<p>Conventional wisdom here on c.c and from other sources always says that colleges like to see an 'upward trend' in grades, that poor performance in freshman (or even sophomore) year is forgiven, etc etc. </p>
<p>I understand the logic of this approach in that some students just take longer to 'mature', but I just want to know: a) how valid is this conventional wisdom, and b) are there any here who resent this? </p>
<p>If I was a student who worked my butt off during freshman and sophomore year, I would be pretty annoyed to find out that students who slacked off in those years can get away by working hard during junior year, thereby showing an 'upward trend' in grades. Chances are pretty good that those same students will revert to their 'slacker' mode during senioritis and also upon arrival in college.</p>
<p>I, someone with a great upward trend (3.2 ,9-10-->>> 4.4, 11-12>>>)
can only hope for the best.</p>
<p>The only place i see an upward trend deserving an advantage over someone else is if it is not a huge trend, but noticeable. Like if one student had a 3.8 all high school (uw) and then if the second student went from 3.7>>>3.9 and at the end of school, their total 9-12 uwgpa was the same.</p>
<p>I have asked this question of ad. officers at many, many college fairs and visits over the years. The answer is almost always the same: It's better to have consistently high grades. One exception is the kid who comes to the US with poor language skills and then accelerates as those skills catch up. The early grades will often be overlooked.</p>
<p>There are colleges that throw out 9th grade performance (something I favor), but that's consistent for all applicants.</p>
<p>D.D worked incredibly hard as a freshman for her A or A+ grades in mostly honors classes last year. Obviously it is unrealistic to expect an 'upward trend' from here (<em>not</em> bragging here), though she is working very hard in sophomore year to maintain her grades. In the meantime there are plenty of very smart classmates who got lower grades last year as a consequence of slacking off, excess partying, etc. Hopefully she will be in the category of 'consistently high grades' so it should work out OK for her.</p>
<p>UC posted in their admissions guidelines for upward trend but mostly from B/C to A. But I think senior year grade is very important. In fact, some colleges think they are more important then junior year grades. The reason is they are closer to college level courses.
Using the grade and money analogy, it's always better to be born rich, stay rich, retire rich. Second best, it would be to be born poor, got rich, retire rich. Last preferrably option would be to be born rich, got poor, retire dirt poor.</p>
<p>99cents: I see you like money analogies, so here is one that describes the 'other side of the coin': </p>
<p>Think of the GPA as analogous to a credit score, consider an A as 'paid in full on time', B as 'paid in full with a few late payments', etc etc until an F is like a foreclosure or bankruptcy. In the real world, more recent activity counts for more towards your credit score but if you were careless with a credit card 3 years ago, your score is still weighed down by that. </p>
<p>I wonder if there are colleges or school that systematically weigh grades in this manner- increasing the weightage given to grades in each of the 4 years of high school. That would be a reasonable way to do it rather than to simply throw away the 9th grade, I.M.O.</p>
<p>Remember that schools want to know about the student they're getting now instead of the student of four years ago. Ninth grade grades can reflect many things that have nothing to do with the student they're getting now. One thing it often reflects is the quality of the middle school feeding the high school, for instance.</p>
<p>Let's take another money analogy. There are two stocks. One has done consistently well for the past four years. The other was about average four years ago but, based on your analysis, is now a very good stock. When making the buy, do you factor in the consistent performance of one and consider it to be a higher value stock than the less-consistent one? I would say "yes," personally. But that doesn't mean that the less consistent stock isn't currently valuable.</p>
<p>Even in the credit score analogy, if one screwed up 10-20 years ago, slowly paid off credit card debts, recently has not had a late payment. I think bank will also lend you money. For credit score analogy, it takes time, not 4 years to rebuild credit.</p>
<p>Interesting analogies all around. My problem with the stock analogy is that you can reverse your buy decision very easily for a stock, so if you buy 'on momentum' and find out in a couple of days or months that the stock was just a flash in the pan, you can dump it and buy something else. It is not so easy with students you admit to your college. Which is why it seems more prudent when choosing students to select those who have proven themselves over time. It looks like most colleges do just that. </p>
<p>OTOH, the stock analogy does work in explaining how colleges like to build a well-balanced entering class. Sometimes you have to go for the best available stock in a weak sector of the economy just to build a well-diversified portfolio.</p>
<p>If a student has great grades all through 4 years then that student does not have to worry about grades. He/she can focus in other area like EC's/essays, etc... While it's not always a sure thing for a student with a rising GPA trend. If it comes down to choose between the 2 students who are comparative in most areas then the student with consistent grades wins out.</p>
<p>"Let's take another money analogy. There are two stocks. One has done consistently well for the past four years. The other was about average four years ago but, based on your analysis, is now a very good stock. When making the buy, do you factor in the consistent performance of one and consider it to be a higher value stock than the less-consistent one? I would say "yes," personally. But that doesn't mean that the less consistent stock isn't currently valuable."</p>
<p>Some people take into account the dividends :)</p>
<p>Beyond the analogies, I think many people get the idea that the admissions process is about letting in who "deserves" to get in and who doesn't. I suppose it works somewhat that way at a place like the University of Iowa which, as I recall, has a very rigid formula involving class rank and ACT scores.</p>
<p>At the very elite college level, they're trying to determine who brings something to the school, then to make up a class of a number of people who bring different things. At that level, it's not really about "who deserves to come here" as much as it is, "who do we want."</p>