Is it better to have high SATs and low GPA or vice versa?

<p>Subject basically says it all</p>

<p>High GPA > High SAT</p>

<p>Yeah, but having a high GPA and low SATs might look to a college like your school has grade inflation.</p>

<p>high SAT > high GPA w/ Recruited Athelete</p>

<p>Though, I'd personaly go for the high GPA & SAT.</p>

<p>I vote for high GPA because that reflects years of work, while the SAT only indicates your work on one exam. However, if there's a great disparity, you might have an issue.</p>

<p>I think high GPA is more important, particularly if the adcom is familiar with your high school and its profile, and therefore, knows that a high GPA is not due to grade inflation.</p>

<p>High GPA is more important, but a high SAT is also very important, especially at selective colleges</p>

<p>Well define high SAT and low GPA.</p>

<p>what about a 3.7 gpa with 2350 sat</p>

<p>vs. 3.9 gpa 2000 sat</p>

<p>which looks better?</p>

<p>first off, those are really high stats</p>

<p>but it's obvious the first choice would be selected</p>

<p>How much of a disparity/deficit would there be between a 33 ACT and a 4.1 W GPA?
I understand it's totally out of my control now, but do those stats at all... look good together?</p>

<p>I think it looks wonderful</p>

<p>is my comparison really that obvious? personally i'd rather have the 3.9 gpa with 2000 sat.</p>

<p>for post #9, yeah, it's very little difference,
if it was 3.1 and 2350
w/ 3.9 and 2100
I'd rather go for the second one.
Overall, GPA should be prioritized.</p>