<p>I look at links like this and I just don't see many kids that fit the above description.</p>
<p><a href="http://sonicpixel.net/ahs05/%5B/url%5D">http://sonicpixel.net/ahs05/</a></p>
<p>Don't know about hat particular school ,but I do know plenty of kids with those stats. They are called boys. They get into reach/semi-reach schools because of the severe gender imbalance. Schools know they will mature into ambitious students.</p>
<p>Yup, I'm a guy and those are exactly my stats!</p>
<p>Cheers--you said it better than I could. My two boys have stats very close to those.</p>
<p>LOL cheers, that is my son too.</p>
<p>LOL Cheers! That describes my S also.</p>
<p>Add my S in that group too.</p>
<p>and my daughter ( I just added her SAT I writing score)
She is @ Reed- prpbably not normally thought of for "underachievers"
But I would suggest "colleges that change lives" by Loren Pope for suggestions, as well as "cool colleges" by Donald Asher</p>
<p>Cheers - exactly the right answer. I have one, too.</p>
<p>Depending on the grading system and the school, a 3.3 could be a decent GPA, meaning B's and some A's. For many people--often boys, but not always--they just don't see the point in doing every meaningless dip*** assignment (quoting son) and thus don't get the A's--even though they do very well on the the tests (as shown by the SAT). Lots of colleges look at standard test scores precisely for that reason. MIT is known for taking kids who score well on tests and don't have stellar grades, because they want kids who are spending their time doing something that really interests them, not necessarily their homework. Reed is definitely another one. I feel quite confident that many schools in the top fifty would like a student with great SATs who had A's in subjects that interested them and B's in the rest. </p>
<p>My son had about half B's and the rest A's. His GPA under some systems would have been around 3.5. However, his HS calculated the GPA by using point scores and he had 99's in sciences and math, which made his high 80's in other subjects average to 90's, which made his GPA look like a 4.0 by some readings.... Which is why so many colleges recalculate these things.</p>
<p>I am talking about a 3.3 and about 50th percentile in a class.
Didn't realize there were so many kids like this on CC. </p>
<p>I guess what bothers me when I look at the link in post 1 is these kids aren't getting into the top schools and the other schools don't have kids like this. I see a couple of these type of kids getting into UCSB or Davis, but not too many other schools with similar kids.</p>
<p>Maybe, that is a situation where Indiana kids like this go to Indiana, Wisconsin kids go to Wisconsin, Arizona kids go to Arizona, but I don't see Cal kids with these stats going to these out of state schools.</p>
<p>dstark--I never knew my second S's rank, but his 3.3ish GPA (which turned out to be a bit more respectable 3.7 weighted UC GPA) still put him in the top half of the class, probably top 20-25%, I assumed (if you go with the <em>weighted</em> GPA), though just guessing.</p>
<p>My first S had something like a 2.9, (3.1ish weighted), and his rank was still in the top 50% of his public high school, in fact, I was rather surprised, it was closer to upper third. The first S (with the lower GPA) took the community college route and transferred to a Cal State, though he applied to two privates, University of Puget Sound and PLU and was accepted to both. </p>
<p>The second son had some nice choices (accepted to UCSD/Irvine and Davis, the three UC's he applied to), and is now at Chicago, (and so far his GPA is higher there than it was in high school). This one did have some things going for him in spite of spotty GPA--advanced math classes, top grades in math courses, showed some academic interest in things outside of high school (writing/music/computer programming/decent showing in a couple of local math competitions), so that must have given him a bit of a boost in college admissions?</p>
<p>The second S went to a Catholic College Prep school, and every year they list the numbers of kids going to various schools. Almost every one in this particular school goes on to some sort of college (only a handful do not), so that includes the bottom 50%. They don't break it down by stats, so I don't know which schools the underachievers with high test scores are going to, but they are going somewhere . . . Lots of kids going to Santa Cruz from this school, and lots to the Cal States and the CC's (remember a California CC is a good second chance for an underachiever in high school and can lead to a transfer to one of the prestigious UC's or private school). A neighbor sent her underachieving son to Cuesta Community College a few years ago because it feeds into CalPoly. So he ended up with a nice CalPoly degree. He would not have been accepted there as a freshman.</p>
<p>First quarter this year, my daughter's class had only eleven students who received all A's, out of about 300. Obviously, we don't have grade inflation here. I think CC gives a very skewed point of view on stats. There are plenty of great students in the real world with 3.3/2100.</p>
<p>S2 is here, too! Looking at low first-tier and top second tier LAC's, hoping that the lack of math and science this year will not hurt and and REAL passion for humanities will make him stand out.</p>
<p>Know what else? Those 3.3 GPA kids might end up married to your 4.0 daughter!</p>
<p>That was me! And you are right, I went (in state) to University of Michigan. </p>
<p>p.s. That HS did a BAD thing!! They graphed a data set of one, so we now know the GPA and SAT of the one person from that California HS that applied and was accepted and attends a college (that gets very few kids from CA). AND they put it on the internet!!!!!</p>
<p>Yup, stats look my son too. Took and is still taking all the hardest classes our school offers. I too was thrown by most of the kids reporting on these boards. I think this is one of those perception and reality things again. Tells you, too, that colleges aren't solely focused on GPA and class rank -- thank goodness.</p>
<p>That would be 50-50 for Wisconsin and I'd say a few good EC's and in. He'd be in most of the Big 10 schools.</p>
<p>I've got one here too. HS does not weight GPA or rank-kids take higher level courses for the challenge. Accepted at 6 top tier schools-4 private, 2 OOS publics, several with merit $.</p>
<p>why am I getting the feeling that a 3.3 is a bad thing? Isn't that a B+? To all of you kids with a 3.3 and 2100--CONGRATULATIONS! NICELY DONE!!!!</p>
<p>I've just about had it with trying to figure out ways to get schools to want my kid. How about if the schools figure out ways to get our great kids?!!! Or at least, why fill up the application buckets at reach schools, thus giving them the opportunity to reject more and make themselves look more selective?</p>
<p>Why not shop for a school where your kid will be welcomed with open arms and not feel lucky to have "gotten in"? I may be getting too cynical, but aren't we paying them? And to the tune of $160K by the time all is said and done?</p>