<p>Is it better to have a mediocre GPA (3.70 UW / 4.55 W / top 10%) but have challenged yourself to the extent of taking more AP/IB/honors classes than all your peers </p>
<p>OR</p>
<p>Having a high GPA (4.0 UW / 4.8 W / top 5%) but with not as many AP/IB/Honors?
This courseload is still rigorous but not to the extent of the other.</p>
<p>A 3.7 will automatically disqualify you from many top schools, whereas a schedule with somewhat less rigor will not</p>
<p>If the weighted is still a 4.8, I would say that’s definitely better</p>
<p>It depends a lot on where you want to go to college.</p>
<p>If you want to go to the country’s most selective colleges and universities (HYPSM, Amherst, Berkeley, Duke and their peers), you’re probably in a deep hole if your guidance counselor doesn’t check the box that describes your schedule of courses as “most rigorous.”</p>
<p>Okay. let’s say I brought up the UW GPA to a 3.8 and the weighted to a 4.67 and the guidance counselor checks of the most rigorous courseload</p>
<p>3.70 UW / 4.55 W => 0.85 weighting points
4.00 UW / 4.80 W => 0.80 weighting points</p>
<p>How much of a difference in rigor would this be, if the weighting points are given by course rigor?</p>
<p>Would the “most rigorous” box be checked in either case? both? neither?</p>
<p>Of course, the best choice is to have a 4.00 UW in the “most rigorous” selection of courses available at your high school.</p>