Who is an advantage for making a “decent” school, (Michigan, UVA, ETC) a person with a 4.0 UW/ Rank 1 and a 1800 new SAT or a 3.5 UW/ Top 20% 2400 New SAT.
I guess the better question is: What is a bigger factor, your GPA or your SAT’s for the topper tier colleges?
SAT critics claim that 3 hour test shouldnt make up the 4 years in high school.
SAT supporters say that the SAT is one of the few ways a college can determine the true potential of a student (aka Urban school vs Blowoff Rural School).
<p>It would also depend on the difficulty of the high school and whether or not the course load was tough enough. But definitely GPA/course load is much more important than standardized test scores.</p>
<p>Yeah, if that guy with the 3.5 uw gpa had a weighted gpa of 4.0 or so, he'd be considered better (if the 4.0 dude had a weighted that was more like his unweighted). Course difficulty and performance mean the most. Take your APs like you take drugs prescribed by your doctor.</p>
<p>The guy with the 3.5 UW, Top 20% and 2400. At some state schools this person would get a full ride.</p>
<p>THe other guy only has an 1800 I'm not saying that is bad, but realtively speaking, there is too much of a disparity between the two scores. The score should be around a 2100 to make it seem like the scenario would work.</p>
<p>ALso, I see it like some others do too, colleges weigh the SAT a lot.</p>
<p>Well, I'd take a hard-working student with mediocre SAT's over a bored(or lazy) smart student with perfect SAT's. The 2400 student would have to show a willingness to seek more academic challenges past his/her high school.</p>
<p>I'd take the guy with a 4.0 GPA, but an 1800 SAT. THe other guy just looks like a smart guy, but doesn't really use his potential, while the first person is really hardworking.</p>
<p>I think colleges would take the 3.5 w/2400 over the 4.0 w/1800, because colleges are probably not familiar with the high school you attended. Some high schools are more competitive than others, so a person recieving the higher GPA doesn't mean that they are smarter than the person having the lower GPA.</p>
<p>And it also depends on the courses each students took (APs, Honors).</p>
<p>The problem is that us kids who are like that 2400 kid (high testing scores...kinda slack in school) all think he's better while the kids who work hard say their pick the 1800 kid.</p>
<p>I'm betting it's a case by case decision. This discussion probably goes on every single day on the admission boards.</p>
<p>As for this case...
Generally colleges say gpa (preferably weighted)/courseload is the most important, but there is far too much of a disparity between the SAT scores not to take that into account. If the one with the higher gpa had a score of 2100, I would think he would be accepted over the other. The way it stands now, the 2400 shows more potential at least in my opinion.</p>
<p>My D was Val at a demanding prep school, with about a 4.67 weighted. She had some exceptional accomplishments in e.c.'s, but only equivalently about a 2136 on current SAT scales. (She took the "old" SAT.) She was accepted to Yale, Princeton, & Penn.</p>
<p>But hmm, I would definately take the person with the perfect score because he/she shows much more promise and potential. Of course I am a bit biased here as I am in a similiar situation except I have a lower SAT and a even more glaring difference between my gpa and SAT.</p>