<p>2010/3.7</p>
<p>i just took the ACT yesterday, hoping to do better…</p>
<p>3.8u.w./ 1980 total (1330/1600)</p>
<p>SAT: 2360 (single sitting)
GPA: 3.93</p>
<p>Grades are ********.</p>
<p>SAT: 2310 (single sitting)
GPA: 4.00</p>
<p>Gpa/sat: 4.0/1860</p>
<p>Wow. Your school must have some serious grade inflation.</p>
<p>As of the end of the first semester of junior year, I’m the valedictorian. It’s not grade inflation, I just try as hard as I can.</p>
<p>Edit: And that’s out of about 500 students in the junior class. I’m not guaranteed to hold the status, but I will try to.</p>
<p>Um, that’s grade inflation. Or your whole school just sucks.</p>
<p>When the valedictorian gets an 1860, it raises serious questions about the quality of a school.</p>
<p>
He’s questioning your SAT score, not whether you try in school lol. </p>
<p>2400/4.0</p>
<p>One’s GPA is dependent upon how much work they put in. One’s SAT score, for the most part, is dependent upon their intelligence (unless you game the test). I work harder than the geniuses at my school, and that’s why my GPA is higher than theirs.</p>
<p>3.95
2220</p>
<p>In a good school, a GPA should be dependent on BOTH effort and intelligence. If you don’t understand math, you shouldn’t be able to get an A, no matter how hard you try (for example).</p>
<p>If you don’t understand math, you probably will if you try hard enough, which then would lead to you getting an A.</p>
<p>I’ve always understood math and have consistently aced the class and scored higher than most of my classmates. I don’t think grade inflation’s the problem here. The SAT assesses logic, whereas precalculus assesses if you can memorize algorithms to solve repetitive problems. Maybe I’m wrong? I don’t know.</p>
<p>The highest SAT score at our school last year was a 2300, and the guy went to RICE. He wasn’t the valedictorian, though.</p>
<p>
Exactly! That’s not how math (or any topic) should properly be taught. You shouldn’t just be memorizing the algorithm to spit out the right answer for given problems. You should use LOGIC to understand concepts and be able to understand new situations.</p>
<p>Do you ever do proofs in your math class?</p>
<p>Yeah, we do. The teacher derives stuff like Law of Cosines and the quadratic formula for us. Sometimes we’re asked to prove identities involving nCr and whatnot. That’s not enough?</p>
<p>Kind of irrelevant, but the quadratic formula proof amazed me. The day our teacher proved it to us, I was like WOAH. I really love math, and I think that despite my deficiencies in intelligence, if I work hard enough, I can become an engineer.</p>
<p>Oh, so the TEACHER derives it for you. Sounds like your school doesn’t foster deep thinking or actually intelligence.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, that’s true of most schools.</p>
<p>If you actually understood concepts well enough to deserve an A, you should be able to get at least a 700.</p>
<p>Oh. So in a perfect reality, the hardest worker wouldn’t deserve “valedictorianship”? It’d just be the most intelligent person, regardless of how hard they worked?</p>
<p>I’m not the most intelligent person at my school, but I probably do work the hardest. Do I not deserve my GPA?</p>
<p>Frankly, no, you don’t. The valedictorianship should go to the smartest, hardest working student. Not just the hardest worker. Grades are supposed to assess ability, not just effort.</p>
<p>First I’ve ever heard of that. The most intelligent person I know doesn’t work as remotely hard as me.</p>
<p>Can you extrapolate this to the real world? Would the most intelligent person become more successful than the hardest worker in life?</p>
<p>Correction: 3.89; 2220 (superscored)</p>