<p>Yeah man, that was hilarious.</p>
<p>not a man.</p>
<p>does a 35 act offset a 3.7 unweighted (although most rigorous courseload) gpa?</p>
<p>So has anyone come to a conclusion on the pyramid one? I skipped that and that was the only one I fully guessed on and I guess 14.</p>
<p>It was 14.</p>
<p>@liv
No. It’s nearly impossible to ‘offset’ GPA. It will always be there–getting a good test score changes nothing. GPA is one of the most important factors in determining admission.
For example, if you applied to college x with a 3.7 GPA and a 35 on your ACT and somebody else with identical class rigor, ECs, and recs applied but had a 4.0 and a 33 on the ACT–the college is probably going to take candidate number 2. Here’s why: your GPA demonstrates how well your perform in an academic setting every day for four years while a standardized test only provides information on how well you were doing for 4 hours on a given Saturday. It’s ultimately all about sample size.
The only thing that can make a ‘low’ GPA look better is if your class rank is still ridiculously high because then it just looks like your school is trying to fight the man and resist grade inflation (which benefits nobody).
*I put low in quotations because, in my opinion, 3.7 UW is not ‘low’. Especially considering it’s likely 4.0+W</p>
<p>I’m sorry to be such a downer, but I have talked to several admissions officers on the subject (being in a nearly identical situation myself). I have been told fairly consistently that GPA and rank are the most important factors.
Just do as well as you can in every other area. Keep yourself involved in the community and get close to teachers.
You have the potential to go anywhere you want.</p>
<p>argenia, thanks for the insights! i agree that a 3.7 UW isnt “low,” but according to some people it is… theres no denying it could be better.</p>
<p>not to be cliche, but freshman year is what killed me. i actually have a 3.9 UW without freshman year! hopefully this will be taken into account to some extent. i hope my ~35 proves though that i have learned things! i also took SAT IIs and think i did well. really, the only classes i did poorly in were in frosh year (due to a mere lack of motivation/naievety). i think i have good ECs, and the teacher who’s writing my rec loves me. im also a good writer, and have picked out interesting essay topics already. </p>
<p>thanks for your advice though. my school is relatively rigorous in general, but it doesnt rank (though, if the counselor had to estimate, id probably be in the top 10% margin)</p>
<p>The answer to the proof one i got as definitely not d. When you looked at them closely d, which was SAS, one of the triangles had the angle not in between the two sides. I think the answer was b maybe? it was ASA i believe. Did anyone else get this?</p>
<p>^ No, it was D. SAS proves the triangles congruent.</p>
<p>no I know that SAS is a way to prove triangles, but the diagram did not correctly show SAS. it showed SAS for the first triangle and SSA for the other, you had to look carefully at both triangles</p>
<p>no it didn’t.</p>
<p>it proved the triangles were congruent.</p>
<p>I agree with liv4physicz. I checked to make sure that all of the sides and angles corresponded.</p>
<p>oh then I’m kind of confused…what was wrong with the ASA one? maybe i have them mixed up?</p>
<p>the SAS worked! i made sure it didnt purposefully try to mess you up! and i remember a barrons act 36 book saying the act tends to only test sas and sss or something</p>
<p>@volleyball13 I also put B because I thought that D was messed up. However, others seem to disagree (unfortunately for us). I guess we will wait to see.</p>
<p>yeah, im confused about what was wrong with b then. im 99% sure i was able to eliminate 4 answers that i was positive were wrong, so i dont know</p>
<p>I’m highly confident it was the SAS. I specifically oriented the triangles in my mind to check whether the sides matched up, and they did. If I’m not mistaken, it was in the ASA that the sides/angles did not correspond correctly. I’m not sure of this, however.</p>
<p>oh, well then i probably put the SAS then, i just remember one of them was not correct and i thought it was the SAS but maybe im remembering them switched hahaha</p>
<p>yeah guys, the SAS did line up/match. i checked to make the angles they mentioned WERE in fact the appropriate angles, and i remember the triangles were the exact same; one was just tilted a bit.</p>
<p>^ Haha yeah I agree the answers themselves were pretty confusing. I had to wrack my brain to figure out all those random geometry theorems.</p>
<p>okay yeah i feel like im getting confused because now i remember the SAS being right but i thought it was choice b? hahaha i have no idea, it wasnt a hard question, just confusing</p>
<p>For the one problem with a circle, they gave 5/12, and they asked for the area or something? Not quite sure what they had asked for, but I ended with 150 degrees;
360 x (5/12).</p>