GPA of an Ivy

<p>My average right now is 90-91%. It may not seem stellar, but I rank 1st/2nd out of 485 or so students. </p>

<p>Apparently, a 90 is considered as a B or A-...hahaha. Wow, that's rather, um, depressing!</p>

<p>parisrosaries, when they started using likely letters, the Ivies ONLY sent likely letters to athletes. Over time, pretty much all of them have started also using likely letters to recruit applicants who are especially attractive for one reason or another and whom they believe will have lots of attractive choices. But the main use is still with athletes.</p>

<p>The issue is that Division I schools offer athletic scholarships, but usually require a recruited athlete, in order to get one, to commit as early as the end of 11th grade and usually long before the Ivy ED date (12/15) or RD date (4/1). And Division III colleges (and some Ivies) use ED a lot in athletic recruiting (as in, the coach says, "I can help you get in, but only if you apply ED so I know you are committed. If I use up all my slots at the ED stage, I won't be able to help you if you apply RD.").</p>

<p>It would be awfully hard for Harvard to recruit a football player if the Florida coach is saying that you have a scholarship, but only if you commit NOW, and the Penn coach is saying that you're in but you have to apply ED, and all the Harvard coach could say would be that he was pretty sure he could help you but you wouldn't know for sure until April. So the Harvard coach gets admissions to write a letter saying we looked at your information and assuming nothing major changes, you are likely to be accepted in April. And that gives the recruit -- assuming he wants to go to Harvard -- the backbone to say no to Florida and Penn. (And Penn would use a likely letter to get the recruit to wait until the December 15 ED date, since the most desirable scholarships would be gone by then, too.)</p>

<p>Don't worry about it monochromAddict, they look at your gpa and use your school as a backdrop. If you have a 90 average, but are in the top few students it would be the same as having a 4.0 or so.</p>

<p>Thanks, doberhound1. Such a relief!</p>

<p>This thread shows exactly why colleges request so much information about your HS's system in order to assess your grades and GPA. So far not one of the grading systems mentioned in this thread happen to match that of D's high school. There a 93+ = A = 4.0, 90 - 92.9 = A- = 3.67, 87 - 89.9 = B+ = 3.33, etc. And that is just for the unweighted GPA. For weighted, AP's are out of 8.0, Honors out of 6.0, and academic out of 4.0. </p>

<p>Colleges are going to ask for your rank, your unweighted GPA, weighted GPA, the grading system, highest possible GPA, highest GPA for your class, number of students sharing that GPA, and the academic rigor of the curriculum you took over the 4 years.</p>

<p>D and her boyfriend were both Valedictorians at their high schools. D had a 4.0, BF did not. Obviously both were the highest GPA's in their class.</p>

<p>At D's school, normal is 8 classes/year. D took 10. 8 in the normal time slots and 2 beyond. D took 6 AP total, BF took 8 total. Each HS, their grading system, courses offered etc is unique. Colleges have to try and compare and assess these things and figure out how well you match what they are looking for in that particular incoming class.</p>

<p>As a side note, from the Harvard Crimson's "My First Year: 2009" issue there is an article on dating. In it states,
[quote]
As a Harvard student, the is a 69% chance you were your high school's valedictorian.

[/quote]
I have no idea if this is an overstatement for drama or an accurate statistic.</p>

<p>A link to a copy of last year's first edition is here: The</a> Harvard Crimson—My First Year 2009</p>

<p>^ I'm pretty sure that is made up, as on Harvard's website it states that of the class admitted each year, about 30ish-40ish % were valedictorians. Clearly Harvard doesn't just look at gpas, class rank, and test scores. Like I said somewhere else, that is merely half the battle. After they decide if you are academically qualified for Harvard academics (near their average GPA and SAT/ACT score) they look for specific reasons to admit you. They look for leadership, passion in ECs, initiative, etc. All that crap that colleges like to see. I visited over spring break, and that's what the admissions officer said.</p>

<p>Edit: Ok scratch what I said about the 30-40%, I couldn't find any information on that but I still doubt it is anywhere near 70% as that is only one thing harvard looks for in applicants. I did however find this:</p>

<p>"Academically, this year's applicant pool remained similar to the previous year's. 56 percent of the pool scored 1400 or higher on SATs; almost 2,150 scored a perfect 800 on their SAT verbal test; more than 3,200 scored an 800 on the SAT math; and nearly 3,200 were valedictorians of their high school classes. </p>

<p>The gender ratio was similar to last year's. 1,047 men and 1,027 women admitted." - <a href="http://ivysuccess.com/harvard_2009.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://ivysuccess.com/harvard_2009.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Schools typically send a profile that explains a lot and lets the adcoms know how to consider GPAs. Harvard, like many colleges, also develops a history with high schools. Adcoms well understand that not all high schools use the same methods to grade.</p>

<p>^^ As for the rank/valedictorian discussion, I don't personally know the stats but I found it interesting that the Crimson would publish that sentence. You stated that rank, GPA and SAT's are only part of the picture. That should come as no surprise. If rank were the only thing that Harvard cared about, they could fill their entire incoming class with Valedictorians yet they chose not to. At the same time, I get the impression that they are partial to high ranks. (D is coming home for some quiet reading period time this evening. I'll try and remember to ask her for her observations.)</p>

<p>On another topic, Harvard does send out athletic likely letters. A girl at D's HS, a year ahead of her, HS received one.</p>

<p>^ Yeah, I can't remember if it was the lady at Harvard or the lady at MIT that said that, but I think that either way the principle still holds true.</p>