Isn't GPA overrated?

Applying to College
21

<p>The OP’s argument is legitmate, but I’m in the complete opposite camp. In my opinion GPA in a normal environment should be a FAR greater factor in any admissions decision. GPA is accumaltive and is your entire academic body of work throughout highschool. The SAT and ACT are tests that most people only take once or twice, which by the way are nowhere near an truly accurate indicator of intelligence or even strength in a particular area. Let me ask you this? Who do you think is more deserving of a rejection from a university? The person that is pretty smart and works hard in highschool to get good grades or the slacker who is a little more gifted and does better on more random, standardized testing? </p>

<p>Yes, GPA can be variable. The quality of your teachers, difficulty of the individual courses can both have effects on your GPA. Your highschool’s reputation and difficulty also have an effect on how colleges look at your GPA. Some type of standardized test is needed, otherwise there would be way to look at each person on a supposedly “level” field. However, the SAT and ACT simply aren’t that test. </p>

<p>Personally, I got a 570 math, 680 cr, and 690 w ok, but not that great. Math is my weakest area and takes me longer to get than the average person, although I still do well when taught the material. English is definitely my strength, however, it is not reflected on the SAT whatsoever. To put things in perspective, I got a 5 on the English AP exam and got nearly the same percentage correct on the reading section of that test (which is about 10x harder than the SAT). I tend to anzalyze more throughoughly and therefore on the SAT I get screwed because I go with the more anyaltical answer rather than the simple one. Essentially, my strength in English was actually a disadvantage on the SAT. Instances like these haven’t happened only to me. For example, 2 of my friends, who both are strong at English and got 5’s and got over a 1400 on their SATs got the same exact reading score as me, 680 (they’re a little more naturally gifted at math which reflects the disparity in the scores). While my friends and I all got 680s on the reading, a stoner, who isn’t dumb, but is just ok at English gets over a 700. The math section of the sat in my opinion is better reflection of a strength in that area. My friend, who also got the 680 on CR, but an 740 on math completely agree with me, so apparently it isn’t just me. </p>

<p>So basically I have worked my 4 years of highschool and done extremely well at one of the top private schools in my area , but am hancicapped from getting alot of my college choices simply because of a crappy standardized test score. Students with a gpa similar to mine from my school generally get into top 25 schools, but for me its a complete crapshoot of me to get into the school I’ve always wanted to attend, University of Florida (both of my parents went there) due to my sat. I know I’m going to do extremely well in college. I’m prepared because of the difficulty of the work I’ve had to do at my school, but completly handicapped by my sat.</p>

<p>My mom is an attorney for a major law firm and did incredibly average on he sats and lsat and finished at the top of her law class. Now alot those egotistical students who flaunted their sats are working for her. </p>

<p>I apologize for my rant, but I’'m just pretty frustrated with the whole college admissions process. I find out from UF friday so hopefully I’ll get in despite my sats.</p>

22

<p>hey, no problem…i completely understand your argument and all those who favor gpa over other factors bc u know what…i do too!!! that’s what people dont get. all im saying is that there really is no single criteria ALONE that can truly define your success at any place.</p>

23

<p>Your GPA, IQ, SAT score, and University name are all meaningless in the long run.</p>

<p>You are all just a herd of slaves who will conform to authority in order to complete the task you are told. </p>

<p>You can forget about analyzing your own test score or your own grade point average since you are merely a byproduct of the system.</p>

24

<p>For the elite schools they look at a variety of measures. IMHO, the school you come from, the class rank and the circulum are more important than GPA. And while it varies from university to university I think the SAT out weighs the GPA by a good bit. Testing is part of life and if you get to have more than one try a low score indicates something.</p>

25

<p>OP I feel the exact same way. I must repeat what I have always said "GPA is 90% work ethics and 10% intelligence. I mean seriously, there’s a girl in my grade who is a 4.0 student, president of student government, liked by all the teachers and everything, and is looked up to as an intellectual god in my school. However, when we took the PSATs in freshman year, she scored a 154, while I scored a 232. Yet, even my own grandparents say if I continue on the path I’m going, I will become a plumber due to my less-than-asian GPA of 3.5. GPA is overrated to the max.</p>

<p>I see some of the other posters’ comments in favor of GPA, and I admit that they make relevant points. However, because many people’s grades are derived from work ethics rather than potential, if I were a college adcom, I would weight them much less than most. I believe that if a slacker like myself were given the opportunity to attend a top notch institute of higher learning, he/she would rise to the occasion and be finally able to realize and utilize their full potential. In the end, the result will be an extremely intelligent student with the same work habits as a student of lesser potential. If I were the adcom, I’d definitely side with the intelligent student.</p>

26

<p>

</p>

<p>Has it occurred to you that your grandparents probably know more about the real world than you do? In the real world your PSAT means nothing and your work ethic means almost everything …</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>You can believe that all you want, but adcoms are never going to make that assumption. Why should anyone believe that, after 18 years of slacking, you’re suddenly going to rise to the occasion? Adcoms aren’t your parents, they won’t trust you and give you a second chance if they have no reason to. And for the record, adcoms at top schools don’t generally have to choose between intelligent slackers and less-intelligent hard-workers … why? Because there are plenty of people who are both intelligent and hard-working.</p>

<p>I hate to be hostile, but it’s really silly when people say they’re smarter than others and back it up using SAT scores. I mean, if you’re so intelligent, why did you even need to work hard in high school to get good grades? There’s no reason for you to feel entitled to a top school if you’ve slacked off in high school … I mean, there are a lot of people out there who have better grades and scores than you and hardly feel like they deserve to attend a top school.</p>

27

<p>I see both sides of the coin. </p>

<p>On the one hand, the GPA one achieves indicates four years of work. [Rare cases aside, of course], someone with a 3.8 can indicate that s/he has worked hard and done well across four years. Someone with a 2.73 probably can’t say the same. Work ethic is EVERYTHING in life; someone who makes a commitment to hard work in high school has set him- or herself up for future success (in the sense that s/he understands the importance of hard work). </p>

<p>On the flip side, there are so many little variable factors where GPA is concerned. At some schools, an 89.5 is still a B; some teachers don’t round up or down when grades are borderline (and don’t even get me started on dropping tests); you all know the drill. Two teachers can teach the exact same subject, and two students can perform at comparable levels, but differing policies are one of those impossible-to-combat annoyances. </p>

<p>Also, this is minor, but in terms of minor differences between GPAs, the issue may not be one of work ethic. I know plenty of people who work very hard, but have GPAs that could be higher (ie they don’t perform as well on tests or some other ridiculous factor is working against that person). In this case, I’m talking more like 3.65 vs. 3.8, not the example I used a few paragraphs ago. </p>

<p>SATs are a trickier situation. Ask any 10 people what the SAT really measures and you’ll probably get 10 different answers (ranging from intelligence/intellectual capability to success in college to who knows what). The SAT is a test of one’s ability to perform under uniform conditions on a test which compares that person’s skills to those of other students worldwide. The SAT may prove something about college readiness, but it doesn’t prove many other things about one’s college readiness: work ethic, special skills (not so much that a GPA can show a special skill, but it can show an aptitude which may not be apparent on a standardized test), etc. </p>

<p>College readiness is more than numbers. It’s GPA, test scores, ECs, special talents, an interview, etc. Not like everyone on CC doesn’t already know that, but the point I’m trying to make is that neither number is ANYTHING without the other. Each score puts the other in context, but only to a certain degree. I mean, someone with a 3.9 and a 2300 has reasonably proven that he earned his 3.9 and that he didn’t just slack off. On the flip side, someone with an 1820 and a GPA of 3.9 may lead to speculation of GPA inflation. </p>

<p>So, to answer the original question: no, I do not believe that GPA is overrated. It’s the most important piece of the puzzle because it answers the most important question any college should be asking: “how is this person as a student?”</p>

28

<p>GPA alone is MEANINGLESS, and I will say it again, MEANINGLESS, without the context of which it was obtained from.
I transfered from a relatively getto school to a magnet (top 100) hs, and during my 1st semester at my new school, my gpa was a whole point lower than before. Well you get the point, while SAT is certainly a flawed test, at least everyone in the country experience the same thing (same with ACT, SAT2s, APs, and IBs).
I actually suggest colleges focusing more on SAT2s and AP scores in the admission process, as they are both standardized and content based.</p>

29

<p>GPA and rank need to be used together.</p>

<p>High rank, low GPA = Tough school/courseload for top students
Low rank, high GPA = Competitive school</p>

<p>Of course, an applicant could come from a weak school. But if he/she has a high SAT score, then it proves that he/she is capable regardless.</p>

<p>All three are important.</p>

<p>And then ECs come in. Do you really want a bunch of academically-skilled clones who bring nothing else to the table?</p>

30

<p>Admission decisions in their simpliet form is …“is this student going to be successful at our college?”…colleges know that the single best predictor of the future is the past…this is why GPA and course rigor is looked upon as the most important factor in admission.</p>

31

<p>I agree that there are some many variables in GPAs that they need to be taken with a grain of salt. But, nonetheless, it tells you how well the student handles work, and potentially whether they could excel at a certain college. GPAs are fine as long as the difficulty of the classes and the high school are taken into account. </p>

<p>I disagree that the SAT/ACT is vastly better than GPA. After all some students are just naturally great at test-taking. Plus, the SAT takes a few hours, whereas GPAs show students’ performance over the course of years.</p>

32

<p>I must concur, OP.</p>

33

<p>Okay…this post will sound somewhat arrogantish, but whatever…some thoughts:</p>

<p>For reference: I came from an extremely competitive public high school in Maryland, we usually end up with at least 10 people going to ivies every year. I was the valedictorian of my class and am at Penn right now. SAT Score: 2340 (800 Math 800 CR 740W)</p>

<p>Frankly, I feel that saying that doing well in High School, especially, depends mostly on work ethics, is to a degree, BS. After some observations in both HS and college, me and my friends have agreed that you can divide the generally “good” students into a couple of categories:</p>

<p>1) Those who have alot of effort, but their innate intelligence isn’t good enough.
2) Those who may not be geniuses, but work a ton son they do well in school.
3) Those who are extremely smart, slack off, but do well in school because they are smart.
4) Those who are extremely smart, work a ton, and then goes and takes all of the AP tests other than the language ones just because they can…(knew a guy who did this actually…***)…and then get into HYPSM without a sweat </p>

<p>I probably fall in category #3.</p>

<p>I went through all of high school slacking off…I really did quite minimal amounts of work and you wouldn’t want to know how minimally I studied for the APs. I took a total of 12 APs, all 5s. I did not study for any of my 7 APs senior year and got 5s on them. Basically, I really did not have any work ethic at all. I maintained a 4.0 GPA, took the hardest possible schedule at my school, and pretty much coasted my way through HS. I took a Differential Equations course at Johns Hopkins my senior year with their undergraduates because I finished our math sequence Junior year, and did well and got an A in it too.</p>

<p>Like again, I fully acknowledge that this sounds arrogant to a degree. Now to the OP: That is what extremely smart means, because frankly, HS classes, all of them, are a joke. I have had extremely tough teachers that generally give out lower grades, but, yet again, if you are smart enough, that shouldn’t bother you. </p>

<p>You could lament about doing stupid reading assignments and such…but they are just reading…just power through the book the night before and actually develop being able to read quickly and also comprehend…it is a lifesaver at times.</p>

<p>I have had teachers who literally did not teach you anything. My AP Chemistry teacher basically sat at his desk and checked his email every day while we just played videogames. That still did not stop me from getting a 5 on the AP.</p>

<p>So when you say that you have a bad GPA because you are an extremely smart person who slacks off, I say BS. I am not an exception, I would say a good percentage of extremely smart people in HS simply just do not work that much and just do enough to get into a top college. I have many friends who did this in HS and we are all now at ivies…none of us could be called as those who did nothing but study all day long in HS.</p>

<p>OP, you are overestimating how smart you are. Realize that HS classes ARE NOT hard at all…they are a joke compared to even the easier classes you would take in one the elite institution in the country. The mere fact that you think you are smart and lamenting your low GPA to being a slacker merely means that you aren’t as smart as you think you are…you would fall in category #5:</p>

<p>5) People who think they are smart and slack off, but don’t have the innate intelligence to make up for their lack of work ethics, and so, do terribly in school.</p>

<p>To do well in academics, I have come to found up, you must be able to truthfully recognize your level of intelligence relative to your peers and adjust your work ethic accordingly. If you have had any aspirations to go to a top university, then I assume that even if you want to slack off, you would probably only want to do so but still maintain good grades. Doing poorly in school and blaming it on a lack of work ethic merely means that either you haven’t realized what your true level of intelligence is. </p>

<p>Like I said, I sound extremely arrogant in this post, but I feel the general OP perspective is wrong. Lamenting that work ethics trumps intelligence simply means that you aren’t smart enough.</p>

34

<p>posting 2040 as high on CC? uh… i dont think so</p>

35

<p>TevashSzat </p>

<p>…the difference between you & the OP is vast…my guess would be a 20-25 point IQ difference. The OP may be overestinmating “how smart he is”…but you are underestimating how bright you are. What people don’t get is that most of the top students have IQ’s around 130. However there are the select few that are in the 150 range. This is a whole other level of “smart”…these students sometimes have difficulty with empathy in regards to those not in that range… granted I’ve worked in fairly rural school districts for my 25 years as a School Psychologist so I’ve had few kids with the 150 IQ’s but those that we’ve had stick out like a sore thumb.</p>

36

<p>TevashSzat, are you saying that no matter what, if you have less great grades, you are not smart? In your post, you said that you slacked off to a degree, yet still manage to maintain perfect grades. HOWEVER, I am sure there are many smarter people who slack off much more than you and maintain a less than perfect GPA. According to you, this statement is “BS”. I’m not saying that I’m more intelligent than you in any way, but throughout 9th grade, I was able to maintain less than perfect grades in all my classes except for PE(straight Cs) with no notes at all and maybe about 20% of homework completed. While the rest of my class was filling up 3-4 tablets of notes, I was playing Pokemon in the back of my class. However, when testing time came, I managed to consistently score perfects or near-perfects on all of my tests, while those who took notes were envious and upset. In the end, I ended up getting many Bs because of my lack of completed homework and classwork, even though my exams were by far the highest in my class. My point is that there are extremely smart, but lazy peple out there, and from my own personal experience, work ethics always trump intelligence.</p>

37

<p>I had always preferred looking at the GPA as apposed to the SAT because of my lower SAT scores and my irrational hatred for the college board.
It really is a composite of so many different things on your application, not one thing is more important than the other, other than the obvious.</p>

38

<p>Yes, GPA is overrated. Both AP scores and SAT Subject Test scores correlate more significantly with better college performance than GPA. Often times GPA is determined more by the teacher than the student (in my experiences).</p>

39

<p>Well yeah, sometimes it can be overrated lol. I think it’s pretty important because it shows how much you’re willing to work, but then again there are some people who get teachers that grade much more easily that others. Like honors classes here are about the same thing as the regular classes, and some of the AP, especially the history AP classes, are about the same as the regular classes. But I think by now those people who read the applications would know how subjective GPA can be after reading all apps and going to high school themselves.</p>

40

<p>I’m with the OP, eddy is his name, I believe? Gpa is so meaningless. I mean </p>

<p>student A: gpa of 3.5
Student B: gpa of 4.0
both top 8% of class- which is the better student?</p>

<p>Student C: Gpa of 4.5
Student D: gpa of 3.9
both are valedictorians, but student D takes harder course load.</p>

<p>so many things factor into GPA
public vs. private?
how hard do teachers grade?
Strength of the course load?
Is a 90 an A or a 92?
weighted or unweighted?
5 % curve or 10% curve on honors and AP classes…</p>

<p>GPAs are not standardized and err, have become increasingly meaningless.</p>