<p>i was just thinking, why does it really matter what your class rank is? i mean, if your school is filled with geniuses, a 3.8 uw gpa might only put you at top 15-20%, but if you go to a lower ranked high school, you might be the top of your class. my point is it shouldn't matter. you aren't going to be competing solely with students from your school, you'll be competing with everyone in the nation. just because half the population at your school has 4.0s, that doesn't mean your 3.8 is inferior in any way, so why are people putting so much emphasis on class rank? the reason i ask is because i've seen many chances posts with comments like "your class rank is too low" even though they have a 3.8uw gpa.</p>
<p>It helps show how easy or hard the school grading system is. If a 3.2 is in the top 5 in the class, colleges know the teachers grade super hard. Stuff like that!</p>
<p>but can't they get that info through API scores?</p>
<p>AP scores aren't sufficient because they only measure how well you take the test on that one day.</p>
<p>I think class rank is the best measure of a student's ability and potential. It accounts for grade inflation/deflation and is representative of four years of High School, not one exam morning. People at "competitive" schools might feel shafted, but consider these advantages for "competitive" schools:</p>
<ol>
<li>More extracurriculars available</li>
<li>More AP classes offered</li>
<li>SAT Prep classes</li>
<li>Having peers who aren't ignorant that makes for better discussions, which would often turn into better essays</li>
<li>Teachers who know how to write a recommendation</li>
<li>Better guidance counselors</li>
<li>Competitive atmosphere makes students more competitive, which would show up on higher standardized test scores and more national honors like AMC</li>
</ol>
<p>People who go to underperforming schools would not have as many opportunities, so the only thing that makes up for that is a higher class rank.</p>
<p>If a person chooses a competitive school, he or she would probably have higher SAT scores, more extracurriculars, better recommendations, better essays, and a tougher curriculum than if he or she went to a noncompetitive school. Not to mention the high school experience would be more fulfilling intellectually.</p>
<p>No measure is perfect, of course. There are problems associated with class rank, but it's better than the other measures out there.</p>
<p>Class rank is also a good substitute for affirmative action. People in poor, inner-city neighborhoods, regardless of what race they are, face more challenges and should be rewarded even if they're the "big fish in a small pond." The Economist writes that, after California ended affirmative action, colleges </p>
<p>"offered places to the top 4% of pupils in every school that offered the right courses, regardless of how bad it was, on the ground that those who prevail in bad environments have at least shown gumption."</p>
<p>I agree with "what's the point of class rank". At my school our val. has a 5.08 which means unless you have above a 4.1 you're not the top 15-20%. At the same time they realize some schools are harder than others so they use class rank to compare you to the students at your school.</p>