Ambrosia Software Web Board: My online address - Ambrosia Software Web Board

You're right the emphasis on grades. Where I went to HS, somebody with a 4.0, no honors or advanced courses, and basically nothing that required effort would be higher in student rankings than a student that was taking all advanced and honors courses, put out tons of effort, and had a 3.9.

It definitely is crazy.

I'm in some honors courses now, and I'm looking at 4 APs senior year, so this will be fun. I also heard my school notorious for tough grading on GPAs. I was also told if I went to one of my other options, I would easily be over a 4.0.

As a Freshman with 17.5 credits at my High School (yeah, I started taking classes early and PE is only .5 credits), my GPA is 4.7 with weighted grades. I also did quite well when I took the SAT as a "practice" in eighth grade, so I am happy.

While I'm not going to complain about a high GPA, I agree it is a virtually meaningless measurement. At my school, I'm pretty sure you get about one third of a grade point increase for honors courses. So, an A is worth 4.333 instead of 4, and an A+ is worth 4.666 instead of 4.333 and so on. I know other schools give you a full point more, so A is 5 and A+ is 5.333. These are both 4.0 scales, yet the GPAs are markedly different.

It is nearly impossible to accurately rate someone from their work in High School. The SATs are alright, but now with the addition of the essay, I can't see how they will be "standardized" with obviously objective humans grading them. For example, I have horrible handwriting, and that will give someone a negative feeling towards my essay without them having read a word.

I got perfect scores on my writing profficiency test here. So I'm very glad they've added the writing portion.

My school's grading system:
4.0 = A = 93+
3.5 = B+ = 90 - 93
3.0 = B = 85 - 90
2.5 = C+ = 83 - 85
2.0 = C = 78 - 83
1.5 = D+ = 75 - 78
1.0 = D = 70 - 75
0.0 = F = 69-

Normal courses are 1 credit.
Honors courses are 1 credit, with an extra .5 added onto the grade point earned.
AP courses are 1.5 credits, with an extra 1 added onto the grade point earned.
Most semester electives are .5 credits. Full year electives are usually one credit.

GPA is the sum of the grade points (each being multiplyed by the credit weight) divided by the number of credits.

I got 1450 on the old one; I don't know if I want to take the new one.....

I'm not too great at writing, as my style on the board probably shows.

What choo taklin' bout foo...I love your style..

*slides across floor*

Meh, whatever, I don't think I can write that well....which makes my name a bit amusing i suppose.

Haha! Good one. I got a 1690 I think...If my calculations are correct.

Um, I think it's out of 1600.

Oh really...Haha...then I'm wrong, I just added my PSAT scores and added a Zero..

I forgot how to turn the PSAT score into an average score on the SAT...I knew at one point.

1690? I kind of doubt your calculations are correct, given 1) you can only get 1600 on the old SAT and 2) you seem much smarter then 1690/2400 for the new SAT.

That's what I said; do you remember the formula for converting one's PSAT score into a logical SAT score?

I think you just add a "0" to the end of your scores. For instance, I got 73 writing, 71 reading (if that is even the category... I forget), and 76 math... so I think that just equates to a new SAT score of 730+710+760, or 2200.

I meant for the old one, sorry.

The Journalist, on Feb 14 2005, 10:48 PM, said:

I got 1400 on mine, but I have taken it "for real™" yet.

Sundered Angel, on Feb 14 2005, 06:42 PM, said:

And yet most institutions of higher education use applicants' GPA's for admission purposes, including your beloved Yale and its $37,000/yr law school.

As to an "A" meaning different things with different classes/professors, I've not yet encountered a class where it is impossible to get an "A" in and, with my GPA in mind, I've always done whatever had to be done to get that A. Of course, this has meant doing anything from simply doing well on all the exams to participating in research studies or writing optional papers. No worries. When dealing with competitive admissions practices in graduate schools, every little thing helps (especially as I don't participate in any extracurricular activities or do any volunteer work, so those routes of excellence are closed to me).

-Pufer

Yes, I'm aware that the various schools of Yale University do judge on GPA. It is, however, one of many, many indicators, and even in and of itself is mediated by a whole lot of information. It's an imperfect solution to an intractable problem.

Yes, it is possible in any class to get an "A" - well - any class with a professor who isn't entirely mad, and even with some who are. That doesn't mean an "A" you worked your ass off for should be valued equally to one you coasted for. Academic marks are meant to reflect capability. Putting a lot of effort into a difficult class reflects more capability than a little effort in an easy class.

If I wanted, I could go through my studies picking all the easiest classes, and graduate with a 4.0 GPA. However, I prefer to pick a selection of classes which will provide me with a well-rounded look at academics and life in general - that "liberal education" Yale prizes so highly, and difficult classes be damned. Unfortunately, my GPA suffers for that.

Well, so be it. I didn't get into Yale on my GPA - Australian Schools don't have them - and wherever else I go in life, I doubt my GPA will be of prime significance either.

The Real Darth Bob, on Feb 14 2005, 09:43 PM, said:

Screw the SAT, I'm happy with my 35 on the ACT.

And sometimes it doesn't seem worthwhile to go for the extra A, especially when it involves 5+ hours of work over what's involved for getting a B+. Even more so when the number of credits given for that course is small.

What's more important is what you learn from the course, and that you can graduate feeling you've taken something worthwhile, not something that gives you shinier "points".

Well said. I'd definitely rather learn and get a B than spend hours more per day to learn practically nothing more just to get an A.

Sundered Angel, on Feb 15 2005, 12:43 AM, said:

I hear what you are saying, but can't see how a school's curriculum can be adjusted to be all things to all people. In other words, everything is relative. For instance, I'm unnaturally good at understanding obscure concepts and memorizing enormous quantities of information. Stick me in any lower level humanities, social science, foreign language, or physical science course and I can guarantee you I'll cruise through the class without doing any work (comparitively, if I have to write a paper, I'll do it, I'll just take less time and get a better grade than anybody else, but that's still work) at all and get an A, regardless of the professor. Now I'm not trying to sound cocky here, I assure you that I have the skills to back this all up, but if you were to throw me into a math course of any moderate difficulty at all and I'm totally lost. I put one heck of a lot of work into it and am lucky if I pull off a B. In fact, I took a pre-calculus class covering material that I had already covered in high school and was only able to pull off a 79.95% in the class (the prof took pity on me and gave me a B-).

Now, my GPA currently stands at a 3,95 (out of 4), but if you were to take my math grades out of the equation, I'd have a 4.12. Now, looking at these GPA's, and nothing but A's and A+'s outside of math on this fellow's transcript, you could reasonably infer that this guy either works his ass off in all of his classes to maintain his grades but isn't very good in math, works hard in some while cruises through others but is just average at math, or is working at a level higher than the intelligence level of his classes except for math, in which he sucks big-time. The last one is true, but I think that you can see what I'm getting at here. GPA's shouldn't be used as quantitative variables in any determinations that take them into consideration, but as qualitative guages of success to be taken into consideration when looking at a transcript. Really any of the three above interpretations of my scores would bode well for a graduate school thinking of recruiting me as I'd either be above average, but willing to work hard to be exceptional, or am already at a level where he could probably do well in grad-school already. On the other hand, comparing my 3.95 to someone else with a 3.93, at face value alone, wouldn't accomplish anything.

My other point is also shown by analogy: Some of the philosophy classes that I've taken thus far have proven to be cake for me, but could easily have proven to be enormously difficult to someone who does well in math and theoretical science, but sucks in the humanities. There is no way to accurately gauge how much effort either one of us would've put into the class based upon a grade, and, thus, it is impossible to have a grading system that could reflect effort based on performance. GPA's simply provide an overview of performance (hopefully, skewed towards what you do well in), there is no way to grade effort.

Sundered Angel, on Feb 15 2005, 12:43 AM, said:

I can't tell whether you're speaking in terms of going to different places physically, or where you'll be a couple years from now in terms of your life. If it is the latter, I'd say that if you're location in life is in any type of post-bachalorette degree program at an American school, your GPA is of prime significance. Otherwise, I agree with you completely.

Avatara, on Feb 15 2005, 01:21 AM, said:

Less important if you see your undergraduate degree as but a stepping stone on to higher levels of higher education.

-Pufer

You Americans and your silly grading scales/curves/whatever. Far too confusing...

Lektor, on Feb 16 2005, 06:32 AM, said:

Your Brits and your "Biscuts".

*3T