<p>My daughter's SAT's are great; her GPA is less impressive. My feeling is that this says "underachiever" to an admissions officer. Am I correct? And I wonder if this would argue against taking the SAT's again in the fall. I don't expect her GPA to change much, so maybe if she improved her SAT's, that would just say "underachiever" even louder? Your thoughts would be appreciated.</p>
<p>If she's a B student with a lot of extracurriculars, she isn't an "underachiever." If she's a C student with very high SATs and no extracurricular activities, an admissions officer would have to wonder what her issues are...but if she's a C student with no ECs and low SATs she wouldn't be applying to any competitive colleges in the first place. I don't think high SATs can ever hurt.</p>
<p>I have a similar situation. My son's SATs were great: 2140. His gpa? A 3.1. Sigh. He's got a lot of <em>really</em> impressive extracurriculars, too. I can't help but think about what a strong candidate he would be had he chosen to apply himself as his sister did.</p>
<p>Woulda, coulda, shoulda. Forgetaboutit. The important thing is that he is showing gradual improvement in his grades/organization as he gets older. And he's a great kid with a strong set of social skills.</p>
<p>I have spoken to a lot of people, most of them men, including my husband, and my cousin, who is in his last year of a highly-coveted medical residency in San Fran. They did not start to do well grade-wise until college. It's a maturity thing. While I think that it is a more common tendency for boys, I'm sure that it affects girls too, and that colleges are not unaware of it. I also know a lot of incredibly successful people who did not go to "name" schools, so I'm a bit more relaxed about the whole admissions process.</p>
<p>Why would she retake already great SAT's instead of putting more time into schoolwork. OK, we can't really control what they do, but I'd encourage more effort to increase GPA rather than more time on testing. Why is the GPA low?</p>
<p>I don't think that there's any point in re-taking SATs, unless you're going to study very hard for them in the interim. I know too many kids whose SATS actually went down upon with further testing. And, like bethievt pointed out, it would make more sense to use the time to increase gpa, add an interesting volunteer job, etc.</p>
<p>If the first SATs are "great", why not just leave them be?</p>
<p>My son was signed up to take the ACT in June; upon receiving his SAT scores we've decided to give it a pass. He doesn't need the additional stress in his life.</p>
<p>Similar situation in my family a fews years ago. The advice we received was just the opposite. If standardized scores are top-notch, colleges will see the outstanding potential. Otherwise laziness becomes a label and colleges are less interested. Took the SAT again, improving score to the top few percentiles and ended up in a nice mid-reach school. They may not have given him a chance had he not had the knockyoursocksoff SAT scores. We always told him his laziness would bite him one day as he was clearly not living up to his potential in high school.....One never knows for sure.</p>
<p>I agree that some schools take mental/emotional development into consideration when dealing with teenage boys. They can be a bit slow at the switch!</p>
<p>What kind of courses is she taking? (This is my standard follow-up question in threads about students' G.P.A.s.)</p>
<p>S was in this position this year -- SAT was 2230; GPA around 3.4. I had the same concerns about him being seen as a slacker (which he isn't). According to his school counselor, who had previously worked in college admissions, this discrepancy was likely to engender additional discussion amongst the admission committee. She said that the other parts of his application - personal essay, interview, recomendations, and school report -- would be used to help clarify the discrepancy and paint a more complete picture of the applicant. S applied to a variety of reach, match and safety schools & was accepted at 5 of the 8 he applied to, including a reach.<br>
A student who's involved in EC's, has good recommendations, and takes good HS courses shouldn't have a problem.</p>
<p>"I agree that some schools take mental/emotional development into consideration when dealing with teenage boys. They can be a bit slow at the switch!"</p>
<p>---very true! Glad schools will consider that factor...!</p>
<p>We are also stuggling to decide if the stress of taking the SAT for a second time is time well spent . My child did reasonably well ...2100 and has a great average and EC's. What to do..................help !</p>
<p>Only on CC would anyone fear that 3.4 suggested a "slacker!" A 3.3 is s solid B+, so a 3.4 gpa is the equiv of no grade less than B+ with a few grades of A or A-, as well. It might not be the fast -track to the Ivy League, but hardly slacking.</p>
<p>Anyway, great outcome for your son, Shellfell.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>As to retaking the SAT, the merit-scholarship crowd, when it shows up, will tell you that at some colleges the difference between "great" and "really, really great" SATs can be significant. I don't know what you mean by "low" vis a vis GPA, and I don't know if you have any interest in playing in that league, but it's a factor you may want to consider.</p></li>
<li><p>I think the SAT-GPA gap means different things at different strata of college admissions. At the most selective colleges, I suspect it's a definite negative. Not fatal in every case, but fatal unless there's a really compelling story about it. I think those colleges are much more willing to take students with a lot of school success and slightly lower test scores (which is why none of them has all of its students >2300). Dropping down a layer or two, there are probably plenty of places that use a SAT/GPA function as a screen, where high SATs will effectively compensate for low GPA (or vice versa). They don't care so much about under- or overachievers, just that there's enough achievement capacity there to be worth a shot.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Hmmmm....some suggestions here that admissions committees give some slack to male applicants with low GPAs because boys are, "slow at the switch..." </p>
<p>I think any admissions officer, male or female, would be offended at the suggestion that that sort of reasoning goes into their decisions.</p>
<p>High SATs never hurt, and at numbers-oriented schools they can actually help overcome a lower GPA. I wouldn't consider a mid-threes GPA to indicate "slacker" and I don't think colleges will think that either. Good luck to your D.</p>
<p>BTW, I can provide a true "slacker" sample. Son of a friend with 1340 SAT (old) and 1.99 GPA. Admitted to a non-competitive state school. Five courses freshman year, five Fs.</p>
<p>Maybe the SATs are a fluke.</p>
<p>My personal view is that, for admission purpose, GPA is a much more important factor. However, for merit aids, the standard test score may have more weight. </p>
<p>Again, all GPA and test scores have to be taken within context. If your aim is HPYS, I will not think a 2100 SAT is "great".</p>
<p>To mini's point, any single data point does not offer a significant meaning. If there are ACT and SAT II scores within the same range, you will make a much better case.</p>
<p>This is one part of "A Is for Admissions" where Hernandez gets it right. No matter what colleges say, they like the high SAT scores. According to Hernandez, given a choice between the high gpa/mediocre SAT kid and the mediocre gpa/high SAT kid, they usually choose the latter--while publicly denying it. </p>
<p>There is another book--Montauk is one of the authors--about how to get into a top college. (It's one of a series, how to get into a top college, law school, b school, etc.) He has some good advice about the high SAT mediocre grades kid. I haven't reread it in years now, but one thing he said is that an above the 75th percentile SAT score helps most when you apply early decision (binding.) </p>
<p>I disagree vehemently with JHS--I know kids with high scores, mediocre grades who got into HYPSMC. However, I'll admit that all of those I know went to high schools that don't rank. I suspect that helps because it doesn't hurt the college's statistics. They had other things going for them. One boy, for example, is an extraordinary chess player. He had great grades in math and science, but English and social studies were another matter. He got into schools in the HYPS group.</p>
<p>Interesting....this rebuts a little the info I'd gleaned earlier re: this situation (son has same disparity as OP). </p>
<p>I always thought....good scores can't <em>hurt.</em></p>
<p>(while of course, not resting on the test-taking-laurels and endeavoring to excel in other areas...).</p>
<p>What we finally decided w/son....focus on improving ECs (doing independent project, volunterring), doing well on APs and SAT IIs this spring. Then when fall comes (after getting his 'math mind' in gear w/a rigorous math course) he'll try the SAT again (for the last 200 pts) if he feels like it. </p>
<p>Keeps all options open.</p>
<p>After lurking here for two years hand-wringing over S1, this topic finally compelled me to post! Having settled S1 in at HYPS dream school, now going through similar yet different experience with Junior D. Her stats: first/only SAT sitting 800CR, 610M, 780W, SATII 780 English, 760 History. GPA is 3.7 lightly weighted. 4 APs this year and 4 more scheduled for Senior year.</p>
<p>S also had a GPA-SAT disconnect, though not as severe as D, but a compensating "special talent" with which to dazzle Admission Officers. D has outstanding talent in LA but has struggled with a C every year in the most rigorous curriculum in either Math or Science. I admit to always pressing for the Honors/AP track, which in our High School is so much more worthwhile than the regular college prep offering. Now I have my concerns (I know too late!) over the better class/lower grade trade-off. </p>
<p>What do you think? Should D use the summer to study and retake the SAT hoping to improve the 610 M or does high M/low grades = lazy in admission eyes? At least the 610 (I know it is respectable) doesn't demonstrate that she has amazing ability! Can I even get her to study and hopefully improve wo fracturing Parent/Child relationship...</p>
<p>I'm in a similar situation with my S. Unweighted gpa 3.15, ACT at 31, SAT at 1960. He's in a small school and spends 1-1/2 to 2 hours a day on two buses to get to school and home, so really no EC's and there aren't clubs at the school...he wants to hang with his friends, play Rock Band, video games and his guitar. Will have a great job at the Hollywood Bowl this summer, so that is something!</p>
<p>Fortunately, no aiming for big reaches. I'm glad to hear higher test scores than grades would indicate help.</p>
<p>He's scheduled to retake the ACT as he thinks he could have done better. I've been leaning toward not having him spend the time/stress, but it sounds like a point or two higher might actually help him????</p>