I’m a current senior at a very prestigious high school in North Carolina (sends a handful to HYPSM), and I’ve been starting to feel as if course rigor isn’t a major factor in college admissions anymore, unlike GPA and test scores.
I’ve managed a 4.0 fairly easily at my previous school until I transferred to the one I’m at now, and I’ve struggled to maintain B’s in some of the classes I’m in. However, some of the classes I took here are well beyond normal high school level. I don’t know exactly what my GPA is, but I received about 5-6 B’s last year. My weighted GPA is around a 5.2 or 5.3 with a 2330 SAT (800,800,730).
I was rejected at my dream school Cornell ED, and I was also deferred at MIT and Caltech. But some of the people who did get into those schools had near perfect GPAs, but significantly easier courseloads. Do you think this is unfair? Is it really true that colleges favor those who make primarily make A’s and B’s in the hardest courses possible than those who make straight A’s with easier schedules?
I agree with you. I think rigor is a distraction, a fudge factor, if you will. I know kids who got into top schools with their lower than B + average taking the lowest math classes, etc. because they were athletes. They knew to take easier courses, while others worked very hard and have above A averages , but lose out because they are not A + students. I don’t think creating a good and balanced community is just as important as the creation of an academic community. It is important, but in a 40/60 kind of way. Sure we can learn from sculptors, but the world will always need more doctors. I really don’t want to be misunderstood about this. I love the college communities being created. Just wonder whether we have not gone a bit overboard.
The factors you are mentioning, curriculum, SAT and GPA are only 50% of what colleges consider. The other 50% is your essay and recommendation letters along with your extracurriculars, so it could be that those accepted with an easier curriculum just had written better essays… there’s a lot of reasons why one person gets in or doesn’t
@Ucbalumnus
That’s what they say. I am not sure that that is what they do. They are happy to report the GPAs of admitted students but since they do not have to show how those GPAs were achieved, I think there is a fudge factor. Not saying you can get away with all the easy classes, but definitely think one could lighten their load and still make it work out, maybe even better their chances.
It is very difficult to make a judgement based on the stats posted on this website. Only a small pool of the applicants are posting, and some may not be telling the truth.
Of course course rigor is important. However, if you’re getting 5-6 b grades in a year, that demonstrates that you probably won’t be successful with HYPMs coursework. They need you, more or less, to show that high school was a breeze for you, regardless of how hard your classes are, unless you’re an athlete.
@myyalieboy Your citing recruited athletes is a TERRIBLE example in this discussion. The OP is not a recruited athlete. He or she, in order to be viable for selective colleges, absolutely needs to have a rigorous transcript. True, OP doesn’t have to apply to those but that’s what the applicant pool will display. Just cuz OP can’t understand why some others have gotten in doesn’t mean that colleges are LYING when They state that transcript rigor is singly the MOST important portion of the app.
In addition, the recruited athlete has to best all the other athletes. You only hear about those that get offers. You never hear of the 1000s of denied hopefuls
Every admissions representative from every most- or highly-competitive institution – with no exceptions – that I have ever known, or had a discussion with, or listened to, or read indicates the SAME thing: curricular rigor is very important. Are all these people lying? Is there a conspiracy among the top LACs and universities? Or, perhaps, are the limited experiences of some high school students atypical aberrations? You can decide for yourself.
“Every admissions representative from every most- or highly-competitive institution – with no exceptions – that I have ever known, or had a discussion with, or listened to, or read indicates the SAME thing: curricular rigor is very important.”
@Jugulator20: Well, they could say GPA/SATs/ACTs are all that counts (and, I believe, many selective – but not highly-selective or most selective – schools suggest essentially that). I suspect a majority of the four-year, accredited, Bachelor’s degree conferring institutions don’t care too much about curricular rigor. BUT my comment (in post #11) specifically focused only on highly- and most-competitive LACs and National Universities. I’d certainly would expect admissions representatives from this relative handful of schools to say “just” that; however, I also believe it’s completely factual (for schools that accept, perhaps, less than 15 or 20 percent of their applicants).
I can easily imagine a mid-level school claiming that course rigor matters but then accepting students whose curriculum lacked rigor.
But when a school has 20,000+ applicants, they have the luxury of demanding excellent grades AND course rigor. Consistently getting Bs in AP Physics is not going to cut it with the most selective schools.
“BUT my comment (in post #11) specifically focused only on highly- and most-competitive”
I only quoted your exact post and did not extend it beyond “highly and most competitive” schools. If I was listening to admissions from a “highly and most competitive” school, I would be simply stunned if they said anything else than course rigor was very important.
@Jugulator20: I believe you again miss the key point: the fact that all the most- and highly-selective school indicate this – and that they can be expected to do so – does not make it untrue. In fact, that they ALL consistently and unfailingly say the same thing ALL the time suggests that, in fact, it is true!
I’m not shocked that the most- and highly-selective schools consider course rigor to be very important. I’m stunned that a admission rep from the most- and highly-selective schools would need to point that out.
I’ve heard it said over and over again - people ask admissions reps from top colleges, “Should I focus on making the best grades, or taking the hardest courses?” and the rep almost always answers, “Make the best grades in the hardest courses.”
They say it with a smile, and then go into a deeper explanation, but they’re really not kidding. The top schools want both.
To everyone’s point, all college admission counselors say that they look at rigor first, then grades. Having attended MANY college panels with D, it’s almost like they’re reading the same script.
But do they practice that? Does a kid with 4.0 UW with a smattering of APs do appreciably worse than the kid with the 4.0 UW but with extremely hard classes? Again, I know what the colleges say…but it’d be awfully interesting to see the true outcomes…