.</p>
<p>Hard question. I would have to go with the high SAT score. No matter how many people cry that the SAT is unfair, and not a accurate gauge of ones inteligence/effort/mental abilities the reality is that Standardized testing helps adcoms with evaluating GPAs. </p>
<p>GPA is extermly subjective. One course at one school may be easier then another school not to mention a grade in a class does not show the rigor of the course (Extra credit? Favorism? No/easy tests?)</p>
<p>The reality is, the SAT is somewhat of a IQ test. The questions are all about logic, problem solving, and aptitutude. If your’e a good/avid reader you’ll naturally do well on the CR. If you are a sharp math student who can manipulate equations and problems easily then you’ll get a high MAth SAT. I know few people who were bad at the SAT and were able to bring it up by taking a prep course etc.</p>
<p>DEfinitely SAT over GPA. They had on site admissions at our school over the past several weeks, local universities not top schools or anything however, </p>
<p>The kids with higher SATs got way more money offered, 100 point difference = about 5k. </p>
<p>One kid lousy(like less than 1000 CR/M) SATs, but high GPA 98% got admitted no money offered at all. Another girl high GPA and high SATS full tuition</p>
<p>I haven’t read this thread, so forgive me if this has been raised already.</p>
<p>From the Yale website:
“While there is no hard and fast rule, it is safe to say that performance in school is relatively more important than testing. A very strong performance in a demanding college preparatory program may compensate for modest standardized test scores, but it is unlikely that high standardized test scores will persuade the admissions committee to disregard an undistinguished secondary-school record.”
[Applying</a> to Yale College | Frequently Asked Questions | Office of Undergraduate Admissions](<a href=“Home | Yale College Undergraduate Admissions”>Home | Yale College Undergraduate Admissions)</p>
<p>I would much rather have a mediocre 3.7ish GPA and a high SAT of 2300+ than a 4.0 and a mediocre 2000ish. I can actually get somewhere with that 2300, but not anywhere spectacular with that 2000. It’s pretty obvious that top universities think the SAT is more important than the GPA after a certain threshold. How many people with 1900-2000’s and 4.0 GPA’s get into top 10 universities? Not that many, unless you are a URM/athlete/other special case. Now, if you had a 3.7 and a 2300+, you’d probably get in somewhere, assuming that EC’s, essays, and recs are pretty outstanding as well.</p>
<p>I have a really high GPA and an average SAT score, which is “incredibly low” by College Confidential-standards it seems. Yet, I’m happy and not stressing.</p>
<p>Going with the old concept that the GPA is more a measure of hard work and the SAT more a measure of intelligence (don’t bash me, I know some disagree), I’d probably take the high SAT. The thing is, I coudl have a 4.0 but come from a crappy HS where the valedictorians get 1800 SATs. I wouldn’t want to be in that situation. I’d rather have a slightly lower GPA in a competitive school; if I had a high score on SAT, that would just show that my school is rigorous and that the GPA is deflated.</p>
<p>Then again, colleges really care about work ethic, and I think that it’s probably more important in life to have a work ethic than to have a lot of brains (unless you’re really a genius).</p>
<p>^ Well, if we take this questions philosphically, Plato is on the side of the people who support the SAT. As quoted from “The Republic” - “it is to employ a man with the ability but not the work ethic as is to employ the man with the work ethic but not the abillity” because while you can still have a chance of extracting what you need from the person with ability, you have no chance of getting what you want from the person w/o ability, no matter how much work ethic he or she has.</p>
<p>Thus, SAT > GPA. GPA = Blegh. Too unstable, uncompetitive, and every adcom realizes that. SATs are where the competition is.</p>