<p>I don't really have a reason why except that I am lazy and have a poor work ethic. IT SHOULD NOT BE A FACTOR THOUGH! Who's with me?</p>
<p>So… if you can’t perform well in school, why would you perform well at a university??</p>
<p>i think it should be considered, but not as much as the other factors in the admissions process. it varies between school and it is very difficult to judge somebody by their GPA/class rank and such…</p>
<p>I disagree with not having GPA factored.</p>
<p>Xsteven brings up a valid point. GPA generally gives a good indicator of who is and isn’t prepared for colllege.</p>
<p>As for class rank, I can tend agree. Even though I’m in the top 20 out of 488 in my class, I still don’t think the ranking system is fair. A person could take 2-3 AP Classes and ace several other easy classes with a few honors and end up having an ending GPA of 4.5-4.6ish whereas someone could struggle and work really hard earning a 3.8 with 6 AP classes at one time. Class rank simply doesn’t do justice because the ranking system works in a math forumula, not clearly indicating who worked the hardest.</p>
<p>So I agree with half of what you’re saying but I think that GPA should definitely always be an admission factor? Why? </p>
<p>Well with that mentality, why don’t we just allow anyone to become a doctor or lawyer? See what I’m saying?</p>
<p>~ Theos</p>
<p>^Agreed. I mean, there needs to be some way they can look at performance in school.</p>
<p>I believe it’s the #1 indicator of how well you do at college.</p>
<p>Plus theres the random people that don’t do their work at all in school and just ace their SATs… Nothing goes to say they are gonna try in college…</p>
<p>Here’s a wild thought: Why not have two class rankings, one with UW GPA and the other with W GPA? This way, the “non-AP/honors kids” aren’t slighted, because they’d have their chance in the lower pool. Meanwhile, the AP hogs could go, well, hog wild.</p>
<p>This of course would leave out those students in the middle ranks …</p>
<p>I think GPA should definitely be a determining factor, if not, one of the major factors. It’s not hard to get a good GPA with little work effort in high school so I don’t really see the validation in “well I got a low GPA because I’m lazy.” I was a lazy student and I still maintained a 3.5 throughout the years. All you have to do is attend class and do the minimal requirements. If you can’t even show that you have work ethic, then what makes a university so sure that you’ll do work at their school?</p>
<p>I do agree with you on class rank. My school didn’t even have a ranking system for that reason–that it didn’t matter. You can take all easy classes and come out with a 4.0 and look better on the ranking system than a student that takes all AP classes and gets a 3.2. Admissions should look at your coursework over your pure class rank and GPA.</p>
<p>Yeah, definitely. When colleges look for the most qualified applicants, they should not look at the students’ grades. Makes sense…</p>
<p>GPA? UW GPA is a useless number, but then again, W GPA can be just as bad, especially if you’re in a school with few AP classes, or where your equally challenging classes aren’t weighted like AP/DE etc. </p>
<p>I take online classes, and they’re some of the hardest in my school, but I don’t get a shred of weight for them. But the kids who take Regional Governor’s School take up the top 4 spots in our ranks because they’ve had extra weight since Sophomore year, even though the highest level of regular school classes are just as challenging. </p>
<p>And Rank? Well, it is based off of GPA, so it can be equally deceiving. I’m not saying to disregard Rank/GPA, as obviously, someone with a 2.3 GPA and a rank of 103/179 isn’t trying that hard (in most cases), but when you get to the people who have 3.8’s and up, I think there needs to be more analyzing into their actual courses, rather than just looking at the numbers. </p>
<p>You know…What did they take? Why? What trends does this student show in grades? Do they rise to meet the challenges? Have they made wise decisions in their courses? </p>
<p>Yeah, it looks ‘good’ to take 6 AP’s a year and have a ton of weight added on and you get a 5.1/4.0 GPA, but you sacrificed all your time and worked your butt off and drifted away from your friends and social life and you’re taking things you absolutely HATE and are NOT required, it raises the question: “Is this kid just trying to impress us?”</p>
<p>I, personally, would rather be a well-rounded student who shows direction. I take what interests me, and I also take what I know I can manage. Yes, I’ve made one crucial mistake this year (Junior year), which sucks because it’s the most important year, but I’ve also decided to make up for it. </p>
<p>(In case you’re wondering, after taking Academic English 10 [highest level class], I was told AP English 11 would be twice the work. My Eng 10 teacher PILED the work on, and so I believed that with taking Pre-Calc, Chem, Two Asian Languages above 1st level and Two AP classes (which I knew NOTHING about at the time [poorly informed. Ignorance is sad sometimes…]), that I would have no time and it would be too much.</p>
<p>I was tricked. My Eng 11 teacher gives us NO work, and I’ve heard the AP class is basically the same. My bad. At least I took APUSH. Hence, I decided to take the AP Eng Exam via self-study.)</p>
<p>Point is…you look at the kid with 12 AP classes who looks perfect…and the kid who looks inferior because of weight, but whose course choices show a definite direction (took all the maths, the sciences, or all the Language related courses) and whose grades still represent a studious young mind, is the kid with the list of 12 AP classes better? Just because they want to look impressive, but actually have no interest and probably sat in their seats all year hating their classes? </p>
<p>Sadly, yes, under the list “very important factors” of most colleges is Rank/GPA. But honestly, I think that should only be round 1, that GPA/Rank should only weed out the obviously unprepared. </p>
<p>It’s true that Admissions are on the rise and whatnot, but I still think colleges applications should be a bit more personal. Personally, I would be very insulted if admissions dean glanced at my GPA/Rank and tossed me aside because I wasn’t at the top of the “heavy-weight class category.”</p>
<p>Anyway. I rant too much. That’s just what I think. GPA/Rank are JUST numbers, and while they’re useful initially, I don’t think they have should be the thing that tips you over the edge for acceptance/rejection.</p>
<p>**By the way…**Do you honestly believe that with poor work ethic and laziness that you’ll do any better in college? :(</p>
<p>I think that class rank should not be considered as much as it is now.
If you take a handful of honors/AP courses and a handful of courses that don’t count into GPA (at my school, mostly Study Hall and Gym), one can achieve a higher weighted GPA (and thus class rank) than one taking a full schedule with AP courses and regular courses, though the latter schedule is more difficult. The difference between honors and regular courses can be tricky as well. For example, at my school, a sophomore social studies class was well known for being difficult, despite its lack of honors title and weighting. The class is now given honors consideration, but those that took it before this occurred are stuck with grades in a “regular” class lower than those who took other, less difficult regular classes, only hurting their weighted GPA and class rank.
GPA can be tricky as well, since different schools have different grade cutoffs, grading systems, “competitiveness”, etc., but if those factors are taken into consideration GPA does predict college success rather well, so that shouldn’t be disposed of.</p>
<p>Sorry, but I have to disagree. Isn’t the point of GPA’s and Class Rank to show colleges that you DO have a good work ethic and are eager to learn?</p>
<p>I love how people took this seriously. Maybe it’s just me, but it seems like a parody thread.</p>
<p>Colleges do look beyond rank and GPA. They look at your transcript. I mean colleges don’t just look at a 4.0 and 1 out of whatever, if you attain those grades with easy classes colleges will see, that is also why colleges ask the counselor to remark on how difficult your curriculumm is.</p>
<p>@voilaJ- I laughed at first, but I’ve been wanting to rant for a while about GPA/Rank, so, now’s as good a time as any. xD </p>
<p>Hence, my “By the way” note. xDDDD</p>
<p>I think Voila is right. The thread creator probably made this as a joke lol. It is funny! :P</p>
<p>I think GPA is important, but rank is useless/unfair</p>
<p>I think GPA’s have been generally blown out of proportion. First, people can slide by with easy classes and a perfect 4.0 UW GPA. However,people can pile on the honors/AP classes and get a 5.0 W GPA. Personally, I think colleges should look at how rigorous the course work is (which I know they do, but focus more on that). Also, schools do GPA’s in all different ways. Some use A- (90-91) and A+ (100) or B/C/D and weight that. For example, an A- at some schools is a 3.8, but at other schools it is a 4.0. This messes up the whole use of GPAs for college admission. Also, people who get 100% in AP classes is simply unrealistic. If you get 100%, the class must not be hard enough.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is the problem with using GPA as a factor: the enormous variance in what it is measuring. </p>
<p>What I’m about to write is specific to me, but I can’t be the only person out there in this type of situation. </p>
<p>At my school, the difference between an A and a B in honors and AP classes is teacher favoritism. I do my homework and study for tests. I’m not a lazy person. I’m often the first person in math and science classes to figure out a new concept.</p>
<p>But I’m at this f’d up fundamentalist catholic school where most of the teachers don’t like me. They show it with how they grade me on subjective assignments, and how they don’t give me breaks and extra credit like they do to other students. So I don’t have a 3.5 (at least not unweighted).</p>
<p>I’ve improved my grades this year purely by sucking up. Is this really what colleges should be measuring? So maybe that 3.5 will be there by senior midquarter (regardless, that’s too low for anything but a lightning strike’s chance at an unhooked dream school).</p>
<p>Standardized tests cut through all of this. Sure, the SAT is very flawed, and if someone makes a better test more power to them. When a person with the highest scores in a school is barely in the top 20%, and this person has an application that shows that they aren’t lazy, clearly GPA and class rank aren’t working.</p>