<p>Been lurking in these forums for awhile but finally decided to join to post a few observations I’ve been making about my own school.</p>
<p>While I have noticed that those taking prep courses are indeed scoring higher, I’ve noticed that its often because they have the drive to expend the extra effort, not because the prep course offers them a huge advantange. Admittedly, it does help whether or not one is motivated, but that advantage only goes so far.</p>
<p>Secondly, I could make the same point about gpa. Many bookworms can easily manage high gpas but lack other credentials (I even know those who take a course twice to get higher gpas outside of their own school), everything has to be taken in its context.It is indeed years of work, but I know of many students who excel in a subject and put a great deal of hard work into it with low gpas. The reason? Aside from in school academics, there are also a wide variety of competitions that truly motivated students would take. Those with high gpas at my school are often those that spend time meticulously perfecting their graphs or performing other mundane tasks. While I certainly consider that effort as well, I would feel the student who puts effort into the subject and excels in it more qualified. </p>
<p>Furthermore, effort cannot be quantified purely by gpa. Obtaining high test scores requires a great deal of work as well, perhaps not as much as obtaining a high gpa, but still effort. With regards to competitions, it makes sense that one would score high from studying a subject in depth on tests but fail to attain a high gpa because the effort is expended elsewhere.</p>
<p>In short, what I am saying is that gpa is only a measure of how much effort spent on attaining that gpa, just as how scoring high on SATs is in part how much effort you put into scoring high on it. It is really the combination of test scores, ec academics and gpa that show effort. Many bookworms can easily manage high gpas but lack other credentials, everything has to be taken in its context.</p>
<p>Now here is my case:
I certainly do agree with the inflated gpa argument though, I have a relatively high gpa, I think I’m on the high end of the 3.9s UW but thats really because our school gives out inflated gpas. An “A” starts at 86% and straight A’s counts for a 4.0. </p>
<p>Of course, in the context of the IB diploma programme, I have around 40 points out of 45 most likely predicted but there are other circumstances surrounding this. Teachers, competition (only a few students receive the highest grade of a 7 in each class and my school is filled with math/phys/chem bookworms), and time spent outside of class account for the missing 5 points. Further, I would most likely score higher on IB exams as they come at a time when I have more time available to study, whereas predicted grades mesh with college apps, etc (I’m international so most students aren’t applying for US unis in november/january but later in march or so for canadian ones). Compared with my 2400 on the SATs, this is indeed much lower. As to which one reflects my real ability? Both do. A little off topic now, but I would take the higher SAT student. Why? because that shows a greater potential while demonstrating a significant amount of effort. perhaps not more than the 45 IB score student with 2100 SATs but this has to be taken in context of what else the student achieves. If he/she has great ec’s then a lower (not rock bottom) gpa is excusable.</p>
<p>/end rambling</p>
I had great SATs and great ECs, though.</p>