<p>What looks better for colleges? Taking ap classes that you do okay in, or taking regular classes and having all a's?</p>
<p>Well you should always strive to take the the most rigourous classes that are available to you. But its important to know your limits and be reasonable. If you dont think you can handle 6 AP classes, than dont do it. If you are in regular classes and you get an A, but in the AP or honors class you get a B, then thats ok; colleges will know that you tried hard, but if your getting C and D drop the class</p>
<p>okay thank you, can you answer my other questions i posted please?</p>
<p>Ideally, both… because if you are applying to the top schools, you will be competing with students who have taken on a significant course load (multiple AP/IB HL classes) and achieved very good grades. It’s not really an either/or case.</p>
<p>Depends on where you’re applying. Crtainly for tops schools ether most rigorous classes are essential. However, there are many second and third tier schools where a 4.0 is honored, no matter what you took.</p>
<p>Neither. take the most rigorous schedule that YOU can handle and get a GPA you want (I hope a 3.8+) =)</p>
<p>It depends on what shcools you are shooting for, but for the most selective colleges, it’s both. Take APs and get As. So pace your schedule, don’t overload with too many APs.</p>
<p>Quality of the HS also makes a difference. For those HYP feeder schools, you have grade deflation, so class ranking become important. In top HS, you can get admitted to UCLA level of colleges with only 3.0gpa…</p>
<p>^No, I don’t think so. I’m aware of the high school you are referring too. What do you mean by UCLA level of colleges?</p>
<p>I know what I am talking about. You probably don;t.:)</p>
<p>Dr Google, he’s probably referring to 20-30 ranking colleges.</p>
<p>I like to know the name of the colleges.</p>
<p>From UCLA’s CDS <a href=“http://www.aim.ucla.edu/CDS/cdsForm.asp#cdsC[/url]”>http://www.aim.ucla.edu/CDS/cdsForm.asp#cdsC</a> it looks like 0.4% of their admitted class have a GPA <3.0 which most would assume are recruited athletes. This does not refute artloversplus’s claim, but it does support that if true, it is true for very few.</p>
<p>^He said UCLA like, not UCLA. But even the best HYP feeders like Andover and Exeter, I highly doubt it. Been on CC for so long, I have seen posters who claimed higher GPA than 3.0 and were accepted to USD and the like.</p>
<p>lolalova: if you’re talking about the tippy top schools, the plan to hoard A’s as opposed to taking the most rigorous schedule clearly displays someone who isn’t very hungry about learning but more concerned about looking good.</p>
<p>For those top schools, they clearly want the learners and not the posers.</p>
<p>I think that it makes sense to take APs in subjects that really interest you and that you excel in. My child took 2 junior year and 2 senior year and got into 6 out of 6 schools he applied including Brown and top LACS. He actually started and dropped Ap Spanish senior year because it would have killed him. He only took APs in math and science (chem, phys c and bio). I think that many students take too many APs and end up with Bs or lower, hurting their chances for top schools.</p>
<ul>
<li>just my two cents.</li>
</ul>