<p>A SAT score is the result of one test taken on one day for four hours. A high school GPA is the result of four years of work. There are some people, my daughter being one, who work very hard in school, fully participate in clubs and sports, but don’t do well on standardized tests. There are other people, like my son, who could care less about schoolwork and school activities, but score extremely well on standardized tests. Who do you think will be the most successful in life in general?</p>
<p>Kind of on topic with this discussion, but I know that college look at what classes you’ve taken, etc, etc in context of your school. Do colleges look at SAT scores in context of your school as well? My schools average SAT score is about a 1400. So, does my much higher than 1400 score look better than normal?</p>
<p>-yea, I know it’s a stretch, but I’m desperate here! haha</p>
<p>i"m the only sophomore in my school to take the SAT. I got an 1830, and I’m ranked 11 out of 617 With a 4.12 GPA.</p>
<p>My graduating class isn’t huge at just 160 and many people get 2000+ so it has nothing to do with how many are graduating. Also, it’s not always about difficulty. My school is REALLY hard - only 2 or 3 people have a 4.0, and SAT scores are generally low. Plus, I have higher than all 3 of those who rank 1st 2nd and 3rd in my school. Conclusion? SAT skills =/= school skills. Simply. At least not directly.</p>
<p>
Neither. Those who have the strengths of both are the most successful in life.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I would disagree. Every school, every child takes a different path thru high school. There is no easy way to compare them. The SAT is the best measurement of comparison.</p>
<p>But obviously a high school education prepares someone much better for life more than a SAT.</p>
<p>Is having the highest SAT score in your school significant for non-valedictorians?</p>
<p>Wow, our val this year had a 2350, and the one for next year has a 2370.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>“Isn’t a good test taker” is not a legitimate excuse</p>
<p>woot jamesford, congrats on your admission to MIT :)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m ranked 10th, and I believe my 2300 is currently the highest score in the junior class. It’s significant for me because it’s a nagging reminder of how my laziness has brought me down below my potential.</p>
<p>my friends is going to be theb vale. for this year he has a 4.0 UW GPA/ 4.5 W GPA but only got a 1950 SAT he is going to Berkeley next fall</p>
<p>Some schools hugely reward those who take regular classes. At my (sub-par, public) high school, there is very little regulation on how teachers grade so Honors and AP teachers frequently give insanely low grades (sometimes in the range of a C class average) whereas in a regular class an A or A+ is guaranteed with any effort because most students are struggling to pass (due to extreme laziness/stupidity). This means that the top of the class is mostly not honors students and the middle/front is comprised of a mix of the honors students and those who put forth a mixed effort in regular classes. I would be surprised if the Valedictorian has over an 1800, but many people in the top 5-10% have 2200+</p>
<p>^^^^^^^^^^^
i agree 100% to maximize my GPA i should of taken all regular for the first 2 years then taken only four AP classes junior year because UC’s only give u up to 8 semester of honors credit</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Thank you. I hope Michigan is treating you well.</p>
<p>Wow. Only one person has said that its the result of hard work. I guess this site is really elitist. I am top 10 of a high silver ranked public school with a 1610 SAT score (no studying). </p>
<p>Hard work, maturity, determination, and the lack of procrastination are all you need to be valedictorian… intelligence helps greatly though lol.</p>
<p>^ I disagree. As much as I hate to differentiate, and while you’re certainly correct about a valedictorian needing those qualities, intelligence is a must. I’ve seen countless students in my school who study as much or more than our valedictorian (and he studies a lot) but none of them even come close to his grades. He’s just naturally intelligent, or probably started at a young age or something. There are a few kids who could achieve his scores or higher if they studied the same amount, but they don’t have the qualities you described, so in the end, I guess he’s the one who wins.</p>
<p>^^^^^
Exactly the same situation here at my school. People who sit down and study endlessly for exams never get higher scores than those who simply can absorb it straight from class, inscribed into their brains right from the mouth of the teacher.</p>
<p>There are about 10 kids in my class of 300 that have over 2100, evenly scattered throughout the top 10%. Public school, no requirements to get in or anything.</p>
<p>At my public high school with graduating classes of ~400 anyone who achieves a grade of A in all classes they take becomes valedictorian. This results in about 10 valedictorians a year, but more often than not they include some kids who aren’t particularly bright. Since weighting doesn’t come into play at all, it’s much easier to take all regular classes and become valedictorian than to take honors/AP level classes and do the same. Since our school’s more gifted population is highly competitive and 2 or 3 APs is the norm for many sophomores, most of the people taking higher level classes end up with a B in an AP class somewhere along the way and are no longer eligible. I’m sure we’ve had a valedictorian with a really low SAT somewhere along the way; however, it makes sense considering they could have taken remedial classes and barely done the minimum to graduate.</p>