PDA

View Full Version : hey students, how should admissions clerks look at gpa, sat, etc??


jefhatfield
Jan 27, 2004, 01:00 PM
when getting into a mediocre college, some admissions officers will look at the entire high school gpa of a prospective student knowing that this method of determining gpa will give the student the highest number

but more rigorous colleges will look at the harder last two years and make determinations on that and if a student can pull off great grades in junior and senior year, then they deserve acceptance

and of course, only the better schools can prepare a student for the SAT so the private schools definitely have the edge on making its students score higher on the SAT...some poor regions' public schools like to spike their scores by only admitting the highest scores to the state (since they are allowed to do that and call it the "average" SAT score)

for college graduates getting into graduate school, the confusion is taken out of the mix and the hardest possible criteria is made for determining acceptance...there is no one test you have to master to get in like the SAT so it's mostly determined on gpa...and only of the harder classes of the last 60 units of college taken and that tends to weed out more than half of college grads for graduate school

and the bar is lifted highest for getting into phd school/program which only looks at performance in a master's program (most of the time unless it's a professional program like MD, DDS, JD, PsyD, PharmD, DO, DBA, DPA, etc), and then the student has to achieve a 3.5 minimum grad school gpa...on the undergrad level, getting a 3.5 gets you on the dean's list and graduating with a 3.5 makes you graduate with honors...in a high school or 4 year college, you can get an A, B, C, D, or F but in grad school, the harder ones, there are three grades...A, B, and "take the expensive class over, you idiot" ;)

this is the system in america as i have seen it and on every level of education, especially the high school level, there has been a huge amount of criticism of the system

what do you think??

Dippo
Jan 27, 2004, 02:45 PM
The sad thing is that GPA and SAT are not a good indicator of how well someone will do in college.

I knew a lot of people that had high GPA and SAT scorces but when they got to college they couldn't cut it anymore.

There are so many other factors that go into being successful in college that can't be meaured by any test. (Example: time management skills)

gwuMACaddict
Jan 27, 2004, 04:47 PM
interviews and letters of recomendation for colleges... high school is so subjective, these are the best measurements

gpa and interview for med school... a dr needs to always perform at the top of their game, no matter what

lsat and interview for law school... same for dr

idkew
Jan 27, 2004, 05:14 PM
i think that standardized test should be given more weight. followed by an interview, EC activities, and then GPA.

i know for a fact that even between HS in my home town, my HS was much more difficult than the others. a 3.5 at mine might equal a 39. or 4.0 at the other ones.

grades are very subjective, and they vary from school to school, not to mention teacher to teacher. The SAT and ACT test are much more objective.

cddonline
Jan 27, 2004, 05:19 PM
did you know the only thing that the SAT has been shown to predict well is FIRST QUARTER college grades? After that, the SAT appears to have no correlation whatsoever to success in college. Are you sure it should be weighted more heavily? Furthermore the SAT is not an objective test. If you want, I'll go into why it is an unfair test in greater detail. But right now I have to go to class.

idkew
Jan 27, 2004, 05:24 PM
Originally posted by cddonline
did you know the only thing that the SAT has been shown to predict well is FIRST QUARTER college grades? After that, the SAT appears to have no correlation whatsoever to success in college. Are you sure it should be weighted more heavily? Furthermore the SAT is not an objective test. If you want, I'll go into why it is an unfair test in greater detail. But right now I have to go to class.

then make a new test.

i am not saying the SAT is a great test. i took it, but my ACT scores were the only ones looked at by schools. besides, what does a GPA tell you. Many of my friends from small towns were Valedictorians, and would not have been even close at my HS, not to mention not have had 4.0 gpas.

Some schools expect more for a grade then others. This is why I think a GPA means little.

Counterfit
Jan 27, 2004, 05:34 PM
I've noticed that too idkew. My school (a college-prep school) required a 3.5 to get on the honor roll, and a 4.0 for "excelsior" honors. My local high school required a 3.0. Also, starting my senior year, they stopped sending, or even listing, our class rank to colleges, because "it was misleading". Made sense to me, and it still does, because the top ten in the class were covere by less than .1 (4.6 -> 4.5xx I think it was). I'm just glad I don't have to take the SAT again, not with that essay writing. just glad I got 1280 the first time around...

job
Jan 27, 2004, 05:38 PM
I think GPA should be emphasized less. In my case, I have a 4.0 in all AP classes, but I share my #1 class rank with people who take very easy courses such as 'Floral Design' etc. While I'm not against their course selection, I don't think that such classes are preparing them for college, especially when those people are competing with me to get into the same colleges.

I also think that personal interviews should be emphasized more, and I'm glad colleges are starting to do that. Sure, a transcript and grade report can tell you everything about a person on paper, but what about the intangibles an individual brings to a college? Without an interview or on campus visit, how are admissions officers going to find out about the variety of one's personality. I have a Harvard alumni interview this Friday and a Dartmouth alumni interview next Friday. I think such interviews allow the colleges to see how you are as a person, not as a grade.

I also agree with the other posters when they mention the difference between the courses offered at the different high schools. How can people compare state standards with each other in an attempt to enter a semi-national educational system? The colleges are looking throughout the United States at prospective students, which invariabely leads to issues as each school stresses different academic areas. The A.P. system is a step in the right direction as it is a voluntary national standardized curriculem that admissions officers can compare between students.

whew...i need to go eat dinner. i'll keep writing later...

Dippo
Jan 27, 2004, 08:09 PM
Originally posted by Counterfit
just glad I got 1280 the first time around...

Yea, I got a 1430 when I took it :D

I thought I had the highest score in the school until one girl busted out a 1600, duh oh!

Counterfit
Jan 27, 2004, 08:30 PM
:eek: The valedictorian from my class got a 15xx, and it really comes down to preparation and hard work more than school choices. I went to school with her every year except 7th grade. (!!)

idkew
Jan 27, 2004, 08:30 PM
Originally posted by Dippo
Yea, I got a 1430 when I took it :D

I thought I had the highest score in the school until one girl busted out a 1600, duh oh!


who cares what either of you scored?

this should be private information, and this board is not a place to brag about how smart you are.

Counterfit
Jan 27, 2004, 08:36 PM
Originally posted by idkew
who cares what either of you scored?

this should be private information, and this board is not a place to brag about how smart you are. Since when does the SAT accurately measure intelligence?

jefhatfield
Jan 27, 2004, 08:54 PM
Originally posted by Counterfit
Since when does the SAT accurately measure intelligence?

my wife works for a standardized test company and the phds who make these tests are wholly convinced that they do not measure intelligence...and most of them privately think it's a crock of ****

idkew
Jan 27, 2004, 09:00 PM
Originally posted by Counterfit
Since when does the SAT accurately measure intelligence?

you missed my point obviously.

Counterfit
Jan 27, 2004, 09:01 PM
Originally posted by jefhatfield
and most of them privately think it's a crock of **** It's not as bad as the MCAS though.

job
Jan 27, 2004, 09:19 PM
Originally posted by idkew
who cares what either of you scored?

this should be private information, and this board is not a place to brag about how smart you are.

True, it may be private information, but it is their information to share. I don't see why people can't post test scores if they see fit.

And for the record I scored a 1450.

Of course I could be making that up...maybe I scored a combined of a 1000. Who knows? :p :D

idkew: It's all in good fun. Honestly, how are we to know if people are actually telling the truth, especially on forums like these.

idkew
Jan 27, 2004, 09:25 PM
Originally posted by job
Honestly, how are we to know if people are actually telling the truth, especially on forums like these.

Exactly.

Counterfit
Jan 27, 2004, 09:31 PM
If I was going to lie about my SAT scores, I would have said something more like 1400+ :p

G4scott
Jan 27, 2004, 10:00 PM
Actually, I just needed to be in the top 10% of my graduating class to get into any public university in my state, which is what I did...

I'm not sure if they still counted SAT's or what, but I only applied to one school, and got in easily.

I personally don't find college hard. If you just study, read, and do the work, then you should be fine for the first few years. It's actually quite boring. I can't wait to get into my upper division classes where I'll actually have to think... I'm not saying I'm a genius or that I'm super smart. I'm just saying that these days, it seems that almost anyone can, or should be able to cut in in a basic 4 year degree program at a public university, or even a community college. And if you can't cut it, there are still plenty of things for a person to do... Too many people think higher education is for everyone, and although to me it seems like anyone who applies themselves can do it, there are too many people who can't because they're lazy, or just don't have any motivation. And then they complain, but that's another story for another day...

I think that stricter admission policies are needed. Although I probably wouldn't have gotten into my university, it would've also weeded out a lot of the idiots. Also, if I knew the admissions were stricter, I would've also tried harder in high school... It needs to be stressed, do well in high school, and I mean really good, then go to college, and get a respectable job, or you can just pick up garbage and flip burgers...

gwuMACaddict
Jan 27, 2004, 10:17 PM
Originally posted by idkew
who cares what either of you scored?

HAHAHA! :D right on! i didn't think that was what this thread was about...

jefhatfield
Jan 27, 2004, 10:33 PM
Originally posted by G4scott
Actually, I just needed to be in the top 10% of my graduating class to get into any public university in my state, which is what I did...

I'm not sure if they still counted SAT's or what, but I only applied to one school, and got in easily.

I personally don't find college hard. If you just study, read, and do the work, then you should be fine for the first few years. It's actually quite boring. I can't wait to get into my upper division classes where I'll actually have to think... I'm not saying I'm a genius or that I'm super smart. I'm just saying that these days, it seems that almost anyone can, or should be able to cut in in a basic 4 year degree program at a public university, or even a community college. And if you can't cut it, there are still plenty of things for a person to do... Too many people think higher education is for everyone, and although to me it seems like anyone who applies themselves can do it, there are too many people who can't because they're lazy, or just don't have any motivation. And then they complain, but that's another story for another day...

I think that stricter admission policies are needed. Although I probably wouldn't have gotten into my university, it would've also weeded out a lot of the idiots. Also, if I knew the admissions were stricter, I would've also tried harder in high school... It needs to be stressed, do well in high school, and I mean really good, then go to college, and get a respectable job, or you can just pick up garbage and flip burgers...

your second half of college will stress critical thinking and not just tactician skills and memorization

some people do better in the second half, but for most, it's harder and requires honest study

grad school requires orginal research and intense amounts of study and research and you will have to be able to express your point of view eloquently as well as the opposing viewpoints with equal conviction

...and some people actually love that

zapp
Jan 27, 2004, 10:39 PM
The reason that colleges have a standards at all for admissions, is they want there recruiting dollars well spent. They spend money to get students to go to their school and there is only so much room. And everyone knows that the dropout rate is very high. So if they can recruit a student that will go there for four years, that is money in the bank for the college. If they get a guy that only hangs out for a year, then they still make money but not has much as the 4 year student. Everyone can afford a college degree ( harder for the middle class) but few can make it till graduation. And it isn't because the classes are hard, they just don't make it to all the classes. I know at one of the state colleges in my area, 75% of the freshman class don't graduate there. Of course some move, or complete somewhere else, but most dropout. So with that in mind, an interview process would be good, drug testing, as well as a resume from previous jobs even in highschool. Prove to the college that you will be there for four years at least. And for the people that think drug testing is an invasion of your privacy, drugs are illegal, so unless you are a criminal you shouldn't have anything to worry about.

jefhatfield
Jan 27, 2004, 10:53 PM
Originally posted by zapp
The reason that colleges have a standards at all for admissions, is they want there recruiting dollars well spent. They spend money to get students to go to their school and there is only so much room. And everyone knows that the dropout rate is very high. So if they can recruit a student that will go there for four years, that is money in the bank for the college. If they get a guy that only hangs out for a year, then they still make money but not has much as the 4 year student. Everyone can afford a college degree ( harder for the middle class) but few can make it till graduation. And it isn't because the classes are hard, they just don't make it to all the classes. I know at one of the state colleges in my area, 75% of the freshman class don't graduate there. Of course some move, or complete somewhere else, but most dropout. So with that in mind, an interview process would be good, drug testing, as well as a resume from previous jobs even in highschool. Prove to the college that you will be there for four years at least. And for the people that think drug testing is an invasion of your privacy, drugs are illegal, so unless you are a criminal you shouldn't have anything to worry about.

there are so many extra criteria that one can add to make the process more accurate, but probably the best indicator would be age...if american college students entered their freshman year at 20 like some countires, then the graduation rate would be much higher and it would likely prove a better indicator than a resume or drug testing

pooky
Jan 27, 2004, 11:37 PM
Originally posted by jefhatfield
for college graduates getting into graduate school, the confusion is taken out of the mix and the hardest possible criteria is made for determining acceptance...there is no one test you have to master to get in like the SAT so it's mostly determined on gpa...

and the bar is lifted highest for getting into phd school/program which only looks at performance in a master's program

Just to correct some common misconceptions, there is a test for graduate school, it's called the GRE. It has a very similar format to the SAT with harder vocab and generally easier math, and an added logic section. It's required in many programs and a large number of schools.

Also, the bar isn't necessarily lifted for a Ph.D. in the way you think. They are certainly more rigorous programs than a Master's, but often, no Master's degree is required. This is true for a number of fields. As the number of qualified applicants has increased, the competition has intensified, and schools have been taking more and more doctoral students straight out of undergrad. Kind of like pro sports teams recruiting star players straight from high school.

Dros
Jan 27, 2004, 11:44 PM
First off, I'll say that the current system is flawed. But, I think the reality is that the system is not designed to make sure every "good person" gets into a good school. There are all sorts of hidden geniuses bored by high school out there. But to identify them while not increasing the risk of taking in more bad students is impossible, or at least beyond the resources of most schools.

A school can do a fine job of filling their classes with smart people if they just take a numerical cut-off for GPA and SAT, and then pay a small office to read a few paragraphs from each person to find the obvious gems that don't pass those (violin prodigies, published poets, children of rich alumni, etc). For huge schools, to expect more is somewhat crazy. Little schools can put more of an effort, since each placement is a little more valuable.

The good news is, if you think you are smarter or deserve better, there is room for upward mobility. You can transfer from your community college or state school to a fancy one. And if you are interested in a higher degree, then you can get into a good graduate program if you've excelled at college. And you can get into a good post-doctoral position if you excelled at grad school.

yamabushi
Jan 27, 2004, 11:53 PM
A standardized test is pretty worhtless to predict future performance unless you create a learning environment in which students are graded on the basis of similar tests. Since the tests generally have little in common with the vast majority of classes offered such a relation would be absurd.

Rather than looking at grades or even test scores I might look for some proof of effort and potential. Strong success in any area of study would be sufficient. A student's true potential is often not accurately reflected in a their overall grades. If a student is reasonably intelligent and willing to study hard but still does poorly in some classes I would put the blame with the teaching methods. Therefore, if you wish to improve the performance of students at your own school it may be more productive to make real efforts to improve teaching methods. Such improvements could be as simple as a change of textbooks or class schedules. Survey the students and faculty to get some clues as to where things could be improved.

If you are already very confident of your methods and almost all students do well at your school then there is little point in being picky about which students you happen to get. Any halfway decent student should do well at your school.

Earendil
Jan 28, 2004, 12:44 AM
How about the home schooled among us? how should we be judged?
and before I get any comments, I don't think it should be by their forum posts :D)

My GPA is none existent, I studied until I mastered the material, call it a 4.0 if you like. Class ranking is moot, I was first...and last.
I studied and took the SATs, and being on the west coast didn't bother with the ACTs. (not to brag, but) I managed a 1330 on the SATs, but coming out of it, I realized that without studying FOR the SATs, I wouldn't have done nearly so well. Though there are smart kids that study hard and can't get past 1050...I feel sorry for my brother who has ADHD (absolutely NO offense to anyone who has it), I believe it may be a bit harder for him to take such a long test, and he is a smart kid.

So, how should I kid like me be weighted against the rest of the public school kids?

Tyler
-sending Apps now, I'll know soon enough if I'm accepted...and more importantly, for how much.

Counterfit
Jan 28, 2004, 07:32 AM
Originally posted by Earendil
So, how should I kid like me be weighted against the rest of the public school kids? Well, that's a question isn't it? Glad I don't have to answer :p

jefhatfield
Jan 28, 2004, 11:27 AM
Originally posted by pooky
Just to correct some common misconceptions, there is a test for graduate school, it's called the GRE. It has a very similar format to the SAT with harder vocab and generally easier math, and an added logic section. It's required in many programs and a large number of schools.

Also, the bar isn't necessarily lifted for a Ph.D. in the way you think. They are certainly more rigorous programs than a Master's, but often, no Master's degree is required. This is true for a number of fields. As the number of qualified applicants has increased, the competition has intensified, and schools have been taking more and more doctoral students straight out of undergrad. Kind of like pro sports teams recruiting star players straight from high school.

good points, pooky

...but put it into context of the greater weight of this discussion on high schools and sat tests...here's my point as a former high school student, former college student, and current graduate student

in the context of standardized tests, the gre (which is more of a formality) is not a major factor for a graduate student entering a master's program...the main criteria, but not 100 percent, is the last 60 units taken in an undergraduate program...letters of recommendation, while nice, are also formalities...but i would say that college/institution's ranking of its undergraduate school compared to other undergraduate schools can, but not always, be a major factor

..so for you undergrads considering grad school, get good grades and don't try and hope that the gre, letters of recommendation, and school reputation can bail you out if you want to get into a strong graduate degree program ;)

now in the case of professional school, md and law school and some others, the standardized tests, MCAT and LSAT respectively (*neither are gre tests), are major factors in admission

some undergrads are admitted "directly" into a phd program, but overall, in the context of graduate school, this is still a rare occurrence and in the context of 17 percent of population getting a bachelor's as their highest level achieved, 6 percent getting a master's, and 1.5 percent phd's, and 1.5 percent professional degrees, then the overall picture is brought into context

jefhatfield
Jan 28, 2004, 11:59 AM
now there is one group of grad students, some selected science majors, where undergrads get accepted into a phd program and are expected to go for the full phd...but if they can't make it, they are awarded a master's degree as a consolation...still, in my eyes, that's a win win...if you are an undergrad and you drop out, it's likely you won't have any degree (unless you took the right classes and enough of them to get an associate's degree) and in that case, that is not bad

the good thing with undergrad units is usually you can transfer quite of lot of them if you re-enter school or switch majors

for the long on and off road to a bachelors, 12 years for me, i took a few units here, worked, then took some more units and in the first five years of college and changing majors, i only managed an associate degree but it took me another five years to go into the admissions office to find out i had the degree...he he...i was busy with married life and work...but less than two years later, i found since i had that degree and a whole host of other floating units, i took 15 more classes and got my bachelor's degree

but for grad school, which i entered 9 years ago, i was not so lucky...i started a master's program and got nearly half of all the units i needed and then the school closed the particular program...and of those units, i can only carry 6 units of classes as transfer units in california (other states may vary) so i had to basically almost start over again...being a working student, that means it can take more years of study taking a class here and a class there...if all works out for me, i will either finish a master's or get one while being in a phd program...and god willing, if time and money are not an issue, i can finish the whole journey of classes and finish formal school forever...that is unless the educational community comes up with a higher degree than a phd ;)

some in the educational community have called for a chancellor's degree which is one step up from a phd and designed for college administrators or others who want to have more knowledge in their field...administrators have to, in many cases, be the supervisors and managers of phd's who teach the individual classes and some feel there needs to be a higher degree for heads of colleges and universities

in the neighboring town near where i live, the phd who is the president of the junior college, got in really hot water when his salary with bonuses was published in the local paper... as president of the local junior college, he got paid more than the president of the united states :p

but then look at what some coaches in major colleges get paid...millions...if i knew that as a kid...

pooky
Jan 28, 2004, 12:08 PM
Originally posted by jefhatfield
in the context of standardized tests, the gre (which is more of a formality) is not a major factor for a graduate student entering a master's program...the main criteria, but not 100 percent, is the last 60 units taken in an undergraduate program...letters of recommendation, while nice, are also formalities...but i would say that college/institution's ranking of its undergraduate school compared to other undergraduate schools can, but not always, be a major factor


Very good point, but I have to disagree with you in a minor way. The GRE CAN be hugely important, in that poor performance can keep you out of a program. You're right, excellent performance will not make up for other aspects, but mediocrity can kill you.

Also, I'd have to say that in many schools, GPA is weighted the same way. A great GPA won't get you into grad school. Far and away, the single most important piece of the application is the personal statement, along with any personal interviews at the school (if they're offered). I've seen students with low test scores and low GPAs get into top rated science programs on the basis of a great essay and a good personal repoir with potential advisor's. I've also seen very competitive students denied spots because of poor interviews.

jefhatfield
Jan 28, 2004, 12:23 PM
Originally posted by pooky
Very good point, but I have to disagree with you in a minor way. The GRE CAN be hugely important, in that poor performance can keep you out of a program. You're right, excellent performance will not make up for other aspects, but mediocrity can kill you.

Also, I'd have to say that in many schools, GPA is weighted the same way. A great GPA won't get you into grad school. Far and away, the single most important piece of the application is the personal statement, along with any personal interviews at the school (if they're offered). I've seen students with low test scores and low GPAs get into top rated science programs on the basis of a great essay and a good personal repoir with potential advisor's. I've also seen very competitive students denied spots because of poor interviews.

it's amazing what factors can play...luck can be a major factor as in getting into stanford's mba program, for instance

when thousands, all within and surpassing requirements, apply for their program, then it becomes incredibly subjective when only a few hundred get the nod...i am sure other elite schools have a low acceptance rate, too

could you imagine being joe millionaire and having dozens and dozens of amazing women to choose from? he he

connections can be a factor, too...our president got into harvard's mba school with an undergrad average of C-...now i don't know what his average was for his last 60 units...it's possible he could have done very, very poorly in his first two years and managed to get some really strong grades in his last two years...somehow i doubt that and his family connections were probably a bigger factor

i am a strange case since i got horrible grades in my first two years (lower than 2.0 average with some C- and D grades) and relatively strong grades in my last two years (well above 3.0 with a fair amount of A/A- grades in my major)...but it was more personal attitude since the first two years were much, much easier than the last two years ;)

the classes i had in the first two years often only required the students to be in class three days all quarter...the first day of class to verify enrollment, the midterm, and the final exam...since the classes were rather large, we were often not required to do too much homework or essays and much of the first two years were a rehash of high school...the second two years required more focus since the classes are smaller by attrition and design, and essays are more the norm and possible for professors to look at since class size is smaller...this all means the student has to participate more...it's in the last two years of college where many drop out since they can't keep up the same social life as they did in their first two years

the ease of the first two years could have worked to my advantage and i could have gotten high grades then...but i only got lazy from not having to push myself and i got bad grades through laziness ;)

Counterfit
Jan 28, 2004, 12:24 PM
Originally posted by jefhatfield
as president of the local junior college, he got paid more than the president of the united states :p There are a lot of people in this country that make more (in earned income anyway) than the Pres. If it wasn't for existing wealth Dubya wouldn't have even benefitted all that much from his own tax plan.

jefhatfield
Jan 28, 2004, 12:37 PM
Originally posted by Counterfit
There are a lot of people in this country that make more (in earned income anyway) than the Pres. If it wasn't for existing wealth Dubya wouldn't have even benefitted all that much from his own tax plan.

i rather think W can do without the presidential salary...that man is hooked up, dude

..and perhaps that is why he is so out of touch with people who actually have to work for a living...but i guess having a brother as a governor, another brother who is a shady multi-millionaire, and loads of friends who are multi-millionaries who "owe" the bushies, a father as a former president, and a mother as former first lady, i would think that if W wanted to instead just sit on a beach somewhere and sip margaritas, he could do that and laugh at the rest of us poor sods:p :p

Dippo
Jan 29, 2004, 04:31 AM
Originally posted by pooky
Very good point, but I have to disagree with you in a minor way. The GRE CAN be hugely important, in that poor performance can keep you out of a program. You're right, excellent performance will not make up for other aspects, but mediocrity can kill you.

Also, I'd have to say that in many schools, GPA is weighted the same way. A great GPA won't get you into grad school. Far and away, the single most important piece of the application is the personal statement, along with any personal interviews at the school (if they're offered). I've seen students with low test scores and low GPAs get into top rated science programs on the basis of a great essay and a good personal repoir with potential advisor's. I've also seen very competitive students denied spots because of poor interviews.

Personal statements are really only important in borderline case.

Unless you are going to a very very good school where all the applicants have a 4.0 and super GRE scores, then the personal statements and interviews are used to decide who to accept. But you would have to have the 4.0 and super GRE scores to even be considered.

Dippo
Jan 29, 2004, 04:35 AM
Originally posted by Counterfit
Since when does the SAT accurately measure intelligence?

In my opinon, the SAT only measures you test taking ability mixed with your guessing ability and your personal luck threshold.

Aka: A random monkey could score a 1600 if he took it enough times :cool:

scem0
Jan 29, 2004, 07:34 AM
Originally posted by Dippo
The sad thing is that GPA and SAT are not a good indicator of how well someone will do in college.

I knew a lot of people that had high GPA and SAT scorces but when they got to college they couldn't cut it anymore.

There are so many other factors that go into being successful in college that can't be meaured by any test. (Example: time management skills)

I agree, but I think SAT is the best thing the admissions clerks can go off of.

I am depending on my SAT scores to get into a good college though (My goal is UT, and I think I can get in easy enough), and I scored well on the PSAT (but I'm mad because it was 20 in the building and I was wearing a tiny little T-Shirt and shorts, and on top of that I forgot my calculator, so I had to do all the math in my head and on paper, so I didn't finish the math portion).

I think the test is NOT a great indicator of overall intellegence, but a student's GPA sure as hell isn't.

I think extracurricular activities should also play a big part. I'm a member of the math club, the 'leadership council', I take wushu at the college I want to go to, and I already have already taken some college classes at a community college. Shouldn't that count for anything?

I really do think that GPA should barely count at all. I could transfer to a really easy school, take easy classes (all honors of course, to get the extra point on my GPA), ace them all, and get into the school I want easily. I could just take easy classes at my current high school. I'd rather take classes in things that I want to learn. It's sad that the people who have 2 and 3 off periods, and who have easy classes for the 4 or so classes that they are taking have higher GPAs than me.

I wish there was some way to measure not only someone's intillect, but also how much they want to learn.

scem0

jayscheuerle
Jan 29, 2004, 09:25 AM
SATs used to be akin to intelligence tests, maybe 15 years ago, when there were no preparatory classes or books to help you along the way. Now that you can study for them, the challenge to think "on the fly" is severely diminished. They're more worthless than ever.

What they purport to measure, as IQ tests do, is one's potential, based on an ability to see patterns, make connections... more of a "quick thinker" type of filter. While useful, this trait is not necessarily one shared by the most successful people. These people are more likely to have intense drive and passion about what they are doing. With these qualities, even those who have a harder time accomplishing tasks will find a way to make them work.

In both my high school class and the one after mine, the valedictorians were very book-smart. High IQs and high SAT scores. But they had no social skills to take these potential talents anywhere. It's almost as thought they considered being "smart" to be enough to get them through. My valedictorian went away to a prestigious university, freaked out, and came back to our local community college within the first semester. The next one shot himself in the head the first year out of high school.

GPAs usually measure wrote memory. If you retain things well, you'll likely have a high GPA. This is a useful skill in some fields, but not all. Doctors, who need to have a lot of information accessible immediately, as well as Lawyers, would likely have high GPAs.

SATs are a good indicator for people entering fields where understanding connections and making intuitive leaps are important. This would be scientists, mathematicians, engineers, etc.

Good interviewing skills, good people skills, along with average GPAs and SATs are important for most of the jobs out there, including management.

Nothing is cut and dry. It would be folly to rely on single measurements to judge a person by.

jefhatfield
Jan 29, 2004, 01:10 PM
Originally posted by scem0
I agree, but I think SAT is the best thing the admissions clerks can go off of.

I am depending on my SAT scores to get into a good college though (My goal is UT, and I think I can get in easy enough), and I scored well on the PSAT (but I'm mad because it was 20 in the building and I was wearing a tiny little T-Shirt and shorts, and on top of that I forgot my calculator, so I had to do all the math in my head and on paper, so I didn't finish the math portion).

I think the test is NOT a great indicator of overall intellegence, but a student's GPA sure as hell isn't.

I think extracurricular activities should also play a big part. I'm a member of the math club, the 'leadership council', I take wushu at the college I want to go to, and I already have already taken some college classes at a community college. Shouldn't that count for anything?

I really do think that GPA should barely count at all. I could transfer to a really easy school, take easy classes (all honors of course, to get the extra point on my GPA), ace them all, and get into the school I want easily. I could just take easy classes at my current high school. I'd rather take classes in things that I want to learn. It's sad that the people who have 2 and 3 off periods, and who have easy classes for the 4 or so classes that they are taking have higher GPAs than me.

I wish there was some way to measure not only someone's intillect, but also how much they want to learn.

scem0

life is not fair and the day you finish high school, you will see that on a level you haven't before

in many ways, it's a toss of the dice and circumstances which can get you into college and have you finish college

in my case, getting into a school above my gpa was luck because the system would forgive my low high school gpa if i got a good test score on the sat...i did and i got into the school...now is that fair? probably not, but it was and is the system as it stands now concerning that darn sat

circumstances can also play a part in getting in or staying in college...while i was an upperclassman i met a woman who was a student and then we got married...suddenly, other things seemed more important, like getting a decent apartment and making money to pay for it...so we dropped out of college and got jobs

if i didn't get married i could have finished school much sooner than i did many years later, but i wouldn't change a thing with my life and my decisions...even though we divorced three years later, i am glad that she did eventually finish her studies fifteen years later, but in a major much more condusive to better pay than the original major she had, but also the same with me...we were both more grown up when we finished school and realized that the job market was a reality so we studied new subjects we could more easily get good jobs with...originally she wanted to be an oil painter and i wanted to be a novelist, but then again at the liberal arts college we went to in liberal northern california, every student i ran into was an artiste:p

jefhatfield
Jan 29, 2004, 01:42 PM
...so basically, use the system to your advantage

if you can't get into your chosen school via high school, get in as a transfer

it's very hard to get into an elite school from high school anyways, but taking the path as a transfer is much easier since colleges would rather draw from other colleges than from an unproven high school student

too many high scoring high school students fall on their faces when they are approached with living away from home and having all that freedom and resposibility...there are drugs, sex, booze, cults, roomates, and many other factors tha siderail students

if you go to another college, do well there and prove yourself, then you are a much better bet for admissions clerks and by then you may have different ideas for what you want to major in

jefhatfield
Jan 29, 2004, 01:46 PM
oops

kidA
Jan 29, 2004, 02:32 PM
Originally posted by jefhatfield
there are so many extra criteria that one can add to make the process more accurate, but probably the best indicator would be age...if american college students entered their freshman year at 20 like some countires, then the graduation rate would be much higher and it would likely prove a better indicator than a resume or drug testing
i think this is a great point. age is a huge difference-maker. i went to college for a year right after HS, then took a few years off and worked and traveled and really learned a lot. then i came back when i was 22. i'm now getting ready for grad school. when i came back at 22 i had a completely different view of school and what it was going to take to really succeed.
the fact of the matter is that SAT scores and GPAs only determine so much. interviews are a good tool, but there are a lot of ways to present yourself in an interview as someone you are not. the fact is that it's an inexact science and will remain that way. success is mostly determined by intangibles. i'm going into public administration (professional degree), and i talked to some of the admissions officers at the schools i'm applying to and they really place a heavy amount of weight on personal essays. the ability to write and write well and express ideas properly is drastically under-taught in our schools in my opinion.

sethypoo
Jan 29, 2004, 02:35 PM
I feel that they need to look at a student's GPA, but also whether or not the student was involved in his/her high school. Were they officers in any clubs? Did they volunteer and otherwise get involved? Or did they just sit at home and do homework for a high GPA? These are some questions that admissions clerks should look at also.

jefhatfield
Jan 29, 2004, 09:36 PM
Originally posted by kidA
i think this is a great point. age is a huge difference-maker. i went to college for a year right after HS, then took a few years off and worked and traveled and really learned a lot. then i came back when i was 22. i'm now getting ready for grad school. when i came back at 22 i had a completely different view of school and what it was going to take to really succeed.
the fact of the matter is that SAT scores and GPAs only determine so much. interviews are a good tool, but there are a lot of ways to present yourself in an interview as someone you are not. the fact is that it's an inexact science and will remain that way. success is mostly determined by intangibles. i'm going into public administration (professional degree), and i talked to some of the admissions officers at the schools i'm applying to and they really place a heavy amount of weight on personal essays. the ability to write and write well and express ideas properly is drastically under-taught in our schools in my opinion.

congrats on your degree and don't feel bad you took time off, you are still very young

good luck on your further advanced studies in public admistration

sethypoo
Jan 30, 2004, 12:19 AM
Originally posted by kidA
i think this is a great point. age is a huge difference-maker. i went to college for a year right after HS, then took a few years off and worked and traveled and really learned a lot. then i came back when i was 22. i'm now getting ready for grad school. when i came back at 22 i had a completely different view of school and what it was going to take to really succeed.

So how are you viewing school differently? What changed in the years you took off?

idkew
Jan 30, 2004, 09:59 AM
Originally posted by sethypoo
So how are you viewing school differently? What changed in the years you took off?

i can't speak for him, but now, school is completely different. partying is not needed. the social life is not important anymore. homework is done before it is due...

Durandal7
Jan 30, 2004, 07:14 PM
Here is how I would examine things if I were an admissions officer:

I would look at SAT/ACT some, only to confirm that the student is in fact literate. No need to score very high.

I would ignore GPA.

I would look at the essay a great deal and hold an interview to gauge the student's aspirations and general attitude towards college.

Finally, I would place the most emphasis on extra-curriculars related to the desired field of study. These show a dedication and interest in the subject that exceeds the bare minimum requirement of the high schools. Personally, I think that a student in a writing ,science or engineering competition with other students is probably learning a lot more then he is in a public school classroom.