<p>for example, would they judge someone harshly if he/she were to receive pretty average grades the first 2 years of HS, but then get all A’s his/her junior/senior year?</p>
<p>Would Yale (and other ivy league schools) give kudos for an upward grade trend and respect you more for it because you have been on both sides of the spectrum?
Or would they be like “Sorry you screwed up your first 2 years, you’re going into the reject pile.”</p>
<p>of course, there’s more to college acceptance than grades, but i’m just wondering Strictly for grades.</p>
<p>Btw, the average GPA between the first 2 years was a 3.25/4 unweighted and same weighted (i didn’t take any honors/ap classes my first two years…)</p>
<p>The problem is you’ll be facing kids who are 4.0s or near so – throughout their HS careers. You’ve got to really WOW the file readers in order to rise above the rest. But that can be said of near everyone.</p>
<p>I’m not sure about this, but if course rigor & grade inflation/difficulty are equal between a 4.0 applicant and a 3.5 applicant, the 4.0 applicant would always be looked upon more favorably strictly in terms of high school academic performance…</p>
<p>As a general rule, an upward trend in grades is a good thing, and the most important grades on the transcript are those earned during junior year and the first semester of senior year. So at many colleges, your hypothetical student’s upward trajectory will help him/her in the admissions process. </p>
<p>But as T2 said, the general rules don’t apply with full force at schools like Yale, where so many applicants have earned stellar grades throughout high school.</p>
<p>My daughter has known many Yalies without perfect scores, but everyone brought something to the table, all were bright, but not all in the genius catagory.
Show what makes your special, show a passion, don’t try to be a clone.</p>