On CC, there seems to be a consensus that the difference between a GPA of 4.0, 3.9, and 3.8 is immeasurable even when the ECs are taken into consideration. However, other sources often claim the opposite, that these marginal differences could impact the way your entire application is considered (possibly metaphorically thrown in the 4.0 or 3.99-3.75 boxes).
My question is how sensitive do you think the AOs are to these differences? Do they believe and consider that luck plays a role in these differences in GPA (family emergencies, bad teachers, scheduling conflicts) even if it goes unmentioned?
I don’t think AOs look at grades in isolation. They look at grades alongside several other very important pieces of data that provide context to the grades including: 1) course rigor, 2) information from the school report, including class rank if available, 3) test scores including APs, and 4) in some cases, the school itself. I don’t think you can make a broad generalization about how AOs view grades without also asking how those other factors affect how AOs consider grades.
For example, consider these two students:
Student 1, a 3.8 (UW) student from a well-known private school who has taken the highest rigor at that school, has a 1500 plus SAT, and 4s and 5s on their APs.
Student 2, a 4.0 (UW) student from an unknown public school who takes some APs, but not all available to them, who goes test optional and got 3s on their APs.
Without knowing how either of those students’ rec letters and essays looked, so based only on this information, I think that Student 1 is more likely to be admitted to a competitive university than Student 2 because the context provided to Student 1’s 3.8 by their high test scores, rigorous course schedule and familiarity with the school makes that student feel very low-risk to an AO. On the other hand, Student 2 might feel more risky - that student has performed very well in their classes, but that class performance is not confirmed by other factors, so there’s more of an open question about that student’s ability to succeed.
As someone who does a little counseling and watches this process closely, schools have the ability to pull this out and view it in context to your school situation. A rigorous prep school may have a lower average GPA. A wealthy public with a lot of hovering parents may have a higher average GPA. In general, you want your GPA to be high for your situation. In that context what gets published as “average GPA” for admissions to a school may not be particularly useful . If you have a reasonable amount of naviance data for your high school, that may be more interesting.
Schools are using data and really able to well predict who will be successful. They get a lot of background data from school counselors.
For highly rejective schools and unhooked applicants, maybe that high GPA catches someone’s eye. But it’s probably more likely you were over an academic hurdle and are fulfilling some institutional need(s). Though you may be compared to similar applicatnts (geographically, in terms of interest/potential major, etc).
Page title is incorrect in that many more than 115 colleges are need-blind. Hundreds of moderately selective colleges admit by formulae that do not include any need factor. Open admission community colleges are need-blind as well as almost-everything-else-blind.
As is typical of PrepScholar, their articles are inaccurate or misleading.
They have listed private schools that are need blind. But as far as I know, most, if not all public schools are need blind.
In context, yes there is a difference between these GPAs. The more Bs (or lower grades) relative to classmates, the more difficult admission becomes at least at the relatively selective schools. Relative rigor is assessed as well.
Also yes, but best this explanation comes from the counselor (which we discussed on your other thread), or a teacher via LoRs.
I always like to recommend this Holy Cross video to help emphasize how complicated it gets when selective colleges start digging into a transcript in order to ultimately derive some sort of internal academic rating:
The upshot is these colleges are looking at a lot of context, and different transcripts from different schools with superficially similar GPAs can tell quite different stories when evaluated in this way.
I don’t think they really care. Plenty of people have emergencies, bad teachers, etc. and still manage to get close to a 4.0.
There’s a lot that cannot be controlled about this process, and the only thing to really do is apply to a balanced set of likely/match/reach schools and make your best life from the choices you actually have come April. My D24 has an UW 3.8 and will not have the same choices as a 4.0 (even with her high test scores), but dwelling on the what ifs is not productive for her future at all.
Note: this may be more true for scholarships than admission in general. However, if cost is considered when making the final choice, the impact is still there.
Assuming everything else (Essay, EC and test score) are same, I believe UW 4.0 actually different than 3.9 and 3.8. It means the student never got a B in his high school. So many students are taking tons of AP to bring up W GPA, they figured that even getting a B in AP weight same as an A in regular class. So nothing to loose to load up with AP classes. I believe that a perfect transcript still means something to the AO.
Plenty of kids with 4.0 UW GPA get rejected while some with 3.9 or 3.8 get in. It’s good someone has 4.0, but that’s isn’t enough in itself. And just because you don’t have 4.0 doesn’t mean you have less chance – it all depends on the rest of the package.
I tell my kids to do their best and not to dwell on the numbers.
But if you really insist on knowing, my first professor in college promised the class no one will ever get 100% on his test because if someone gets a perfect score, he won’t be able to assess how much we don’t know. What I take from that is a 4.0 UW straight A student has not had a class challenging enough to know his/her limits. If that kid also has done 18+ DE/AP classes and still maintains an “A” GPA, that kid can probably ace everything. So yeah, in the same school, the 4.0 kid is going to look better on paper than the 3.8 kid.
In many colleges, instructors are not held to the typical high school standard of 90% = A, 80% = B, 70% = C (or slight variations of such) which requires most graded tests and assignments to be filled with easier problems for C students, with only a small portion to distinguish B and A students. A college instructor not subject to these grading percentages may give a test where a third of the problems are easier C student problems, another third are harder B student problems, and another third are even harder A student problems.
That’s why in HS, two kids both with 4.0 UW GPA from the same class cannot be distinguished. One may be much much smarter than the other. But a kid with less than 4.0 is down in aptitude, sometimes by a lot. On the other hand, in college, we all know who the smart kids are: the guy who gets a 97 when class average is 30…
I actually disagree - I think a kid with a 3.95 isn’t going to be judged much differently than a kid with a 4.0 if they have taken a similarly rigorous course load. In some cases the kid with the 3.95 will be stronger - if, for example, the 4.0 kid took a relatively easy course load. Your gpa is going to be judged in context of course rigor, and how it compares to others in your class (i.e. are you in the top 5 or 10% ).
Yes, and I think there are just so many other factors aside from intellect/aptitude that can determine final grades: does the student work 20 hours a week at a job at McDonalds to help their family pay the bills or do they have to care for younger siblings while their parents work (more than a few hours a day and with hands on responsibilities) or are they a competitive athlete with a travel schedule that causes them to miss class or did they get the flu finals weeks and bomb the exam despite otherwise being an excellent student or any of a thousand other things that might get in the way just enough to cause a semester grade or two to decline temporarily. I mean, a 3.9 often means a single B (or even B+), a 3.8 might be two Bs…It’s easy to fall behind due to a million possible things just enough to get a B, rather than A, even if the student is otherwise brilliant…The student indeed could have mastered all the material, but fallen behind on homework in a class or two, resulting in a poor homework or project or essay grade which then caused a B. Or gotten a serious illness that caused them to miss class and fall behind too late to fully catch up. Too many factors, in my opinion, to draw any conclusions about a 4.0 vs a 3.9 vs a 3.8.
I do not think admissions officers are sensitive to this fact at all.
When they gauge the academic strength of an applicant, they look at the grades, classes and school. Those three taken together allow for there to be nuances within the 3.8-4.0 range.
Luck, extenuating circumstances… not sure they make a less academic person more academic. On the other hand, they might prompt an AO to take another look.
