Isn't GPA overrated?

<p>im not just saying this bc i have a relatively low gpa(3.2-3.3 from what i heard from a certain individual on this forum) and a very high sat score(2040) but when u think about it, the sat/act is really the most objective method for determining college admissions. GPA just has too many variables involved in it and too many ways that people can get around it. for instance, the quality of schools, different types of teachers(some more lenient than others and some that dont go as in depth in terms of the material and the amount of challenging work, making the class significantly easier than it would be compared to the same class taught somewhere else), not to mention the may forms of cheating that are so common in high school now these days, etc. to be honest, i think gpa is more a measure of motivation and work ethic than inteligence and ability to handle college level material. i get so ****ed when i see people with higher gpas and pedestrian sat scores get into colleges over those who have only slightly lower gpas and 2000 sat scores as well as better ec's cause i know im way smarter than they are and would blow them away in any intelligence test!!! let me make this clear, im not bitter. a high gpa is great and should be commended. but i just don't understand all the hype behind gpa when there are more objective measures with less variables.</p>

<p>I think GPA CAN be a bit bunk...but it also is a good way to get an idea of how much a kid excels. </p>

<p>If they have a 2250 SAT and a 4.0/top 5% of class-you see that they are smart and work hard</p>

<p>IF they have a 2250 SAT and a 3.2 and are only in the top 25% of their class(unless they go to an AMAZING high school) you can see they are smart, but might not work super hard...</p>

<p>so, it can be used in conjunction with other factors to gauge an applicant</p>

<p>Most colleges assess the rigor of the high school and the applicant's schedule as a part of the GPA. The GPA itself isn't what is important; it's the full transcript, including the classes that you took and the grades that you got into them. GPA is no less objective than the SAT which can be manipulated by things like Score Choice and kids whose parents can afford to hire tutors and spend on test prep. They're both good measures of an applicant's academic strength but colleges take into account multiple different factors when making admissions decisions.</p>

<p>I believe a higher GPA is directly correlated to proper punctuation and capitalization.</p>

<p>work ethic trumps intelligence..IMO...see it every day in the real world.</p>

<p>You think that a score on a single 3-4 hour test like the SAT or ACT is a better measure of the "ability to handle college level material" than a GPA based on 4 years of grades in a variety of subjects? I would strongly disagree. </p>

<p>By the way, motivation and work ethic are indeed directly relevant to success in college, at least as much as -- if not more -- than native intelligence. I'd much rather hire the highly motivated student who worked hard and put in the hours to get his "A" or "B" than the slacker who "knows he is smarter than everyone else" -- even though he doesn't have the grades to show for it!</p>

<p>Unfortunately any one single measure can be criticized as overrated. GPA reflects progress over many tests and many areas and is very good indicator of academic success within a context. You have to remember that a good school will grade fairly and consistently and hence it is reflective of the way the population is. In some schools, there is grade inflation but sooner or later admissions committees know which schools are good and which are not adjust their evaluation accordingly. A GPA of 3.8 in a low ranked school is not the same as a GAP of 3.7 in a very competitive magnet school.</p>

<p>As far as SAT scores are concerned, there is even more criticism of the approach. Hence top schools do not use one measure but a lot of things, some which are measured by GPA and SAT, some which are measured through recommendations, essays, EC's etc. The GPA is a very important indicator of progress, work ethic, depth and breadth of learning etc. Like worried_mom, I would pay more emphasis on consistent performance, then on a one shot performance. Ideally, there is a correlation between the two and they should match and to a large extent they do.</p>

<p>Sorry that four years of education is weighed more than a four hour test.</p>

<p>Low GPA/High GPA (BTW 2040 isn't high, especially here) usually signifies you are unmotivated and can't perform at a level relative to your peers.</p>

You think that a score on a single 3-4 hour test like the SAT or ACT is a better measure of the "ability to handle college level material" than a GPA based on 4 years of grades in a variety of subjects?


<p>Given the woefully unstandardized nature of the latter, one's SAT score may indeed be a better indicator. Of course, neither of the metrics gives a comprehensive picture.</p>

<p>Top colleges don't just want the hard worker or the intelligent student. If you don't work well within the confines of the grading scale but you've showed your work ethic in other ways (ECs--especially of the USAMO competition, etc variety--essays, stellar recs) and have an SAT to demonstrate that you're a bright kid, that's one thing. But people who don't apply themselves, regardless of sterling natural aptitude, aren't in particularly high demand.</p>

<p>Perhaps, as some have said, hard work is valued much, much more than intelligence in some workplaces. But colleges aren't looking for accountants or doctors; they're looking for brilliant kids who have done well and well continue to do well in academia and in the non-academic college community. These kids need to have chops and the ability and work ethic to put those chops to use.</p>

<p>Well, I know one thing for sure: it will be your elitist attitude, not your low GPA, that keeps you out of top schools. Really? "i know im way smarter then they are?" Not only do you lack the ability to use correct English skills, but you boast that you are so much smarter because you did well on a four hour test. That is utter nonsense.</p>

<p>GPA, like every other part of the application, is incomplete in itself. That is why they use rigor of classes, to see what you are capable of, rank, to see how well you do against your peers, essays, to test MATURITY and college-readiness, and tests, to see one's natural ability to reason. Each one, by itself, is flawed, but together, it gives a pretty good approximation of the student's capabilities. Have a bad GPA and rank shows lack of motivation and academic passion, things that colleges cherish.</p>

<p>Oh, and for the record, a 2040 is not "very high." It is good, don't get me wrong, but you are a little dissilussioned if you think that really judges how "smart" you are. You it less as a crutch, and more of motivation that you are smart enough to have a high GPA.</p>

<p>If we're talking about top colleges, they are looking for those who are both smart and hard workers. It's that simple, there are many brilliant people who never apply their brilliance to constructive things in life. That's why top college look at three major components: How you did in school vs. your peers (rank), aptitude (scores), and application of work ethic and aptitude in accomplishments outside of the classroom.</p>

<p>yeah, i get what most of you guys are saying. dont get me wrong, gpa is rightfully the most important factor in college admissions as it is the most comprehensive. all i am saying is that i believe there is so much emphasis that goes on gpa nowadays that some colleges neglect other glaring faults in an applicant's resume(i.e uga who had accepted my friends sister who had an extremely high gpa but very little ap classes and ec's and had a sat score of about 1500-1600. this was only two years ago!) guess that's why colleges look at both the sat and gpa and not just one.</p>

<p>love the passionate answers so far u guys!!! always love a good argument!!! </p>

<p>btw, mr.madden "you it less as a crutch..." - In your words, "That is utter nonsense."</p>

<p>^ I am sorry if I struck a nerve. Your latest post was what I was try to explain, kind of, but I was admittedly a bit annoyed by your original post. However, you are a bright kid, (despite you lack of capitalization!) and I did not mean to come of demeaning...</p>

<p>Oh, look at me on my high horse when I can't even proofread. :P</p>

<p>Methinks OP is . . . a young male. Confident, even arrogant, with laser vision . . . that excludes all that which he does not wish to focus upon. A young James Kirk, perhaps, with tons of potential and talent . . . but no respect for the rules and guidelines of a traditional educational system. </p>

<p>Alas, our earthbound reality does not put our young James Kirk's at the helm of . . .anything. The Captain's bars have to be earned by showing up (on time) and finishing tasks neatly and completely. </p>

<p>GPA is, indeed, a measure of motivation and work ethic. Trade the sneer for "neat and complete" and the world will be your oyster. Keep the sneer and there will be ongoing closed doors. Bummer but true.</p>

<p>It's cool, no hard feelings at all... I just enjoy joking around once in awhile instead of all this serious talk. and about the capitalization problem...i'm just to lazy:)</p>


<p>not sure whether that was a compliment or not but...</p>

<p>no comment</p>

<p>2040 is pretty suck</p>

<p>sick or suck?</p>

<p>cause u know what or should i say who else sucks skittles? u might know her:)</p>