<p>I know a girl who had almost a 2400 SAT score and 800s on her SAT IIs (math, physics, etc.). GPA unweighted was like almost a 3.0... maybe like 3.1? Weighted though was ~3.5-3.6 because she took a LOT of really hard classes (bit off more than she could chew I guess).</p>
<p>Even with the low GPA etc. she got into a great school - USC. Also helped that she had great extracurricular activities (sports, club, etc) , but still.</p>
<p>Do SAT scores make this huge of a difference?</p>
<p>Sometimes. I know a kid who just got off the harvard wait list because of phenomenal sat’s, even though he was no where near the “very top” of the GPA rankings.</p>
<p>How low GPA wise are we talking though? Maybe had a high weighted GPA?</p>
<p>You have no idea why anyone got onto the Harvard waitlist. There are many possibilities. Harvard rejects most 2400s and hgh scores would never compensate for a low GPA because they have too many applicants who have it all.</p>
<p>GPA is the most important factor. There are some schools, however, that are trying to climb in the rankings and need as many high scorers as they can get and will bend for a very high scorer. They don’t include the ivies.</p>
<p>You “know a girl…” Her GPA was “like” “almost” “maybe…” Really, you have no idea what that particular student presented to the admissions committee. USC’s average unweighted GPA for Fall 2008 was 3.8. The predicted Fall 2009 average unweighted GPA is 3.9. Given that the highest unweighted GPA possible is 4.0, there could only be the tiniest percentage accepted at an approximate 3.0 to maintain that average. Your hypothetical applicant may have had circumstances, accomplishments or abilities that you are unaware of that made her an attractive applicant. A high SAT score alone would not likely be enough.
<a href=“http://www.usc.edu/admission/undergraduate/private/0910/FreshmanProfile2008v3.pdf[/url]”>http://www.usc.edu/admission/undergraduate/private/0910/FreshmanProfile2008v3.pdf</a></p>
<p>depends on the calibur of the school you applied to. At an Ivy leauge school/equivalent it won’t matter.</p>
<p>Wow, this is pretty scary.</p>
<p>Average of 3.9? Seriously?</p>
<p>I have an unweighted 3.84, weighted 4.53.</p>
<p>Does that pretty much put me out of contention for the ivies and other top schools?</p>
<p>So far, I’ve gotten 790 on my chem SAT and 202 on my sophomore PSAT. I’m not worried about my ability to score well on the SAT’s/AP’s. I also have decent EC’s.</p>
<p>But looking at all the insanely high GPA averages, I’m getting pretty worried with my 3.84. Seems like all the top colleges have an average of 3.9+… Do these people just never get B’s?</p>
<p>Luminouzz, you have a very strong GPA, and your weighted GPA suggests a very challenging courseload. You should not be concerned that your GPA is too “low.” Be sure to include match and safety schools on your list in addition to the top schools.</p>
<p>A student like you should also look more broadly at schools that would offer significant merit aid to a student with your credentials - you would get an excellent education and save a lot of money. Look beyond the “top” schools in the rankings (which are fairly meaningless) and you may find some real gems.</p>
<p>Best of luck.</p>
<p>Thanks for the advice. </p>
<p>I will definitely try to break out of the competition and look at less prestigious colleges. It’s just that everyone seems to add so much aura and mystique to the ivy leagues.</p>
<p>I’m surprised Hernandez said taht, it’s not true at most schools and at Dartmouth 40% of the class of '12 was their high school’s val or sal.</p>
<p>Luminouzz, it’s about rank, not GPA, even at schools that don’t officially rank. Different numbers mean way different things at different schools. For ivies you need to be top 10% at highly competitive schools, top 5% at competitive schools and very top of the class at average schools in general if you don’t have a hook.</p>
<p>
</a></p>
<p>Wow you sound really bitter. Did your son or daughter not get into the school of your choice (and perhaps they had a “high” GPA?) so you couldn’t continue to live vicariously through them?</p>
<p>High SAT combined with low GPA usually gets interpreted as “student doesn’t work”. That’s a red flag at many schools.</p>
<p>I guess it depends on the situation. But I’m pretty sure this she does work, it was just unwise to choose such a hard course load. She did have a pretty big upward trend though (I think junior year second semester) as well as good grades her 1st semester senior year that I guess showed she is capable of hard work. I believe she got into one of the Ivies as well.</p>
<p>
hahaha! No, my daughter actually got into the school of her choice (USC) with a large merit scholarship. (She just finished her freshman year.) I thought all seven of the schools she chose to apply to (and was accepted to) were great - one of my favorites was her safety. And yes, my daughter had a “high” GPA which went nicely with her high test scores. So no, I am not bitter, but YES, I definitely am living vicariously through my daughter as she builds an amazing life through her hard work. Thanks for asking!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That isn’t what the data say. The rate of admission is about 40 percent for perfect SAT on the post-1995 scale, which is higher than the admission rate of valedictorians.
Harvard internal studies show that high SATs correlate with magna and summa degrees, and admissions has cited this as one reason for keeping the SAT requirement. Grades may or may not correlate so well. </p>
<p>Schools other than Harvard put an even higher value on high SAT and the admission rates reflect this. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>At the Ivies, being above a given 90+ percentile on SAT tends to be more important, as measured by admissions rate, than being at the equivalent class rank. I posted some calculations in another thread using the public information at Princeton, Brown and Dartmouth, as well as links to a study that found test scores count more (and with the weight of tests increasing) in the College and Beyond cohort, which is a large data set for selective schools including four Ivies:</p>
<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/parents-forum/697661-top-schools-value-sat-act-scores-over-gpa-rank-4.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/parents-forum/697661-top-schools-value-sat-act-scores-over-gpa-rank-4.html</a></p>
<p>Basically, being in percentile X of grades has a similar weight to being in percentile X of tests, but the grade scale tops out at a much lower percentile than tests can measure. So high test scores become influential on the admissions results, and test scores overall become a stronger statistical predictor of admission. This includes Ivy League schools.</p>
<p>That 40% of 2400 scoring applicants get accepted does not mean the majority of those applying with 2400 are accepted. They aren’t. And you would expect them to be accepted at a higher rate than vals. Every school has a val, many have several or more, few have a single 2400 scorer. </p>
<p>Of course colleges greatly value high SATs. Top colleges demand high everything. The bottom line is most 2400’s have high GPA’s too. But at top schools, a high score does not compensate for a not impressive GPA. And a great GPA on’t compensate for low scores.</p>
<p>The testing scale goes past 2400 if you consider the other available numbers (AP, IB, SAT-II, ACT) and results on exam competitions in math, science, languages, etc. I think that for those who clearly establish 2400 as the <em>lower estimate</em> of their testing ability on this hypothetical scale, the admission rate is substantially higher than 40 percent. Currently the 40:60 split includes people with 2400 SATs that might have been 2350’s had they taken it again, or whose other SAT are not maxing out the scale, or are getting 4’s on a couple of AP. The College Board reports a confidence interval for the SAT result, so neither they nor the university necessarily take a 2400 as being a clear indicator of maximum testing ability (aka intelligence). I don’t think there is as much variabilty in the grades; somebody who has gotten A’s through the first semester of senior year can certainly get more A’s through the end of the year.</p>
<p>I don’t believe that students with perfect grades (and therefore #1 class rank or tied for same) are being admitted at the same rate as 2400 SAT. </p>
<p>Given the ability to go all the way to, say, a 2500-equivalent given other tests, there is a lot more room to compensate for somewhat-low grades with tests, than to compensate for 93rd percentile tests with 99th percentile grades.</p>
<p>At any rate, saying that “GPA is what matters” or “class rank is the key” just has no basis in the data. Compared pound for pound, the test scores weigh a little more, and far more if you can get near the top of the scale.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’ve requested evidence about similar statements before. I’ll request again here, as there may be newer news out now than there was the last time I asked about this. What is the source for this statement? And how big of a percentage is “most” here?</p>
<p>As I mentioned in other threads, the Revealed Preferences survey authors released data a while ago on the admissions rates by SAT range for several individual schools (graphs are published in the RP paper and in The Early Admissions Game), and substantially more detailed data for several categories of school: Ivy League, LAC, and the next few tiers below that. Their data was a random sample of students in the top 10 percent of good public high schools and top 20 percent of private schools. Those applicants with 1600 on the SAT were getting in at 75-90 percent probability at Ivy+2 category schools, 90-100 percent at LAC, and 100 percent (something like 40 out of 40 in their sample) to the next tier. You could see admissions rate go up fairly linearly with SAT scores.</p>
<p>If you look through Harvard’s articles each year celebrating their own selectiveness in the Crimson and the Gazette, some of those mention the rejection rates for valedictorians and perfect SAT scorers as evidence of selectivity. The reality is a bit different: a student from the top decile with high scores on a battery of tests is in at most of the top 10 schools. Extracurriculars are needed for those who don’t manage that. Tests are too discriminating and there are too few high scorers for the universities to be indifferent to a pattern of monster scores. Perhaps they are more indifferent if you are from a stereotypically high-testing population (Asians, Russian Jewish immigrants, maybe a limited number of other categories).</p>
<p>One vote for SATs trumping GPAs.
Hernandez argues this in “A Is For Admissions”. But the admissions rate for 1600 scorers (old scale) was always much higher than for vals, as I remember about one in two at HYP versus one in five or six for vals.
Closer to home, I’ve had two kids do very well at admissions with no grades whatsoever, but with stellar testing.
My only experience has been with elite schools. State universites may well be different.
But college admissions folks will forever say that “the transcript is the most important thing…blah, blah, blah”.</p>