<p>thank you. for example, at UCB or UCLA you won't really have a chance if you're under 4.0 UC GPA. i know they say they look at other factors, but people WITH those other factors (ec/good sats etc.) are not guaranteed anything. they simply don't have that GPA and that costs them enough to not get accepted. obviously i'm speaking for myself..i felt i had enough ECs/decent essays etc. but i didn't get into either, and most people with similar stats as mine from my school didn't get in either. imo if you're under 4.0 uc (i'm a 3.75) u have a VERY low chance of getting into the top 2 uc's. the moral of the story-the gpa does matter, and it REALLY matters.</p>
<p>That's so true. Thank you for being the person to FINALLY say this... I can understand why they would with the influx of applications, but I still can't agree.</p>
<p>Numbers definitely didn't matter for me.
Got accepted in Columbia, with a ridiculously low SAT score (relatively speaking) and an O-Kay GPA (maybe top 20%?). But I did participate in many extracurricular activities and served for several leadership positions.</p>
<p>numbers definitely don't matter, i think its more the trend. 2350 combined SAT, 3.97 GPA (4.95/5 weighted), but I was rejected at UPenn, Brown, Yale...I think its a) cause I got 2 Bs in junior year b) too many good people from my school. and there were people from my school accepted with smaller SAT scores, but higher GPA, so some numbers count more than others (as in GPA over SAT).</p>
<p>Dang i haven't heard back from NYU but your stats give me hope (i'm a little higher than that... but close so I have hope?!)</p>
<p>I also hate that senior year grades don't matter. I didn't really work until junior year, that's why my GPA is so low.</p>
<p>I hear that, i have a 3.7 this year and I had a 3.2 the rest of hs :(</p>
<p>I don't think numbers matter as much if you have a great essay, recs, extracurricular activities, and the ability to show your character/personality through your application. I had under 2100 on SATs and was accepted to Williams, Amherst, Wellesley, Cornell and UChicago. I was also waitlisted at Yale. I'm not a URM or a recruited athlete...</p>
<p>I think the debate is still open. How do you explain many in the CC community got rejected from NYU having higher numbers ? Your SAT is below 2000 with 560M.</p>
<p>The fact you were class prez 2 yr running, and I am sure you communicated your passion for philosophy and law and yur bi-lingual convinced them you will be a dynamic leader someday. </p>
<p>BOB * 3 is right --</p>
<p>top tiers : numbers + passion
2nd tier variety A: less numbers and more passion
2nd tier variety B: strictly numbers
baseline: will try to find a way to admit you,
numbers or passion</p>
<p>You might argue some top tiers go strictly by the numbers too. Evidence is hard to find in the US though, maybe IIT (India Institue of Technology) ?</p>
<p>Ok, so if your problem is with the fact that numbers matter, and lets say for the sake of argument they do (and they do!), what's the problem with that? If you and someone else both had this exhibited "passion" that we all speak of, and some serious extracirricular acheivements, then why shouldn't the person with the higher numbers get in? I mean, you could say that there is something lacking in the other person that is evident in you, but when a school gets 20,000+ apps, it's impossible to discern things like that. </p>
<p>Matt</p>
<p>For the people who posted that numbers don't matter, do you fall into any of the following categories:
1) URM
2) legacy
3) recruited athlete
4) people applying in the arts
5) people with lopsided SAT scores (ie 800+600=1400)
6) women applying in engineering/technical fields</p>
<p>mf06d -- That is interesting and I was hoping that someone would mention this. There are two problems with numbers being more important that passion/determination/amibition/potential. </p>
<p>1) It is unfair to assume that the SATs make someone more able/intelligent/capable etc. The SATs do not mesure analytical skills nor do they mesure knowledge. They are essentially useless for college and life. </p>
<p>2) I agree that having a better GPA should make you more likely to get in and that it should be an important factor. However, to look at 9th and 10th grade and to add that to a GPA is utterly ridiculous. Who hasn't changed since 9th/10th grade? I am a completely different student. GPA should be 11th and 12th grade ONLY (12th grade should definitely count!). I do not understand how they can expect perfection at such a young age. Also, I hate that they don't seem to care that you had a 4.0UW in 11th as long as you had something like 3.5UW in 10th grade. It should matter that you are better now than you used to be.</p>
<p>surgeongeneral -- We already said that numbers ALONE won't get you anywhere.</p>
<p>College 06 -- If your score is 2090 or something, your experience is invalid. If you have over 1350 CR+M you're pretty much fine (I don't know your stats, I'm just saying)...</p>
<p>I say numbers matter. I'm a URM with a 2150 (1450 CR + M) and a 3.5 UW (Most of my classes are weighted, but I don't know my weighted GPA) and good EC's but I got rejected from NU and Notre Dame. I am intensely jealous of the guy that got into Brown, because I almost applied there.</p>
<p>Of course numbers goddamn matter.</p>
<p>If you really think a kid with a 1900 SAT and few, if any APs has a right to be at Harvard just because they've got some great personal stuff, you're wrong. That above-average kid would be eaten alive by the class of geniuses at Harvard. At a certain point, the adcom has to ask themselves: "Could this student compete and thrive in this environment?" HYP, Stanford, MIT, etc...are not places for the merely above-average kid.</p>
<p>The point that jpps1 made has lead to tremendous grade inflation at HYP. Whatever you may say about SAT's and life in general, they do measure how well you take tests. At HYP, the 50% SAT ranges are 1400-1580. When about half the students got above 1530 and a quarter of them got either l590 or 1600, it makes it really tough on the hooked candidates. The solution seems to be to make the average GPA about a 3.8.</p>
<p>I don't care. I will accomplish so much more than some of the "geniuses" at Harvard. I know I'm not merely "above averege" and that I could thrive at an extremely competitive university. I don't need a 2400 to know that. You are very ignorant to think that I'm averege because of my 1920. I go to a French HS which is EXTREMELY competitive and difficult. I just got into the best university in France. SATs are not part of the French system and for good reason. I will make a change and I don't need Ivys (or similar schools) for that -- but it could have been helpful.</p>
<p>How understanding are colleges? Will they say "Hey this kid had bad grades when he started, but look he has a 4.0uw now. Lets admit him" or will it be "Hey this kid had bad grades when he started, but look he has a 4.0uw now. Oh well, too bad we have 20,000 other apps."</p>
<p>Usually the second one, I'd think. I'm sure time constraints are a factor when looking at applications.</p>
<p>I agree with Aeggie.</p>
<p>"There are two problems with numbers being more important that passion/determination/amibition/potential."</p>
<p>I never specified that they were more important. I just questioned why numbers shouldn't be used by a university when all other factors are practically equal (and for example, with Penn's 20,000+ apps, there are plenty of applications that resemble eachother). </p>
<p>Ok. So first off, I didn't say numbers didn't matter--just for the record. But, as far as these categories go concering my acceptance:</p>
<p>1) URM--white, suburban male
2) legacy--absolutely no ties
3) recruited athlete--hell no
4) people applying in the arts--engineering
5) people with lopsided SAT scores (ie 800+600=1400)--740M, 740R, 750W
6) women applying in engineering/technical fields--male</p>
<p>I never said that numbers were more important either. I am saying, given an equal playing field concerning other factors, numbers should determine it. And to rebut your point concerning grades from previous years: if I worked my ass off to do well freshman and sophomore year in addition to the last two years, and you only did the same for your last two years, then why should you get into a school instead of me, given equality otherwise? That would **** me off. There are far too many individuals who have done well all 4 years to allow those who only started to bother with academics halfway through to move up on the list. (I say "me" and "you" as examples here)</p>
<p>I understand your point about the fact that numbers can override in some situations, but what do you suggest that colleges do about that?</p>
<p>Matt</p>
<p>Your SAT scores are amazing. For the list to even apply to you, you would have to have subpar numbers.
[quote]
And to rebut your point concerning grades from previous years: if I worked my ass off to do well freshman and sophomore year in addition to the last two years, and you only did the same for your last two years, then why should you get into a school instead of me, given equality otherwise?
[/quote]
Essentially, you're right. I'm talking primarily about people (such as this girl in my class) who was good 9th/10th/11th grade and has bad grades this year. Am I less deserving? No. They need to judge us on who we are now and what we will accompliah later.</p>