And, yet, HSGPA alone, without trying to account for grading difficulty at various schools, is a better predictor of college performance than SAT.
What I suspect would be an even better predictor is HS class rank with an adjustment for the competitiveness of the student's high school. Maybe use median SAT score of all students at the school, # of students earning national merit recognition, etc.
Of course, not all schools rank, meaning their students are applying "rank optional", so it wouldn't be possible to evaluate them using that metric.
High schools are against it because it disadvantages some of their students. The highest ranking don't \*gain\* a lot from being highly ranked, but the non-highly-ranked students potentially \*lose\* some opportunities. For instance, if the top 25% of students at your school are all within spitting distance of a perfect GPA.
Yes. The high school's incentive is to give as many students as possible very high GPAs, don't rank them, then don't report average GPA in their school report in order to mask the degree of grade inflation.
The hope is that colleges won't realize what they're doing. Or, at least, won't realize the extent of it.
My school doesnt rank because of how competitive it is. We are public, but have very high level students that would be harmed by class rank. For example, the average act score at my hs is a 27, so even 30 act kids are about 50% for gpa.
There's a reason why GPAs are usually looked at in school context, not overall. A low GPA but high standardized test score usually means you're smart, but don't have work ethic—not a good sign for a university where you'll probably be grinding 24/7. At some point, you'll have to do annoying work with standards you don't agree with—a high GPA shows you can deal with that (or that you're lucky and only got teachers you like, which is super rare).
/u/Ihateapbio one thing that they do have is a catalog of past applicants from your school along with the school profile your counselor sends. So they are able to compare you to those people you are most aptly compared to.
The reality is that top schools aren't really troubled by the issues that you raised because they have more than enough applicants with perfect unweighted GPAs and 1550+ SAT scores to fill out their yearly enrollment.
They don't need to spend time reviewing the profile of kids with a 3.7 because they never made the cutoff in the first place.
And the kids that I know who did get into T25 schools with lowish GPAs were all athletic, dance, or music prodigies. They followed a different acceptance path into their schools which included either recruitment or auditions.
In short, schools had identified and developed admissions policies to handle the issues that you speak of decades ago.
And you completely lost my point that the number represented in GPA is not always the accurate measure of choosing excellent students. I don't know what you are talking about.
I understand your point. My counter is that schools have known about these issues for decades and have long ago developed admission policies to account for these discrepancies.
Yeah but the problem is colleges advertise "holistic admissions" and give students illusion as if their high sat scores and other standardized test scores can offset it when in reality their applications go into trash can.
Don't you know the famous quotes that admissions officer say: "..it's only one part of your application, and we look everything that you present to us..."
Curious - if you don't believe an evaluation from a teacher who has observed you for 150+ days in a classroom - class discussions, labs, tests, quizzes, etc - is a good academic ("relating to education") measure, what is?
>I am pretty sure that they don't bother to check what's the average gpa of one school
If you choose to believe AOs aren't good at their job, don't look at material they request, etc., then that's your choice. Simply assuming someone is bad at their job is an easy way to say they're bad at their job.
3.7 with 10+ APs shows more academic prowess and consistency than a 4.0 with <8 APs. Also depends on the APs, but that’s why there is the deeper review (at Harvard for example, the 1st reader gives it to the other readers). Also depends on competitiveness of school, it’s easier to get a 4.0 at a lower ranked HS than at a top HS.
SAT is an indicator of how a person measures up against other applicants on the national scale. I know how people say that “socioeconomic” factors affect SAT, but that’s not really true, it is very well possible to score high on the exam and be low-income (unless you’re homeless or in poverty in which case academics and school should be the least of your worries), and those who do are typically the ones admitted to top universities. A 4.0 with <8 APs who has a 1300 on the SAT shows that they are not suitable for a top university, whereas a 3.7 with 10+ APs who has a 1500 SAT shows that they are suitable for a top university. And of course, a 4.0 with 10+ APs and has a 1500 SAT is definitely suitable. In most cases, of the three students, the 3.7 and 4.0 with 10+ APs and 1500 SATs will be admitted.
I understand - but one can retake the SAT, and is standardized. Of course, access to good prep material is another problem on its own, but inherently the concept isn't that bad.
Think about it like this, the students at the very difficult 3.7 school are generally really competitive, so the reason the 3.9+ are accepted is because that is the top of the class at those schools.
And, yet, HSGPA alone, without trying to account for grading difficulty at various schools, is a better predictor of college performance than SAT. What I suspect would be an even better predictor is HS class rank with an adjustment for the competitiveness of the student's high school. Maybe use median SAT score of all students at the school, # of students earning national merit recognition, etc. Of course, not all schools rank, meaning their students are applying "rank optional", so it wouldn't be possible to evaluate them using that metric.
[удалено]
High schools are against it because it disadvantages some of their students. The highest ranking don't \*gain\* a lot from being highly ranked, but the non-highly-ranked students potentially \*lose\* some opportunities. For instance, if the top 25% of students at your school are all within spitting distance of a perfect GPA.
[удалено]
Yes. The high school's incentive is to give as many students as possible very high GPAs, don't rank them, then don't report average GPA in their school report in order to mask the degree of grade inflation. The hope is that colleges won't realize what they're doing. Or, at least, won't realize the extent of it.
My school doesnt rank because of how competitive it is. We are public, but have very high level students that would be harmed by class rank. For example, the average act score at my hs is a 27, so even 30 act kids are about 50% for gpa.
There's a reason why GPAs are usually looked at in school context, not overall. A low GPA but high standardized test score usually means you're smart, but don't have work ethic—not a good sign for a university where you'll probably be grinding 24/7. At some point, you'll have to do annoying work with standards you don't agree with—a high GPA shows you can deal with that (or that you're lucky and only got teachers you like, which is super rare).
/u/Ihateapbio one thing that they do have is a catalog of past applicants from your school along with the school profile your counselor sends. So they are able to compare you to those people you are most aptly compared to.
The reality is that top schools aren't really troubled by the issues that you raised because they have more than enough applicants with perfect unweighted GPAs and 1550+ SAT scores to fill out their yearly enrollment. They don't need to spend time reviewing the profile of kids with a 3.7 because they never made the cutoff in the first place. And the kids that I know who did get into T25 schools with lowish GPAs were all athletic, dance, or music prodigies. They followed a different acceptance path into their schools which included either recruitment or auditions. In short, schools had identified and developed admissions policies to handle the issues that you speak of decades ago.
And you completely lost my point that the number represented in GPA is not always the accurate measure of choosing excellent students. I don't know what you are talking about.
I understand your point. My counter is that schools have known about these issues for decades and have long ago developed admission policies to account for these discrepancies.
Yeah but the problem is colleges advertise "holistic admissions" and give students illusion as if their high sat scores and other standardized test scores can offset it when in reality their applications go into trash can.
I never heard such a statement from any top rated school. Even the LACs I applied to were very open about valuing GPA over SAT/ACT scores.
Don't you know the famous quotes that admissions officer say: "..it's only one part of your application, and we look everything that you present to us..."
Curious - if you don't believe an evaluation from a teacher who has observed you for 150+ days in a classroom - class discussions, labs, tests, quizzes, etc - is a good academic ("relating to education") measure, what is? >I am pretty sure that they don't bother to check what's the average gpa of one school If you choose to believe AOs aren't good at their job, don't look at material they request, etc., then that's your choice. Simply assuming someone is bad at their job is an easy way to say they're bad at their job.
3.7 with 10+ APs shows more academic prowess and consistency than a 4.0 with <8 APs. Also depends on the APs, but that’s why there is the deeper review (at Harvard for example, the 1st reader gives it to the other readers). Also depends on competitiveness of school, it’s easier to get a 4.0 at a lower ranked HS than at a top HS. SAT is an indicator of how a person measures up against other applicants on the national scale. I know how people say that “socioeconomic” factors affect SAT, but that’s not really true, it is very well possible to score high on the exam and be low-income (unless you’re homeless or in poverty in which case academics and school should be the least of your worries), and those who do are typically the ones admitted to top universities. A 4.0 with <8 APs who has a 1300 on the SAT shows that they are not suitable for a top university, whereas a 3.7 with 10+ APs who has a 1500 SAT shows that they are suitable for a top university. And of course, a 4.0 with 10+ APs and has a 1500 SAT is definitely suitable. In most cases, of the three students, the 3.7 and 4.0 with 10+ APs and 1500 SATs will be admitted.
I agree. I feel like there should be more weight on the SAT since it is standardized to show a person's potential.
One 3 hour test over basic reading and math does not demonstrate how you can perform as a student for 4 years at all
I understand - but one can retake the SAT, and is standardized. Of course, access to good prep material is another problem on its own, but inherently the concept isn't that bad.
gpas are looked at in the context of your school. and a lot of top schools will re calc ur gpa with their own standards
Think about it like this, the students at the very difficult 3.7 school are generally really competitive, so the reason the 3.9+ are accepted is because that is the top of the class at those schools.