<p>someone who does well in school and takes difficult classes but does average on SAT's</p>
<p>or</p>
<p>someone who procrastinates in school and takes regular courses (but does well on their SAT's?</p>
<p>in other words, low GPA& high test scores or high gpa&low test scores?</p>
<p>I'm sure if you were in person A's position you could make a fair argument that people like you deserve to go to better colleges, but i don't know if you could make an equally strong argument from person B's position. Idk, can you?</p>
<p>I am absolutely against the person with a low GPA and high test scores. The person basically squandered his abilities for three whole years but managed to pull off a nice score with a 3 hour test. I mean, it obviously shows the horrendous work habits he has. So should he deserve a spot in a decent college with that high score? ABSOLUTELY NOT. It is ridiculous. One score should not determine his intellectual or overall capabilities. The accumulation of grades he received through his high school career, however, SHOULD. A good GPA demonstrates good work ethic and intelligence. One good SAT score without the GPA to back it up DOES NOT. </p>
<p>tl;dr: The guy who has low GPA/high SAT deserves the boot.</p>
<p>^ yeah i can see why you would be against it, yet many other factors come into play.</p>
<p>GPA varies greatly from high school to high school in terms of courses and grade inflation/deflation. </p>
<p>Unfortunately, many colleges still take a good look at those who score 2300+ on their SAT’s, even if their GPA might be lower than expected. Hopefully essays will shine through so that those who really deserve the spots at top schools will receive them. If not, then there’s always grad school. Slacking off as an undergrad won’t come without consequences.</p>
<p>The flaw of the SAT is that continuous drilling by test prep centers (if you’re willing to invest in them) allows students to crank out those high scores. It’s no longer a matter of intelligence at that point; it’s a matter of who can afford the best prep place and who can afford a lengthy term at said place. </p>
<p>Personality aside, there really isn’t an excuse for slacking three years. The essay can be brilliant but would it justify the low GPA (assuming there was no grade deflation and no significant personal/family issues)? In my opinion, the people who deserve those spots are the people who actually worked for it and not those who just waste their natural abilities but put it to use in time for significant tests/essays. </p>
<p>Sorry, this topic makes me rage like no other.</p>
<p>Or maybe, just maybe, he goes to a school with grade deflation, or he had some sort of major personal/family problem. To be fair to nuclearfree, s/he acknowledged this, but I notice that people’s default assumption is still that this person is lazy, and I don’t think we have enough info to determine that.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, you’ve got this other person with a high GPA and average test scores. Does this person just not test well? Or do they only have a high GPA in the first place because they go to a horrible school where anyone with a pulse gets an A? And, if the latter, do they have evidence of sufficient academic ability somewhere else in their app?</p>
<p>Keep in mind, also, that different colleges look for different things. A school where a lot of handholding goes on, and the self-discipline of students tends to increase strongly over time, might well prefer the kid with untapped talent, on the grounds that the environment will cause that kid to shape up and do well, but the one with the high GPA is maxed out already. A school where people have be disciplined from the start and fight their way through would probably rather have the kid who is known to be industrious, on the grounds that a lazy kid will do badly there.</p>
<p>I realize that this was probably longer than the OP wanted. But I didn’t like the pat answers that this topic was getting. It is frequently not that simple.</p>
<p>Well, I’m from India, and for us the school grade is taken solely by one final test at the end of the school year … at which time I always get an allergic reaction because of the change of season. Your homework, projects, class assignments, etc. do NOT count at all. So for me, the SAT seems much fairer.</p>
<p>speaking as a person who takes the toughest courses, doesn’t do that great in school, but is predicting relatively high test scores … (kind of a mesh of both examples??) …
<em>somewhat</em> low grades in my school means nothing…the classes are HARD, the teachers-largely unhelpful, & the atmosphere-very competitive. if u do well at <em>my</em> school it means u either spend every second with your head glued to the books or you’re naturally gifted, therefore extremely lucky.</p>
<p>as for not working hard…i work harder than anyone i know (smart friends and all) and i still only pull the Bs with an occasional A.</p>
<p>for me, it has NOTHING to do with <em>slacking</em>. i’m not a great tester. does that mean i don’t deserve to go to college?</p>
<p>I’ll play devil’s advocate here and argue for the person “who procrastinates in school and takes regular courses (but does well on their SAT’s).” </p>
<p>The original purpose of the SAT was to provide a metric to compare students across America. Previously, there was no objective method to compare a student at Philips Exeter to one at West High School in inner-city Buffalo, New York. </p>
<p>The SAT was created so that intelligent people across the nation would be afforded the opportunity to attend great universities, even if their high school was unknown or subpar. </p>
<p>Without the SAT, how can an admissions officer compare a 3.0GPA at one school to a 99% GPA at another? Maybe the first school was much harder than the second.</p>
<p>The fact is, at some high schools it is possible for a smart kid to be valedictorian without much work, while at others it is impossible to get a top-50% GPA without doing hours and hours of homework per week. </p>
<p>This means that there is no real way for an admissions officer to compare one school’s GPA to another and know what it really means. </p>
<p>The SAT provides this metric. If a kid scores a 1500/1600 on the SATs, you know that kid is really smart. And chances are that he doesn’t have absolutely TERRIBLE grades, either. On the other hand, if a kid has great grades and scores 1100, you as the admissions officer HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING how hard that kid worked to get his great grades. But you are certain that he isn’t as intelligent as other applicants.</p>
<p>nooob: You mention in a later post the concept of the “grade deflated” high school with the student with the lower GPA…a couple of comments about that:</p>
<p>1) Not sure exactly how low you are talking about, but HOPEFULLY in a grade deflated school, class rank exists to “keep the grading in context”</p>
<p>2) that being said, many, many colleges choose to ignore class rank in grade deflated schools, or do not take the time to investigate…the UW GPA rules and that is a fact that was truly born out in admissions this past year…</p>
<p>3) If there is no class rank AND grade deflation…lots of luck…hopefully your GC can explain your particular HS to colleges or hopefully, they already are familiar…</p>
<p>Depends what you consider “low” Gpa. I think, in response to some of these people’s arguments, class rank would be a large factor, but maybe not so much Gpa</p>
<p>And how do you think class rank is useful? My daughter has taken a boatload of difficult courses and has a 3.87 UW GPA to show for it. Yet she’s pushed down in the class ranking to 34/412 by, oh, probably 25 kids who have skated through high school taking easy classes for the easy As.</p>
<p>All other things being equal, I would choose student A over student B. But when are all other things really equal?</p>
<p>Responding to the thread title, I’ll note that I don’t think “deserve” is quite the right concept here. Colleges choose students to meet goals of the college. Being admitted to college is not a reward for something you did at high school age.</p>
<p>if someone has high test scores they might not be brilliant but they obviously have some sort of intelligence. honestly, as far as deserving goes the kid w/ the higher gpa def. ‘deserves’ to go to a better college but the other kid shouldnt be discounted…maybe they would change their habits if put into a good school.</p>
<p>This is ridiculous, while it may seem like a ton of kids take prep courses from this website, in reality a very small percentage of test takers have actually been through a prep course. Also many (not all but the majority) top scorers are already intelligent and driven and will not ever set foot in a prep class but walk out with a very high score. </p>
<p>In context of this thread I’d take the 4.0 1900 over the 2.0 2200 however if it comes down to 4.0 1900 and 3.4 2200 I’d imagine a lot of colleges will take their chances with student B as there are far fewer high SAT scores compared to high GPA students.</p>
<p>low GPA might not mean lazy, just unchallenged and bored to death. HS grades can depend on silly things like getting credit for bringing stuff in for a party or solving the same problem ad nauseam on homework, college grading emphasizes other skills anyway.</p>
<p>Actually it is more common than you might think. At my school a middle to slight upper middle class school alot of my friends took prep courses (these same ppl are near the top of the class as well).
I didn’t take a prep class i just studied on my own, now I am studying for the ACT the same way. So many more people prepare for the test than one might think. Which is not a bad thing, if I would have had the money then I would have taken a prep course too. There is nothing wrong with it.
Also the fact that very few takes prep courses arguement does not hold, bc very few do well on the test. So you would have to show that those who took prep courses did not do better than those who do not, which logically would not work out.</p>