<p>I have seen lists of schools that are SAT optional----schools which like kids with top grades but bad SAT scores.</p>
<p>I have been trying to find some sort of list, or get some names of schools where SAT and ACT scores are given more weight than gpa and extra-curriculars.</p>
<p>My son has 2300 SAT and 34 ACT, but only 3.6 or 3.7 unweighted gpa. Nor is he strong in ECs. </p>
<p>I would presume there are some schools out there that would like to rise in the US News rankings by taking kids with high SAT scores, thereby "juicing" their stats.</p>
<p>I would be very interested in the list as well.
I’m 2280 SAT and 3.69 UW GPA. Extra-curriculars are not bad, but not stellar. Pretty much same situation as your son.</p>
<p>^ most schools almost completely disregard EC’s, the reason why they are so important on CC is because many here are shooting for the top-30 type schools that do.</p>
<p>Look to collages that participate in the Nationsl Merit Scholarship program. They are literally paying for high stat kids. USC is one such top school, for example.</p>
<p>It always amazes me when I see some kid on CC who says he is valecdictorian of his class, but only has a 29 ACT. And then he explains it by saying he is a “bad test taker”.</p>
<p>To me, it shows that the high school he is going to is not that competitive academically, or that there is severe grade inflation.</p>
<p>While I realize I am not politically correct, I am a big supporter of standardized tests, including AP tests. How else can a college compare my son’s 3.6 gpa down in Florida to
another kid’s 3.7 in California, or another kid’s 3.8 in a small town in Iowa, or a 3.4 gpa for a kid in Massachusetts going to a Philips Exeter type private high school???</p>
<p>The trends seems to be towards “holistic” admission, where the importance of the SAT is downgraded.</p>
<p>^Yeah I think it’s BS how people with a 4.0 GPA and a <2000 SAT get excused as being a “poor test taker” while a kid with a 3.4 GPA and 2300 will be labeled as a “smart slacker.” I don’t know if it works that way in admissions (probably does), but I see it all the time on CC. I go to a school where it’s pretty common to get a B or even a C in an AP class and a 5 on the AP exam and 800 on the SAT II. Even worse, my school doesn’t rank and it’s profile is a terribly vague representation of how hard it really is. What will I probably be labeled as during college admissions? A slacker. Man I really wish I went to an easy, low-achieving school when I had the chance…</p>
<p>/rant</p>
<p>And on topic, I heard NYU Stern cares more about SAT scores than GPA. IDK if that’s true though.</p>
<p>Yeah, it amazes me too when I think about how hard that kid must have worked to achieve what he has achieved, given his issues with standardized tests. But when I compare him to the kid with the 34 ACT and the mediocre GPA, I know which I’d want in my school.</p>
<p>@annasdad: How would you truly know if he/she worked hard though? A 4.0 in one school could equal a 3.5 in another. Standardized tests are the only way to tell if someone earned their GPA or not. If someone has a 4.0 but a 1800, chances are, they either took easy classes or their school gave out As like candy. Sure, it’s possible that someone gets a low SAT score if he was sick on test day or just wasn’t feeling it that day. But there’s a reason why there are many opportunities to retake during the year. If a student took his first SAT in November of senior year, got sick, and bombed the test, it’s his fault that he didn’t take it earlier and he should face the consequences. Why should he get a free pass for being a “bad test taker?”</p>
<p>And IMO the “bad test taker” excuse completely fails. I mean 'cmon, how can people ace TESTS in school while being a “bad TEST taker?” If someone was truly a bad test taker, then he/she wouldn’t be able to get a high GPA, since he/she’d have to take tests in school. Plus, most of the content on the SAT (especially math, which is basically 8th grade level) is far easier than what’s taught in schools (ie calculus).</p>
<p>We’re talking about the valedictorian, the kid with the highest grades in his school, not about a school with overall inflated GPAs.</p>
<p>I will admit that in very small schools, especially in rural areas, the competition is such that being the valedictorian may not be all that big a deal. But in a school of any size, being number one represents a level of achievement far above what scoring well on a standardized test represents.</p>
<p>^Yeah I get what you’re saying now. It is a very big accomplishment being at the top of the class (I’d choose being a valedictorian over a 2400 any day). However, if a student is smart/hardworking enough to become valedictorian, shouldn’t he also be able to get at least a 2100 on the SAT? I mean, the SAT is like any test in school; one must study for it in order to score well. If a kid can study hard to get grades, then can’t he do the same for the SAT? </p>
<p>In my opinion, the SAT contains thing that ETS thinks all HS kids should have been taught/enforced. In my case, I’ve been in an accelerated, competitive program since 4th grade that you test into in 3rd grade. They went so far ahead, they didn’t teach us the “basics” because they figured we’d pick it up later, not just math/science stuff, but even english material! So many things I haven’t seen before, which isn’t my fault. And also, kids in my school are taking lower level math/English classes that are concurrent with SAT material. I haven’t had geometry since 8th grade. I’ve only been doing calculus these past 3 years, which is not tested on the SAT. I’m not making excuses, but it is more difficult having to reteach myself vs my classmates that are being taught it, in depth.
I know that thousands of kids get 2400s and are also advanced in classes, but that doesn’t mean other kids who didn’t score as high aren’t “smart” like the >2000 kids. </p>
<p>I don’t know about other people, but I work HARD for my grades, and that’s how I got my ranking of being 4th. My SAT is over the 2000 mark by a slight amount. Does that mean I’m not as smart as a kid who goes to “a Philips Exeter type school”? And my GPA is near 4.0, because I spend hours a night doing homework, studying, and going above and beyond what’s being taught in school. </p>
<p>Some people are stronger at some things than others, but it doesn’t mean someone is not as smart as the other person or is a “slacker.” </p>
<p>I feel that people who complain that their GPA is low because they have so much work in higher level classes, shouldn’t take them if they’ll complain. I complain about workloads in my AP classes, specifically biology, which is killing me and my classmates. But I study and work hard, and I have a 97 in the class. All we have are tests and Labs that have the same weight as tests. </p>
<p>And I have proved my “smart”-ness in other ways far greater and more meaningful than an SAT, and way outside the realm of high school academia.</p>
<p>(don’t mean to derail, but the thread was heading in this direction anyway.)</p>
<p>^I’m not saying that everyone who gets <2100 on the SAT is a “slacker.” The thing is, I just don’t get why kids with low GPA/high SAT are automatically labeled as slackers (again, on CC but probably in college admissions too) while high GPA/low SAT kids get the benefit of doubt and are seen as hard workers who are bad test takers.</p>
<p>There are as many valedictorians in the US as there are schools that rank their students–and only ~450 people who score 2400 on the SAT. Moreover, people with perfect SAT scores are admitted to the most selective US universities at higher rates than class valedictorians.</p>
<p>Just so you know, should you ever get to make that choice.</p>
<p>GPA is indicative of a long-term activity, SAT is one to three sittings. </p>
<p>I’m not saying that someone who has a 3.6 GPA is a slacker or isn’t as “smart” as me, even though I have a 3.94 GPA. I’ve taken all honors classes, 5 APs, I work, volunteer, etc. Now if this kid had 8 APs, I’d give much kudos. But not to a kid that took low level classes. </p>
<p>I think GPA and class rank shouldn’t be calculated at all. It’s all about course rigor. Maybe percentiles should be calculated. It’s blatant for colleges to see how much the GPA means when they see a transcript.</p>
<p>^I agree. I’d even go as far as to say that GPA is a completely useless number. It doesn’t mean anything unless it’s put in context. And even so, there’s still a lot of grey area as to the true worth of a GPA. I personally took 9 AP classes in a hard-ass school, and my GPA’s mad low. I’d love it if course rigor and the overall competitiveness of a school would be considered more than just the raw GPA number. Too bad that’ll probably doesn’t happen :(</p>
<p>That is considered. They (the colleges) have school profiles, and regional counselors that have to research schools in a certain area. </p>
<p>My school offers maybe 9 APs. But they are all scheduled for the same period, so even if I wanted to take them I couldn’t. Also, sometimes teacher will not recommend you for their AP if they know you are taking another AP that is just as heavy a workload (Ex at my school, AP psych and English have A LOT of reading to do. 3 books a week for English, ~3 essays a week too. And psych is the same.) Teachers will block you from coming into their class if they know you have a reading/writing intensive AP already.</p>
<p>CPU, that sucks because your teachers (AP) have to design their course load with the assumption that every student is only going to take one. </p>
<p>when i took APUSH we had mostly essay writing and review work but nothing extensive. we were expected to learn the material by ourselves. and because you don’t have 10 hours/week hr you can take 2-3 AP’s in one year.</p>
<p>And its funny i’ve read (on CC) how AP psych can be studied with a prep book only lol</p>