<p>Haha if you think getting one B is horrible at CC, 4-year institutions are going to be fun…</p>
<p>I think a 4.0 is basically a conversation piece that you can “wow” people with. If you say “Oh, I have a 3.94.” The first thing that comes into my mind is “Hmm, it starts with a number less than 4… but more than 2… not that interesting…”
I’ve taken 8 classes at CC’s (during high school or summer internships) and I’ve managed a 4.0 very easily. If you throw out one quarter I received bad grades due to a life-threatening illness, I have a 3.96 from my remaining classes at a UC (including upper division courses). Which one am I more proud of? I’m always going to say my UC GPA.
In reality though, I really don’t think it’s going to make much of a difference. As someone pointed out earlier, most companies just scan resumes/profiles for low GPAs. They would rather have a kid with a 3.9 who has actual experience rather than a kid with a 4.0 who can only boast a high gpa. In terms of transfer success, it may very well matter but I guess you just have to demonstrate what else you were doing at that time that makes up for those missing grade points.</p>
<p>Thanks for your replies everyone.</p>
<p>I think I agree across the board. The 4.0 can’t hurt you, but being obsessed with it can.</p>
<p>I also understand that upper division is a separate beast. </p>
<p>I guess the thing is that there are two types of people who get a B. People who get a B because they did ‘good’ work (as opposed to excellent) and people who get a B because of life or any other myriad of reasons.</p>
<p>I remember someone saying in a reply that they had a B because they didn’t turn in an assignment. Essentially that’s the same position Im in.</p>
<p>The whole issue is how the University sees me, as a B student, or an A student with some mistakes.</p>
<p>Having a perfect GPA can mean one of two things. It may mean that you are a gunner, which usually makes its way into your essays and is considered a bad thing. Or it may mean that you knew the material on a level above what was required in your classes.</p>
<p>…as far as the “pressure” is considered. I think a number of us can relate to that. However, personally, I think the so called “4.0” is grossly overrated. For example, someone who got a 4.0 in just one semester of easy courses cannot be directly compared to another who maintained a 4.0 for a full 2 years through difficult and challenging courses, and the Universities are fully aware of these things when they evaluate someone. </p>
<p>My personal experience has been very similar to what someone mentioned above. It just seems easier to get better grades when you’re not trying “that hard”. I’m an older student (in my 30s) working 40+ hrs a week, and so managing good grades while working full time can be a challenge in itself. </p>
<p>When I started a couple years back at CC I had no fantasies of perfect grades or anything. Heck, wasn’t even planning on transferring to any of the UCs. Just gave it my best and hoped for “decent” grades to at least be able to get into one of the CSUs. However as fate would have it, I ended up with a 4.0, semester after semester. That’s when the so called “pressure” began, because now my sights had shifted from the CSUs to the top UCs, and I did not look at the ‘As’ as a BONUS anymore, but something I simply had to have. Until this past summer, at which point I had completed about 62 units, I still had my 4.0. Then during this past summer, I got my first B, and that too in something that one might consider a relatively ‘easy’ course: COMPUTER SCIENCE 1!! (after getting As in courses like multivariable calculus and diff eqns/linear algebra)…and it was devastating. But after I had time to mull it over, I was really glad that the pressure was gone. I now knew that I could never have that perfect 4.0 again. </p>
<p>This fall it was much easier. I was able to get As in all courses, raising my gpa from 3.92 to 3.94, and that had a hidden advantage: GRADE TRENDS! The universities (especially Cal) have stated countless times that they would tend to look more favorably on a student who has shown IMPROVEMENT, than one who has consistently maintained good grades. One of the fall courses I took and got an ‘A’ happened to be “COMP SCI 2”, which could potentially have an even greater impact. </p>
<p>So what’s the moral of the story? Chasing that 4.0 is simply not worth it, and can be severely counterproductive. One should just aim to give it their absolute best, and let the chips fall where they may. Besides, odd as it may seem, a couple Bs (or even a C) followed by a string of As might actually work in your favor, showing a positive grade trend (I’m not advocating that one should intentionally do this)</p>
<p>Also as someone mentioned above, it depends on your major. Being an EE major myself (and also having taken a few general courses in other areas), I can attest to the fact that it is far far more difficult to hold on to that 4.0, for people in the hard sciences/engineering.</p>
<p>Oh, and also as MidnightGolfer put it so pefectly, it depends on what your purpose for the 4.0 is. If you’re looking to impress people, then the 4.0 might carry the “wow” factor. However, I can literally guarantee that admissions staff at universities NEVER look at gpa as a particular number, but rather a “range”. For example, they would classify all people in the 3.80 - 4.00 range</p>
<p>Am I the only one that thinks the easy classes are hard and the hard classes easy?</p>
<p>For example, chemistry, biology, English IA, etc. were supposed to be the hard classes at my CC and I’d be lucky to get a B in these classes. I received an A in all of them.</p>
<p>However, History and Jazz and Rock was supposed to be an easy A and because I didn’t think I needed the extra credit concerts, I got my only UC transferable B.</p>
<p>The problem for me is I didn’t work at the easy classes, hence I didn’t go to office hours. The hard classes I’m in office hours weekly to get one on one time with the instructor. I usually read the textbook, then bring all my questions to the instructor to make sure I know EXACTLY what he/she wants. This method has always been the best to not only get an A, but understand the material better than anyone else.</p>
<p>3.95 is only .05 worse than a 4.0. Nothing more. Even though a 4.0 looks better, admission officers arent stupid and wont think the 4.0 will be worth more than .05 higher to them</p>
<p>lol. Victor, a 4.0 through 60 some odd units, with one B in the summer followed by A’s in fall does not count as upward grade trends. You went from a 3.92 to a 3.94. You have a great GPA, but it’s consistent, not upward moving. An upward grade trend is two straight years of both improved semester GPA and overall GPA culminating in the last 2 to 3 semester at CC being your very best semesters of college. Upward grade trends are suppose to be significant improvements that are visible right away. Not consistency, then a drop off, then improvement in one quarter.</p>
<p>well it’s better to be consistently at the top rather than show “upward trend”</p>
<p>I don’t really get that upward trend thing. Why would they prefer someone who crawled their way up rather than one who constantly stepped on everyone?</p>
<p>“If you want to make the most of your time, you have to put effort into enjoying the ride; It’s the only real shot any of us have at sustained happiness. You’re perfect right now, so live it up. When you’re not, try to appreciate the silliness of your predicament.” lol yup yup</p>
<p>Food for thought;</p>
<p>That which does not destroy us makes us stronger. Friedrich Nietzsche</p>
<p>Yeah… If your friend would’ve actually tried studying in the first place, he probably wouldn’t have ended with that terrible percentage in the first place. Even CC professors, who’s classes are considerably easier than real college classes aren’t sympathetic to slackers.</p>
<p>Well, there kind of is a difference because in one hand you have an individual who broke under pressure, but still did his very best to achieve excellence, and in your other hand you have an individual who strived for excellence and succeeded, rather than letting pressure get the best of him. Who do you think the Ivies (or UCs for that matter) are going to choose if it came to a decision between the two? think about it.</p>
<p>Define “extracurricular activities”, what does that really mean to a college compared to academic excellence? I mean, me personally, I have that 4.0 GPA unweighted, I have that 2100 SAT score, but I still play basketball and tennis with my friends after school, I still volunteer at the hospital, I definitely have the cultural diversity (quadlingual), and I’m the president of my school’s Piano club. Are you saying I’m pretending to be perfect? Are you saying that I’m less human and that I’m going to be at a disadvantage when applying for college?</p>
<p>@overachiever92
There are too many factors involved to conclude that pressure is the sole reason for receiving anything less than a 4.0. The difficulty of course load, college attended, amount of work hours per week, and personal family responsibilities are just some of the reasons why someone might not be able to attain a 4.0. Btw, this is the UC transfer forum so we are talking about students who have more responsibilities than high school students.</p>
<p>The UCs and Ivies select the most well rounded students. Example: A lot of 4.0 transfers are rejected from UCB and UCLA every year but a good number of 3.5+ students are admitted instead. </p>
<p>I don’t know what you mean by pretending to be perfect. I think it is fair to say that colleges and employers would like to see that students are at least somewhat involved outside of their schoolwork. You seem like you are. There are definitely students on this website with perfect stats who are rejected from HYPS each year and wonder why. Then they post their rant and forum members make fun of them because grades and test scores were the only thing going for them.</p>
<p>I guess you kind of have a point there. BTW would you say that students with 4.0s from easier classes (let’s say only 1 AP) who play for a high school sports team, have a greater chance of getting into an Ivy league/UC, than a student who has the more difficult classes (3-4APs) and still manages to maintain a 4.0? (and who has the qualities that I listed in my previous comment). I would really appreciate your opinion.</p>
<p>That is a hard question to answer. The UCs allow you to gain extra points for up to 8 AP classes and I don’t know how many AP classes IV league schools award extra points for. For Ivy league, you are pretty much expected to take the hardest course load and ace most of your classes and then be involved in many activities. For the UCs (with the exception of UCB/UCLA) you do not need to necessarily meet these same standards. GPA and test scores seem to be most important. Extracurricular activities it seems are not quite as important but it is still a good idea to have a couple quality ECs. Ideally, you want to be involved in as much as possible while maintaining a high GPA in the most difficult classes you can handle. Whichever combination of the formula yields the best results is what I think a student should aim for.</p>
<p>I think it really comes down to what the ECs are. If a student has a 3.5 and he was on a varsity sports team and the other student has a 4.0 with no EC’s, I’d take the second kid (if both took the same courses). </p>
<p>Now let’s say the 3.5 student has accomplished something unheard of (found the cure for cancer, got the Raiders to the playoffs, etc). If he’s going against that 4.0 student who has nothing to boast other than a high gpa, I would sometimes like to gamble on that wildcard who has that amazing potential. As an admissions officer, don’t you want to tell your grandchildren that you admitted the student who eventually changed the world? Guess you just got to demonstrate your future potential in your essays, otherwise GPA is the end-all factor.</p>
<p>To Vintij:
On second thoughts, I tend to agree with you. It is not significant enough to be seen as an upward grade trend. I guess I always like to try and see the positive side to an unfavorable outcome.</p>
<p>To overachiever:
As has been stated above, I don’t think that someone who has a consistent 4.0 is at any disadvantage per se. However, I also don’t think the admissions staff would necessarily give them any extra preference, when compared to another student with a gpa in the high 3s (say 3.80+). There are too many other variables in that equation, such as the overall difficulty of the courses taken, the number of difficult/honors courses taken, the circumstances under which the gpa was achieved (for example one person twiddling their thumbs at home, while getting a 4.0, and another involved in a TON of ECs while getting a 3.8) etc. And let’s not forget that the less the overall number of units (with hard courses taken) completed, the better the chances of holding on to that 4.0. The more challenging courses completed (such as higher level Math/Science), the greater the probablility to “slip up” and get one or two Bs (which can easily drop one’s gpa to the 3.8s)</p>
<p>Thanks, and I hope you got that I meant to say that the second guy doesn’t play for a high school sports team.</p>