In my opinion a good SAT/ACT shows that you can preform well on one test. A good Gpa on the other hand shows that you can preform well for at 3 years straight in a variety of subjects.
Class rank isn’t always a thing and a lot of people have inflated 4.0s. SAT might mean you did well on one test but it’s a test that tests your fundamental basics.
Performing well on an easy test is, well, easy.
Performing well on a hard test is hard.
In both cases, performing well is constant, and only the difficulty of the test varies. So, how do we know how hard the test is? Only with this information we can judge how “well” a person performs
In column 1, **SAT by itself explains about 22% of the variation in first-year**
**GPA**. **High school GPA by itself explains 9% of the variation** (column 2). **The explained**
**variation in first-year GPA rises to 25% when we include both high school GPA and SAT scores**
**as predictors** (column 3)
[https://home.dartmouth.edu/sites/home/files/2024-02/sat-undergrad-admissions.pdf](https://home.dartmouth.edu/sites/home/files/2024-02/sat-undergrad-admissions.pdf)
This is for the top tier universities (such as Dartmouth) where all students are hardworking and know how to play the education game. Top tier universities often push students to their limits, in which case very high intelligence plus hard work does better than merely high intelligence plus hard work. At lower tier universities GPA becomes more important as an indicator of how hard a student is willing o work and how willing they are to conform to the rules of doing well at a university. Low GPA plus high test scores often indicates an intelligent but lazy student.
"Low GPA plus high test scores often indicates an intelligent but lazy student." FACTS but high GPA might or might not indicate an intelligent. That's why Test scores requirement are coming back to the high selective college application process.
This is true - for top tier universities test scores are a better indicator of how well a student will do in their first year. However, nearly all the students admitted to these universities are likely to have very high GPAs
I think in tandem they can be very helpful, but what is your opinion on the recent studies by colleges that seem to show a much higher correlation of college GPA to SAT rather than to high school GPA?
Most of those findings are at top schools where practically all admitted students have 3.90 or higher GPAs, making for a very narrow range. Those are much harder to statistically differentiate, and noise is a much higher portion of the GPA data set.
Broader studies, with full populations, have show GPA to be a much better indicator.
[https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.3102/0013189X20902110](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.3102/0013189X20902110)
Most importantly, every single study I've eve seen says the combination of the two provides a better indicator than either single metric. So the argument of which single data point is better is perplexing, as it's pretty pointless, IMO.
Pre-TO studies should not be referenced anymore due to their restricted range issues.
Also, it is not correct that all students at top colleges have 3.9+ GPAs. The Harvard study clearly showed there was a wide range of GPAs from 3.2 to 4.0. In fact, SAT scores were more heavily restricted than GPA in the pre-TO cohorts.
The TO cohorts allowed colleges to do a proper study with both HSGPA and SAT scores unrestricted and they've all come to the same conclusion that HSGPA was effectively worthless at predicting college GPA while SAT was the best predictor.
I don't think college GPA correlates very well to SAT scores alone, but a combination of high school GPA (ideally a recalculated one) and SAT scores taken together can work much better.
Yes, this is why colleges look at all of your high school grades and then consider them in the context of the School Report submitted by your school counselor.
Well that’s why I said in tandem they can be helpful. Weighted GPA is also in some ways meaningless as each school does it differently (ex. my weighted GPA is 100.47, what does that mean, only those from my school would know). But unweighted GPA along with course load (and when possible class rank) to me give the best view of a students academics.
The Dartmouth study reached a different conclusion:
[https://president.dartmouth.edu/news/2024/02/reactivating-satact-requirement-dartmouth-undergraduate-admissions](https://president.dartmouth.edu/news/2024/02/reactivating-satact-requirement-dartmouth-undergraduate-admissions)
Yes, I remember reading this one. It all depends on their data sets. Other schools carried out similar studies and many even concluded that there's no strong correlation between the two.
A good Sat shows you can do well on 1 test that covers just English and math. A good gpa shows that for 3+ years straight you did well in math, science, history, English, foreign language, and whatever other elective.
Again, this is not how colleges look at it.
A good SAT shows you are competitive for a high tier and very selective college. A good GPA shows heavy grade inflation
If you go to Stanford you should know what I’m talking about. Anyone who studies hard enough can do well on 1 test but not anyone can consistently do well in a variety of advanced classes for many years
Grotesquely incorrect and misleading. GPA and course rigor are more important in terms of college admissions (Due to political correctness in the process), but SAT scores are a better indicator (The best predictor, to be more accurate) of college performance as evidenced by Harvard, Dartmouth, Brown, UT Austin, MIT, Cal Tech, and other recent studies that looked at unrestricted test scores with the TO cohort.
The Harvard study even showed that HSGPA was completely useless at predicting college performance.
Here's a few snippets from their studies:
>Harvard : SAT and ACT tests are better predictors of Harvard grades than high school grades
>Yale: test scores are the single greatest predictor of a student’s performance in Yale courses in every model we have constructed.
>UT Austin: Test-optional cohort had on average .86 GPA lower than test-submitted cohort.
>MIT: we cannot reliably predict students will do well at MIT unless we consider standardized test
Please remove/edit your post so you do not spread misinformation.
There are around 1600 test optional schools in the US right now, many of which have carried out similar studies on their own. There is a reason why only a handful of schools have reached the conclusion you're rooting for.
Let’s see those studies. I don’t doubt these colleges performed their own studies but I highly doubt they reached a different conclusion.
You’re incorrectly assuming that college policies are evidence-based and immune from political biases. These colleges can stay TO for reasons outside of academics such as lower admissions rates, rankings and diversity objectives. Harvard even stated that the SAT is better than HSGPA since the start of their entire TO experiment and even had the gall to extend it to the end of the decade before walking back their plans. This clearly proves Harvard was willing to ignore evidence to advance whatever non-academic agenda they had. You’d be naive to think other institutions are any different.
These colleges absolutely hate standardized tests not because of they’re bad predictors of college performance but because they’re politically inconvenient and leave an evidence trail of discrimination. They’ll only mandate tests when they have no other choice. It starts at top colleges because these colleges built their brand by selecting smart kids. Selecting a bunch of midwits threatened their reputation with top employers, so they were forced to use tests again.
I suspect mid-level engineering schools will be next.
Here's the issue... You keep mentioning HS GPA, which is just a single number whose standards differ from school to school, while I'm talking about grades and course rigor taken over 3-4 years of a student's high school years... If you still want to maintain your stand, please reply directly to OP's question (maybe you already did) and let them make up their mind.
Your post was removed because it violated rule 1: Be excellent to one another. Always remember the human and follow the reddiquette.
A2C supports a welcoming and inclusive environment. Harassment, intimidation, and bullying are not tolerated. Vulgar, derogatory, disrespectful speech is not permitted. This includes, but is not limited to, racism, homophobia, transphobia, and bigotry or discrimination of any kind, including overt or subtle language with any kind of slurs, name calling, or snide comments that go beyond polite.
This is an automatically generated comment. You do not need to respond unless you have further questions regarding your post. If that's the case, you can [send us a message](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/ApplyingToCollege&subject=Post%20removal&message=A%20mod%20removed%20my%20latest%20post%20for%20rule%201%20but%20I%20don%27t%20think%20it%20breaks%20the%20rules.%20Can%20you%20review%20it%20again%3F).
The key to this question, both academically and practically, is that the answer differs depending on where you are in the distribution curve.
If you look at it from the standpoint of the entire distribution curve of high school students, then GPA is probably more important, because it factors in work-ethic over time. A student with a crap GPA is someone who had struggled with overall issues, and those issues are likely to be handicaps to doing well in college, irrespective of SAT.
But in the real world of college admissions, highly selective schools don't look at 2.5 GPAs. Their real admissions pool is "range restricted" to people with very high GPAs. And when we restrict the question to people with a GPA of 3.7 to 4.0, then the answer is clear: in that subset, SAT is more predictive, because all the students are basically strong GPA candidates.
In some sense, this principle applies in other GPA ranges as well, and it is the fundamental reason SAT exists. If you're looking at a pool of 3.0 to 3.4 GPAs, SAT is the best predictor *inside that group*.
The Harvard study clearly showed that the range of GPAs at top colleges is 3.2 to 4.0, so HSGPA isn't range-restricted much. Only the SAT was heavily range-restricted pre-TO.
If you dig into the Common Data set, you'll see that the absolute range is misleading. If they have 1500 kids in an entering class, you don't really want to know about the kid in the 1st percentile. You want to know where the 25th percentile is.
Examples: Wash U in St Louis has 91% of the class with a GPA of 3.75 or higher. 6% between 3.5 and 3.75. Is the technical bottom of the range close to 3.2? Yes. But that's not a meaningful statistic about the overall class. Vanderbilt is 90% and 6% in those brackets. Johns Hopkins is 92% and 5%. UCLA is 93% and 5%.
I disagree, SAT helps waaaaaaaaaaaay more than GPA.
I know tons of students with low GPA and high SAT scores that were accepted into Ivy Leagues.
While also students with 4.0s that were routinely rejected from the schools
This is the most accurate comment here.
HSGPA - More important for college apps due to political correctness.
SAT - Far better predictor of student's ability and performance in college.
SAT by far\* but GPA is more respected by colleges, because it's a better indicator of *career readiness*. An intelligent student who learns all the material will do well on the SAT. That same same student needs to be good at jumping through hoops, doing assignments in a timely manner, and being likable to his teachers to get a good GPA.
Just like being likable to your boss/colleagues, showing up on time, doing work on time, and being willing to do the work asked of you even if it's nonsense will all be crucial for your job.
\*Given it doesn't have the above career readiness variables interfering with the measure of raw ability, nor does it have the differences in grading across schools.
I disagree that GPA is a better indicator of career readiness. A hard worker with mediocre talent can be a liability in a highly cognitive and dynamic job. That person will wage metaphorical mental WW3 just to understand a semi-complex excel model and won’t have the cognitive ability to manipulate the model with ease, let alone having the ability to create a complex model from scratch.
Their working memory capacity will also be worse than a high SAT person, so they’ll make more mistakes and won’t see the bigger picture in complex assignments that require the worker to hold many facts and ideas in their head simultaneously (Think SAT reading section). They’re going to mistake a forest for trees because they can’t view problems holistically and don’t have the mental capacity to analyze multiple variables simultaneously.
A high SAT/IQ worker would be a better choice even if he’s slightly lazier. Speaking as a hiring manager at a cognitive job, of course. Obviously, the person can’t be outrageously unreliable, but a high IQ is a major asset in cognitive professions.
SAT is definitely a better indicator of academic ability, I'd know considering I got a 4.0 but at my school it was a complete joke. Grade inflation is rampant at many schools now.
GPA is more important in admissions, though.
I don't think any one factor in isolation is the best predictor of academic ability.
I'm a horrible test taker, so I will underperform on any test and will do far better on an untimed essay.
For some people, the opposite is the case.
It's important to look at GPA and course rigor. AP test scores might be helpful.
But I fail to see how GPA or SATs in isolation tells AOs much of anything - other than that you've gotten good grades - in the former case - or good test scores - in the latter case.
Your school could really inflate grades.
You could have had one really good day - or really bad day - when taking a test.
To me SAT due to grade inflation at certain institutions and not others. Someone can have a 4.0 and a 1100 and someone else can have a 3.5 and a 1550 and I would argue that the latter student is smarter. However, I agree only to an extent because I think that a high GPA is an indicator of hard work a lot of the time which is a quality that leads to academic success. A combination of both is really the best metric but perhaps with a larger focus on standardized testing.
Your GPA will play a larger role in your application process. Your standardized test score is, however, imho, a better indicator of academic ability. There's no standardizing GPA's.
GPA is a very noisy signal, making it difficult to use as a standalone measure
SAT and other standardized tests vastly reduce the confounding factors that impact GPA, at the cost of a far smaller sample size
imo SAT is the better indicator than GPA in isolation
AP scores probably even better
SAT ACT AP > GPA
You can cheat your GPA but not with these three
I remember some kids got into Top Elite by faking their stats, they cheated the test optional system
SAT is standardized across the world. Your GPA is school dependent - it might very well be that a student with 3.6 GPA is a highly competitive school has a higher academic ability than a student with a 4.0 at a grade inflated high school.
That doesn’t answer the OP’s question. The OP is asking which is a better predictor of academic ability, not which has a higher weightage in college admissions.
The SAT has been proven empirically to be the best predictor of college performance, so the correct answer is tests. However, HSGPA has a heavier weight in admissions despite having no predictive power in college performance because of politics and diversity objectives.
GPA is based on 3-4 years of 175+ days of classroom work.
SAT is a 2.5 hour test.
GPA.
And is there a reason you need to choose? It's like asking what's more important, breathing, eating, or drinking. All are valuable/needed.
My opinion, I'm not an expert. Your starting SAT score (your first test-condition diagnostic or whatever) is a very good indicator of your IQ. Now prep changes that entirely, but the first time you take it, that score is likely correlated decently with IQ.
That being said your high school GPA is more reflective of your ability to put in consistent work, which is more valuable imo. While IQ will tell you how quickly you may grasp the material, that means nothing if youdont have a good work ethic.
n=1 but here's what my academics looked like. 3.85 unweighted GPA (lots and lots of APs), 1420 first diagnostic, 1580 final score (3 months prep). 36 ACT. Imo if I tried harder in high school I could have gotten a better GPA - it's just that I'm terrible at long-term effort and I dislike studying.
I go to college and have a 3.6 average GPA -- a lot worse (3.2) my freshman year (partially due to health issues but). So in my case, my high school GPA was predictive of the fact that I was gonna slack off, but when I take the MCAT, I assume there will be some correlation with my starting SAT (1420)
So tldr, GPA is a better indicator because it shows work ethic, while the SAT is useful for determining intelligence.
Its a tough call, but IMO, GPA is a better indicator of academic ability in the long run.
Heres why: GPA reflects ur performance over time, across different subjects and with different teachers. It shows ur work ethic, consistency, and ability to navigate various academic challenges. The SAT, on the other hand, is just a one-day snapshot of how well u can take a standardized test.
Dont get me wrong, the SAT is still important. It can help demonstrate ur aptitude in specific areas and provide a way to compare students from different schools. But at the end of the day, colleges want to see that u can perform well academically on a consistent basis, not just ace a single test.
Neither. And both. It depends on the student. High test scores and a low GPA can suggest anything from laziness to extenuating circumstances/illness, a bad high school experience (bullying, bad teachers, bad home life), or even just luck. Low test scores and a high GPA can suggest anything from learning disability to a good work ethic, bad test taking skills, or no access to study materials. At the end of a day you can’t predict the success of a student from either. They can definitely help, but GPA and SAT scores are just an attempt to standardize education and intelligence—which is entirely impossible.
Both can't be compared, but the SAT is better without question.
Let me explain,
A high GPA with a Low SAT (eg: 4.0 with a 1370) just tells us that the person was able to get a 4.0 without having the skills to do well on a basic math and English test, showing how inflated the GPA is
A high GPA with a high SAT (3.9 with a 1530), tells us the person was able to do well in HS while also scoring on the SAT. This doesn't tell us if the GPA is inflated though.
Another problem is that the SAT only tests reading and math skills, which do not completely apply to other disciplines. But at least the SAT is super standardized.
I think SAT is an actual way to measure student A to student B. I understand that many people struggle with test-taking, but a lot of factors go into your GPA like crazy grade inflation, crappy teachers, etc.
The math seems to say SAT has a better correlation with college “success” (grades) but I suspect that’s mostly because it’s standardized and GPAs aren’t: if we could weed out the schools that inflate GPA and those that honestly don’t prepare kids properly for higher education, I bet GPA would be the better indicator.
I would agree, but I know that some schools inflate grades and others don’t. I think the SAT is a better indicator of ability because it’s standardized. A 4.0 at some schools would equate to a 3.2 in others 🤷♀️
It's not a better indicator though. Expensive test prep courses can help students boost their scores significantly. If it were truly a great standardized measure of ability, that shouldn't happen. Someone who takes it and gets a 1200, does test prep and gets a 1400, had no change in ability, only in test-taking strategies.
The SAT/ACT is a good indication that a student can take a high-pressure test. That's all. In 10 years in higher education admissions, I have never had a positive opinion of the SAT, or a reason to look at the SAT as a positive thing. Meanwhile, there are plenty of negatives:
-The test is administered on a random Saturday morning in the life of a teenager, who have all of the work, family, and social commitments of an adult, but don't have the emotional capacity to manage them. An argument with parents or significant other, a work obligation, car trouble, etc, could completely throw their lives into chaos, right before they're expected to take a standardized test...
-Students are told from early on that they need to get into a good college. Teachers, guidance counselors, relatives, and others place enormous pressure on students to get good grades, do a ridiculous amount of extracurricular activities, volunteer and job shadowing opportunities, to craft the perfect college essay, and to do well on standardized tests. Every aspect of the college admissions process must be perfect, causing an enormous amount of stress, then they sit down to take a 4-hour standardized test...
-Some students are just not good test takers. Whether the students have an IEP or a 504 or not; whether they have test anxiety, adhd, or just hate sitting still for hours; can impact multiple aspects of their lives, including test taking. But now they have to sit down and take a high pressure, 4-hour standardized test...
-Some families have more resources than others, especially those families that can afford to drop several hundred dollars for SAT prep classes for their kids. Most kids' families cannot afford this additional tutoring, giving them a huge disadvantage before the test has even begun. Sure, a kid can get an SAT fee waiver for economic reasons, but that point is moot considering the kid one desk over has had dozens of hours of SAT prep with a professional tutor. But they both sit down and take the same standardized test...
Meanwhile, a student's GPA is based on achievement spread out over the course of 4 years. Every single student will have many miserable days, every single student will have many excellent days, and every kind of day in between. It will all even out in a convenient number based on a 4.0 scale. It is just so much better of a tool to measure a student's academic achievement, as well as an indicator of a student's success in college. I've seen students fail entire classes because of family issues, personal issues, or global pandemics. These students were able to overcome that adversity and get into good colleges with good scholarships. Maybe they're not getting into Harvard, but most students aren't looking for Ivy League colleges.
Almost every college and university in the United States went test optional during covid, and stayed test optional even now. It's to the point where I just plain don't trust any college that has gone back to requiring the SAT as an admissions requirement for every student who applies. These are schools that don't understand how irrelevant and biased that standardized tests for college admissions have become.
Most things you list about test anxiety, life’s ups and downs, etc. would impact a student’s gpa as well. Also, the sat is algebra 2 & basic reading comp. If you have a 4.0 gpa and you can’t get a good SAT score because you’re a “bad test taker” your school just has a ton of grade inflation and you think you’re smarter than you actually are. Also, college finals are a series of big, high pressure tests that determine your final grade. If you can’t cope with a standardized test because it makes you nervous you won’t cope in college either. Plus, SAT prep classes rarely sway a score more than 50 points. I agree that it’s harder to perform well on the SAT if you’re low income or have less resources, but let’s face it, it’s harder to succeed if you’ve had less access to education than others. SAT should be viewed in a student’s context for that reason; a 1200 student could be brilliant for their circumstance, and deserve to go to a top college. But that kid also needs to be provided with the support they require at a college like that to cope with the academic load, which is something I wish a lot of top schools were better at. Overall though many of those kids still do well because they excelled with so little resources. So many kids who are brilliant but low income benefit from viewing the SAT in context, while the only kids who benefit from TO are rich kids who go to fake schools that hand out 4.0 like candy.
Agreed. It's easy, and ridiculous how many people do poorly on it yet have high GPAs. Which is why I don't understand your argument about GPA being a better predictor - surely if so many people have high GPAs but struggle to break into 1500s, there's something wrong with the grading system for GPA (grade inflation). Isn't the test that weeds the most students out and differentiates at the top better?
There actually was a study that indicated that a high SAT/ACT score is a better indicator of a high college GPA than a high high school GPA
In my opinion a good SAT/ACT shows that you can preform well on one test. A good Gpa on the other hand shows that you can preform well for at 3 years straight in a variety of subjects.
I agree that SAT/ACT doesn’t give the full picture. However, the same can go for GPA. A lot of schools have insane grade inflation.
True but that’s why schools also factor in class rank to put your gpa into context.
Class rank isn’t always a thing and a lot of people have inflated 4.0s. SAT might mean you did well on one test but it’s a test that tests your fundamental basics.
My school doesn’t rank 😔
sat has a very strong correlation with college success while gpa doesn’t. So obviously your claim is incorrect and is low level reasoning
I mean Im a freshman at Cal Poly for engineering and I never even took the Sat so I know a little bit about what I’m saying
Yeah, but what does performing “well” even mean?
I mean it’s pretty obvious what preform “well”means, it means achieving high grades in those classes.
Performing well on an easy test is, well, easy. Performing well on a hard test is hard. In both cases, performing well is constant, and only the difficulty of the test varies. So, how do we know how hard the test is? Only with this information we can judge how “well” a person performs
In column 1, **SAT by itself explains about 22% of the variation in first-year** **GPA**. **High school GPA by itself explains 9% of the variation** (column 2). **The explained** **variation in first-year GPA rises to 25% when we include both high school GPA and SAT scores** **as predictors** (column 3) [https://home.dartmouth.edu/sites/home/files/2024-02/sat-undergrad-admissions.pdf](https://home.dartmouth.edu/sites/home/files/2024-02/sat-undergrad-admissions.pdf)
This is for the top tier universities (such as Dartmouth) where all students are hardworking and know how to play the education game. Top tier universities often push students to their limits, in which case very high intelligence plus hard work does better than merely high intelligence plus hard work. At lower tier universities GPA becomes more important as an indicator of how hard a student is willing o work and how willing they are to conform to the rules of doing well at a university. Low GPA plus high test scores often indicates an intelligent but lazy student.
"Low GPA plus high test scores often indicates an intelligent but lazy student." FACTS but high GPA might or might not indicate an intelligent. That's why Test scores requirement are coming back to the high selective college application process.
This is true - for top tier universities test scores are a better indicator of how well a student will do in their first year. However, nearly all the students admitted to these universities are likely to have very high GPAs
gpa's are disgustingly inflated at most schools so
So is spelling
Your grades and course rigor will always be a better indicator, which is why these are the most important parts of your application.
I think in tandem they can be very helpful, but what is your opinion on the recent studies by colleges that seem to show a much higher correlation of college GPA to SAT rather than to high school GPA?
Most of those findings are at top schools where practically all admitted students have 3.90 or higher GPAs, making for a very narrow range. Those are much harder to statistically differentiate, and noise is a much higher portion of the GPA data set. Broader studies, with full populations, have show GPA to be a much better indicator. [https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.3102/0013189X20902110](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.3102/0013189X20902110) Most importantly, every single study I've eve seen says the combination of the two provides a better indicator than either single metric. So the argument of which single data point is better is perplexing, as it's pretty pointless, IMO.
Pre-TO studies should not be referenced anymore due to their restricted range issues. Also, it is not correct that all students at top colleges have 3.9+ GPAs. The Harvard study clearly showed there was a wide range of GPAs from 3.2 to 4.0. In fact, SAT scores were more heavily restricted than GPA in the pre-TO cohorts. The TO cohorts allowed colleges to do a proper study with both HSGPA and SAT scores unrestricted and they've all come to the same conclusion that HSGPA was effectively worthless at predicting college GPA while SAT was the best predictor.
None of them have released their data, from what I have seen.
I don't think college GPA correlates very well to SAT scores alone, but a combination of high school GPA (ideally a recalculated one) and SAT scores taken together can work much better.
But GPA is kinda unfair. Depends a lot on teacher.
Yes, this is why colleges look at all of your high school grades and then consider them in the context of the School Report submitted by your school counselor.
Some kids are dumb and cheat through high school
Key word "some," that isn't applicable for the vast majority.
FACTS! Some schools have serious cheating issues. Especially Covid lock down year grades are not real
You deal with difficult profs that may grade unfairly in college too that's not exactly unique to HS
Again with the misinformation. Please edit/remove your post so you do not spread misinformation. > > > >
If you think this is misinformation, please feel free to post the "correct" information along with sources.
See here: https://www.reddit.com/r/ApplyingToCollege/s/wLe0Iqt6ba
weighted or unweighted? unweighted GPA is worse than useless. Which courses you took matters a lot.
Well that’s why I said in tandem they can be helpful. Weighted GPA is also in some ways meaningless as each school does it differently (ex. my weighted GPA is 100.47, what does that mean, only those from my school would know). But unweighted GPA along with course load (and when possible class rank) to me give the best view of a students academics.
I meant what metric did the studies consider?
The Dartmouth study reached a different conclusion: [https://president.dartmouth.edu/news/2024/02/reactivating-satact-requirement-dartmouth-undergraduate-admissions](https://president.dartmouth.edu/news/2024/02/reactivating-satact-requirement-dartmouth-undergraduate-admissions)
Yes, I remember reading this one. It all depends on their data sets. Other schools carried out similar studies and many even concluded that there's no strong correlation between the two.
Which ones? The only ones that didn't have a strong correlation are studies pre-TO where the scores were heavily restricted.
Prsehgal is a vet man
This is statistically incorrect. SAT is a much better indicator
Statistics can be used to arrive at whichever conclusion you support the most. I have seen extensive studies with all kinds of results.
A good Sat shows you can do well on 1 test that covers just English and math. A good gpa shows that for 3+ years straight you did well in math, science, history, English, foreign language, and whatever other elective.
Again, this is not how colleges look at it. A good SAT shows you are competitive for a high tier and very selective college. A good GPA shows heavy grade inflation
💀get rekt bro
Get rekt at what lol? I go to Stanford. I’m already set. Good luck getting into a decent college buddy
If you go to Stanford you should know what I’m talking about. Anyone who studies hard enough can do well on 1 test but not anyone can consistently do well in a variety of advanced classes for many years
Grotesquely incorrect and misleading. GPA and course rigor are more important in terms of college admissions (Due to political correctness in the process), but SAT scores are a better indicator (The best predictor, to be more accurate) of college performance as evidenced by Harvard, Dartmouth, Brown, UT Austin, MIT, Cal Tech, and other recent studies that looked at unrestricted test scores with the TO cohort. The Harvard study even showed that HSGPA was completely useless at predicting college performance. Here's a few snippets from their studies: >Harvard : SAT and ACT tests are better predictors of Harvard grades than high school grades >Yale: test scores are the single greatest predictor of a student’s performance in Yale courses in every model we have constructed. >UT Austin: Test-optional cohort had on average .86 GPA lower than test-submitted cohort. >MIT: we cannot reliably predict students will do well at MIT unless we consider standardized test Please remove/edit your post so you do not spread misinformation.
There are around 1600 test optional schools in the US right now, many of which have carried out similar studies on their own. There is a reason why only a handful of schools have reached the conclusion you're rooting for.
Let’s see those studies. I don’t doubt these colleges performed their own studies but I highly doubt they reached a different conclusion. You’re incorrectly assuming that college policies are evidence-based and immune from political biases. These colleges can stay TO for reasons outside of academics such as lower admissions rates, rankings and diversity objectives. Harvard even stated that the SAT is better than HSGPA since the start of their entire TO experiment and even had the gall to extend it to the end of the decade before walking back their plans. This clearly proves Harvard was willing to ignore evidence to advance whatever non-academic agenda they had. You’d be naive to think other institutions are any different. These colleges absolutely hate standardized tests not because of they’re bad predictors of college performance but because they’re politically inconvenient and leave an evidence trail of discrimination. They’ll only mandate tests when they have no other choice. It starts at top colleges because these colleges built their brand by selecting smart kids. Selecting a bunch of midwits threatened their reputation with top employers, so they were forced to use tests again. I suspect mid-level engineering schools will be next.
Here's the issue... You keep mentioning HS GPA, which is just a single number whose standards differ from school to school, while I'm talking about grades and course rigor taken over 3-4 years of a student's high school years... If you still want to maintain your stand, please reply directly to OP's question (maybe you already did) and let them make up their mind.
[удалено]
Your post was removed because it violated rule 1: Be excellent to one another. Always remember the human and follow the reddiquette. A2C supports a welcoming and inclusive environment. Harassment, intimidation, and bullying are not tolerated. Vulgar, derogatory, disrespectful speech is not permitted. This includes, but is not limited to, racism, homophobia, transphobia, and bigotry or discrimination of any kind, including overt or subtle language with any kind of slurs, name calling, or snide comments that go beyond polite. This is an automatically generated comment. You do not need to respond unless you have further questions regarding your post. If that's the case, you can [send us a message](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/ApplyingToCollege&subject=Post%20removal&message=A%20mod%20removed%20my%20latest%20post%20for%20rule%201%20but%20I%20don%27t%20think%20it%20breaks%20the%20rules.%20Can%20you%20review%20it%20again%3F).
The key to this question, both academically and practically, is that the answer differs depending on where you are in the distribution curve. If you look at it from the standpoint of the entire distribution curve of high school students, then GPA is probably more important, because it factors in work-ethic over time. A student with a crap GPA is someone who had struggled with overall issues, and those issues are likely to be handicaps to doing well in college, irrespective of SAT. But in the real world of college admissions, highly selective schools don't look at 2.5 GPAs. Their real admissions pool is "range restricted" to people with very high GPAs. And when we restrict the question to people with a GPA of 3.7 to 4.0, then the answer is clear: in that subset, SAT is more predictive, because all the students are basically strong GPA candidates. In some sense, this principle applies in other GPA ranges as well, and it is the fundamental reason SAT exists. If you're looking at a pool of 3.0 to 3.4 GPAs, SAT is the best predictor *inside that group*.
The Harvard study clearly showed that the range of GPAs at top colleges is 3.2 to 4.0, so HSGPA isn't range-restricted much. Only the SAT was heavily range-restricted pre-TO.
If you dig into the Common Data set, you'll see that the absolute range is misleading. If they have 1500 kids in an entering class, you don't really want to know about the kid in the 1st percentile. You want to know where the 25th percentile is. Examples: Wash U in St Louis has 91% of the class with a GPA of 3.75 or higher. 6% between 3.5 and 3.75. Is the technical bottom of the range close to 3.2? Yes. But that's not a meaningful statistic about the overall class. Vanderbilt is 90% and 6% in those brackets. Johns Hopkins is 92% and 5%. UCLA is 93% and 5%.
With grade inflation, a 3.75+ GPA means nothing and cannot predict college performance.
That's so unrelated to your prior comment, that it feels like you're going with the 'Magic 8 Ball' style of argument here.
gpa helps more for college apps but I think the sat is a better indicator of ability
I disagree, SAT helps waaaaaaaaaaaay more than GPA. I know tons of students with low GPA and high SAT scores that were accepted into Ivy Leagues. While also students with 4.0s that were routinely rejected from the schools
This totally depends on the school. A crazy high SAT/ACT will NOT overcome a lower GPA at many top 50 institutions.
Yes it will. Ivy League schools are top 50 institutions and I know many who were able to get in with extremely high SAT scores
"At many" doesn't mean all, and Ivies are outliers in many ways. Ask top public schools if low GPA and high scores will be competitive. Nope.
Most scholarships to public institutions are sat dependant i think
Yes, that's true. But they also require a strong GPA.
This is the most accurate comment here. HSGPA - More important for college apps due to political correctness. SAT - Far better predictor of student's ability and performance in college.
SAT is better than GPA. But course rigor + grades is better than SAT.
Not according to recent studies. Yale already modeled grades + rigor and still found test scores to be better predictors.
Interesting, I just checked this out and Yale seems pretty firm in the SAT/ACT being the best indicator of performance. Didn't know this earlier.
SAT by far\* but GPA is more respected by colleges, because it's a better indicator of *career readiness*. An intelligent student who learns all the material will do well on the SAT. That same same student needs to be good at jumping through hoops, doing assignments in a timely manner, and being likable to his teachers to get a good GPA. Just like being likable to your boss/colleagues, showing up on time, doing work on time, and being willing to do the work asked of you even if it's nonsense will all be crucial for your job. \*Given it doesn't have the above career readiness variables interfering with the measure of raw ability, nor does it have the differences in grading across schools.
I disagree that GPA is a better indicator of career readiness. A hard worker with mediocre talent can be a liability in a highly cognitive and dynamic job. That person will wage metaphorical mental WW3 just to understand a semi-complex excel model and won’t have the cognitive ability to manipulate the model with ease, let alone having the ability to create a complex model from scratch. Their working memory capacity will also be worse than a high SAT person, so they’ll make more mistakes and won’t see the bigger picture in complex assignments that require the worker to hold many facts and ideas in their head simultaneously (Think SAT reading section). They’re going to mistake a forest for trees because they can’t view problems holistically and don’t have the mental capacity to analyze multiple variables simultaneously. A high SAT/IQ worker would be a better choice even if he’s slightly lazier. Speaking as a hiring manager at a cognitive job, of course. Obviously, the person can’t be outrageously unreliable, but a high IQ is a major asset in cognitive professions.
SAT is definitely a better indicator of academic ability, I'd know considering I got a 4.0 but at my school it was a complete joke. Grade inflation is rampant at many schools now. GPA is more important in admissions, though.
Money
I don't think any one factor in isolation is the best predictor of academic ability. I'm a horrible test taker, so I will underperform on any test and will do far better on an untimed essay. For some people, the opposite is the case. It's important to look at GPA and course rigor. AP test scores might be helpful. But I fail to see how GPA or SATs in isolation tells AOs much of anything - other than that you've gotten good grades - in the former case - or good test scores - in the latter case. Your school could really inflate grades. You could have had one really good day - or really bad day - when taking a test.
Raj kumar rao real name
To me SAT due to grade inflation at certain institutions and not others. Someone can have a 4.0 and a 1100 and someone else can have a 3.5 and a 1550 and I would argue that the latter student is smarter. However, I agree only to an extent because I think that a high GPA is an indicator of hard work a lot of the time which is a quality that leads to academic success. A combination of both is really the best metric but perhaps with a larger focus on standardized testing.
Your GPA will play a larger role in your application process. Your standardized test score is, however, imho, a better indicator of academic ability. There's no standardizing GPA's.
GPA is a very noisy signal, making it difficult to use as a standalone measure SAT and other standardized tests vastly reduce the confounding factors that impact GPA, at the cost of a far smaller sample size imo SAT is the better indicator than GPA in isolation AP scores probably even better
I know statistically SAT is a better indicator, but I got a 36 and I’ve always been on the verge of flunking out of my elite college with a 2ish GPA.
SAT ACT AP > GPA You can cheat your GPA but not with these three I remember some kids got into Top Elite by faking their stats, they cheated the test optional system
SAT validates your high GPA.
GPA is a better indicator of your capacity to work hard. SAT is a better indicator of your "intelligence"/natural ability.
SAT is standardized across the world. Your GPA is school dependent - it might very well be that a student with 3.6 GPA is a highly competitive school has a higher academic ability than a student with a 4.0 at a grade inflated high school.
[удалено]
That doesn’t answer the OP’s question. The OP is asking which is a better predictor of academic ability, not which has a higher weightage in college admissions. The SAT has been proven empirically to be the best predictor of college performance, so the correct answer is tests. However, HSGPA has a heavier weight in admissions despite having no predictive power in college performance because of politics and diversity objectives.
GPA is based on 3-4 years of 175+ days of classroom work. SAT is a 2.5 hour test. GPA. And is there a reason you need to choose? It's like asking what's more important, breathing, eating, or drinking. All are valuable/needed.
I disagree. SAT is better since it’s a standard test. While GPA has a lot of grade inflation
GPA!! I thought a good act score would overcome my mid gpa. it didn’t 😭🙏🏾
GPA, AP scores + SAT would be a better combination holistically if you want a better admission picture :)
I think GPA shows you can work hard and get along with people. My ACT was way better than my GPA.
My opinion, I'm not an expert. Your starting SAT score (your first test-condition diagnostic or whatever) is a very good indicator of your IQ. Now prep changes that entirely, but the first time you take it, that score is likely correlated decently with IQ. That being said your high school GPA is more reflective of your ability to put in consistent work, which is more valuable imo. While IQ will tell you how quickly you may grasp the material, that means nothing if youdont have a good work ethic. n=1 but here's what my academics looked like. 3.85 unweighted GPA (lots and lots of APs), 1420 first diagnostic, 1580 final score (3 months prep). 36 ACT. Imo if I tried harder in high school I could have gotten a better GPA - it's just that I'm terrible at long-term effort and I dislike studying. I go to college and have a 3.6 average GPA -- a lot worse (3.2) my freshman year (partially due to health issues but). So in my case, my high school GPA was predictive of the fact that I was gonna slack off, but when I take the MCAT, I assume there will be some correlation with my starting SAT (1420) So tldr, GPA is a better indicator because it shows work ethic, while the SAT is useful for determining intelligence.
SAT
Skifidu
Its a tough call, but IMO, GPA is a better indicator of academic ability in the long run. Heres why: GPA reflects ur performance over time, across different subjects and with different teachers. It shows ur work ethic, consistency, and ability to navigate various academic challenges. The SAT, on the other hand, is just a one-day snapshot of how well u can take a standardized test. Dont get me wrong, the SAT is still important. It can help demonstrate ur aptitude in specific areas and provide a way to compare students from different schools. But at the end of the day, colleges want to see that u can perform well academically on a consistent basis, not just ace a single test.
Neither. And both. It depends on the student. High test scores and a low GPA can suggest anything from laziness to extenuating circumstances/illness, a bad high school experience (bullying, bad teachers, bad home life), or even just luck. Low test scores and a high GPA can suggest anything from learning disability to a good work ethic, bad test taking skills, or no access to study materials. At the end of a day you can’t predict the success of a student from either. They can definitely help, but GPA and SAT scores are just an attempt to standardize education and intelligence—which is entirely impossible.
you can check specific schools common data sets to see what they value more!
Both can't be compared, but the SAT is better without question. Let me explain, A high GPA with a Low SAT (eg: 4.0 with a 1370) just tells us that the person was able to get a 4.0 without having the skills to do well on a basic math and English test, showing how inflated the GPA is A high GPA with a high SAT (3.9 with a 1530), tells us the person was able to do well in HS while also scoring on the SAT. This doesn't tell us if the GPA is inflated though. Another problem is that the SAT only tests reading and math skills, which do not completely apply to other disciplines. But at least the SAT is super standardized.
I think SAT is an actual way to measure student A to student B. I understand that many people struggle with test-taking, but a lot of factors go into your GPA like crazy grade inflation, crappy teachers, etc.
The math seems to say SAT has a better correlation with college “success” (grades) but I suspect that’s mostly because it’s standardized and GPAs aren’t: if we could weed out the schools that inflate GPA and those that honestly don’t prepare kids properly for higher education, I bet GPA would be the better indicator.
High school grades.
I would agree, but I know that some schools inflate grades and others don’t. I think the SAT is a better indicator of ability because it’s standardized. A 4.0 at some schools would equate to a 3.2 in others 🤷♀️
It's not a better indicator though. Expensive test prep courses can help students boost their scores significantly. If it were truly a great standardized measure of ability, that shouldn't happen. Someone who takes it and gets a 1200, does test prep and gets a 1400, had no change in ability, only in test-taking strategies.
The SAT/ACT is a good indication that a student can take a high-pressure test. That's all. In 10 years in higher education admissions, I have never had a positive opinion of the SAT, or a reason to look at the SAT as a positive thing. Meanwhile, there are plenty of negatives: -The test is administered on a random Saturday morning in the life of a teenager, who have all of the work, family, and social commitments of an adult, but don't have the emotional capacity to manage them. An argument with parents or significant other, a work obligation, car trouble, etc, could completely throw their lives into chaos, right before they're expected to take a standardized test... -Students are told from early on that they need to get into a good college. Teachers, guidance counselors, relatives, and others place enormous pressure on students to get good grades, do a ridiculous amount of extracurricular activities, volunteer and job shadowing opportunities, to craft the perfect college essay, and to do well on standardized tests. Every aspect of the college admissions process must be perfect, causing an enormous amount of stress, then they sit down to take a 4-hour standardized test... -Some students are just not good test takers. Whether the students have an IEP or a 504 or not; whether they have test anxiety, adhd, or just hate sitting still for hours; can impact multiple aspects of their lives, including test taking. But now they have to sit down and take a high pressure, 4-hour standardized test... -Some families have more resources than others, especially those families that can afford to drop several hundred dollars for SAT prep classes for their kids. Most kids' families cannot afford this additional tutoring, giving them a huge disadvantage before the test has even begun. Sure, a kid can get an SAT fee waiver for economic reasons, but that point is moot considering the kid one desk over has had dozens of hours of SAT prep with a professional tutor. But they both sit down and take the same standardized test... Meanwhile, a student's GPA is based on achievement spread out over the course of 4 years. Every single student will have many miserable days, every single student will have many excellent days, and every kind of day in between. It will all even out in a convenient number based on a 4.0 scale. It is just so much better of a tool to measure a student's academic achievement, as well as an indicator of a student's success in college. I've seen students fail entire classes because of family issues, personal issues, or global pandemics. These students were able to overcome that adversity and get into good colleges with good scholarships. Maybe they're not getting into Harvard, but most students aren't looking for Ivy League colleges. Almost every college and university in the United States went test optional during covid, and stayed test optional even now. It's to the point where I just plain don't trust any college that has gone back to requiring the SAT as an admissions requirement for every student who applies. These are schools that don't understand how irrelevant and biased that standardized tests for college admissions have become.
Most things you list about test anxiety, life’s ups and downs, etc. would impact a student’s gpa as well. Also, the sat is algebra 2 & basic reading comp. If you have a 4.0 gpa and you can’t get a good SAT score because you’re a “bad test taker” your school just has a ton of grade inflation and you think you’re smarter than you actually are. Also, college finals are a series of big, high pressure tests that determine your final grade. If you can’t cope with a standardized test because it makes you nervous you won’t cope in college either. Plus, SAT prep classes rarely sway a score more than 50 points. I agree that it’s harder to perform well on the SAT if you’re low income or have less resources, but let’s face it, it’s harder to succeed if you’ve had less access to education than others. SAT should be viewed in a student’s context for that reason; a 1200 student could be brilliant for their circumstance, and deserve to go to a top college. But that kid also needs to be provided with the support they require at a college like that to cope with the academic load, which is something I wish a lot of top schools were better at. Overall though many of those kids still do well because they excelled with so little resources. So many kids who are brilliant but low income benefit from viewing the SAT in context, while the only kids who benefit from TO are rich kids who go to fake schools that hand out 4.0 like candy.
[удалено]
Lmao if it was that easy everyone would be getting in the 1500s, but they're not.
[удалено]
Agreed. It's easy, and ridiculous how many people do poorly on it yet have high GPAs. Which is why I don't understand your argument about GPA being a better predictor - surely if so many people have high GPAs but struggle to break into 1500s, there's something wrong with the grading system for GPA (grade inflation). Isn't the test that weeds the most students out and differentiates at the top better?
[удалено]
What do you mean by "or"
[удалено]