<p>
</p>
<p>Good point.</p>
<p>That makes a lot of sense, but I’m not sure it takes into account schools where getting an A is near impossible. At my school, maybe four people have straight-As; most have B+/A- averages - yet 80% of every grade goes to an Ivy, Big Ten, or top LAC. The GPAs, however, are usually around 3.3-3.7, and RARELY 4.0. How would that factor into this study?</p>
<p>Well, GPA is not directly factored into the study. It is simply a valid assumption that SAT scores and GPA positively correlate. Your school may simply have its own niche as an “Ivy feeder” (which you are surely aware of) or appropriately recognized for its stringent grading procedures. </p>
<p>For GPA to be equitably factored into something of this magnitude, it would need to be standardized against all other grading systems. But that is terribly difficult to do considering the sheer variety of evaluation standards among all secondary schools worldwide.</p>
<p>Great thread!</p>
<p>
A more useful metric would be GPA percentile.</p>
<p>I’d too like to see a gpa correlation. I can see my GPA going up about .5-.7 in the next 2 years because all of my courses will be weighted and I want to see what I can accomplish with the GPA that I plan to have as well as my SAT score that I achieve.
2 questions: 1 is related to College and the SAT: Are universities ever told when you took the test to see when you took it, and consider you highly (ie. a Freshman/Sophomore getting a 2300)</p>
<h1>2, not relating to college or the sat: What is the easiest way to see your GPA throughout High School as a whole… do you go to your counselor or can you access it otherwise?</h1>
<p>MattNC - you can calculate your UW GPA. Take all core classes + foreign language (I’m not sure if classes like “music theory” or “art history” count) and give a 4.0 for A/A+, and 3.7 for every A-, 3.3 for B+, 3.0 for B and so on. Average them to get your UW GPA.</p>
<p>MattNC, My children’s school computes GPA differently than RAlec114’s (at theirs, “A” is 4.0, “A-” is not a possible grade, and I think “B+” is 3.5.) </p>
<p>As a result, I suggest asking your counselor for your current GPA or seeing if you can compute it yourself based on information on your school’s website.</p>
<p>mifune - Absolutely great points, and I almost agree with you. </p>
<p>However, for those students that do not undergo extensive test prep and still achieve 2300+ SAT scores, it is likely–in my opinion–that they also do not devote copious amounts of time to SAT II scores or GPA. In that case, not only will they qualify academically, they’ll also have much more free time to pursue ECs than peers who achieve the same GPA, SAT, and SAT II scores through considerable studying and preparation. Furthermore, in light of their superior processing abilities, these “naturally intelligent” people are able to accomplish more EC-wise at a faster rate. Combine this with more leisure time to pursue ECs, and there may actually be an exponential relationship between SAT scores and over all qualifications for top universities. </p>
<p>This is especially possible when we consider the nature of the bell curve. I would think that, those who fall on the extreme far right of the intelligence curve (say, 99.5th percentile) spend (almost) exponentially less time (in accordance w/the curve) on studying/prep than those just one percentile below them (98.5th). </p>
<p>Of course, this speculation only applies if the intelligence bell curve corresponds with the SAT score bell curve (an assumption of which I myself am skeptical), and only for those who score 2300+ w/o preparation.</p>
<p>wow, great post, it has definitely opened my eyes…</p>
<p>Don’t take the SAT more than 4 times after that most colleges will start to wonder if you have nothing better to do with your life.</p>
<p>This is a great thread. You should also consider that the higher the SAT and in most cases the ACT scores with excellent grades, the better merit scholarship you can get from many outstanding college and universities. Many include money for travel abroad and internships.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s a reasonable conclusion.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Maybe. It is safe to assume that there is a positive correlation between excelling academically and having success in extracurricular pursuits. But if these successes additively contribute to the merit of an application, does it still account for the rapid increase in admissions as scores transcend beyond the 98th percentile? Clearly, much of this is due to highly strategic admission practices. For instance, admission probability actually decreases between the 92nd and 98th percentiles at Princeton before exponentially increasing. I find that very peculiar, conspicuously evident, and rather noteworthy. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t know. For many, consistently achieving at such a high standard certainly consumes a fair bit of time.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>True.</p>
<p>Mifune - Very true. I didn’t mean to suggest the admissions practices are not highly suspect. My observations applied more to MIT, possibly to Harvard, but definitely not to Princeton.</p>
<p>Mifune - those decreases in the 92nd to 98th percentile are because of recruited athletes. Many schools deny addmitance to high achieving but not stellar academic applicants to build sports teams. This is more notable at Princeton because of the smaller class size.</p>
<p>So do you recommend retaking a 2310? So i can superscore to say the least?</p>
<p>I totally agree.</p>
<p>Great post. Nice to see people backing up their claims with data 
. This does make me wonder, however, why so many people seem to get rejected with 2400 and the high 2300s. There are so few of such high scorers as it is, and it seems like the Harvard/Princeton/Yale decision threads are teeming with their rejections.</p>
<p>same here, Metrical. Yet I think you cannot refute the data. Even though the chance of you being admitted to college with a perfect 2400 SAT is high, it is not absolute. The people who post on those admittance thread only represent a small number of applicants and acceptee. Thus while the number of 2400 SAt-er being rejected is small, it is sensational enough for people to believe such things happen in a large number.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The dips/stabilizations aren’t totally related to a single preference category. Recruited athletes don’t represent the only non-academic leaning (ethnicity, bloodline, etc. form others). </p>
<p>Even then, the Revealed Preference Rankings paper illustrated that strategic admissions practices cannot simply be attributed to the non-quantitative criteria. The concept of “Tufts Syndrome” – vernacular for yield protection – is genuine. Universities must have a practical understanding of their public preference standings, particularly among universities of roughly the same selectivity tier. The institutions which engage in selective practices will attempt to strike a balance between the academic strength of their students and the number they will realistically be able to enroll. Even with preference categories factored into the evaluation, it would make little sense for the very best universities (i.e., top-tier selectivity) to choose the strongest applicants. Due to significant applicant pool overlap at schools of similar levels of selectivity, there would be significant competition for the same students given schools are essentially looking for the same qualities in their applicants. Students lower down the scale stand a lesser chance of obtaining multiple competing offers at that selectivity level and are thereby more apt to enroll than students admitted higher on the list. To an extent, the increased yield percentage is viewed as adequate compensation for the quality decrease by admitting the lesser candidates. The trick is in finding the middle ground. Since standardized testing has a high predictive value in admissions results, such tactical behavior manifests in the decreased sensitivity to test scores at the “mid-range” values. </p>
<p>Any discrepancies in the data among admissions rates at each scoring echelon can be attributed to relative leanings and sensitivity to the yield-applicant strength balance, public preference standing, and the prioritization and general admissions approach toward non-academic qualifications.</p>
<p>Bump 10char</p>