<p>Xiggi, the situtation for the valedictorian, or any top student should rest in the counselor’s recommendation. They are not doing their job if they are not bragging about their best students! My high school, 30 years ago, didn’t rank, and didn’t weight the GPA (still don’t according to the 1012 profile). We were given an estimated decile ranking - maybe more than 10% ended up in the “top 10%” but it was their way of dealing with having a range of levels, and a mix of tough and easy teachers. Without class rank, students who had musical or artistic talent were not discouraged from taking music or art classes. Those who were interested in cars took the auto shop class, without worrying that it would reduce their rank because it wasn’t an honors class. 90% go directly to 4-year colleges, another 5% to 2-year colleges. A significant number in my class went to HYPS, CalTech, MIT, etc. </p>
<p>Lack of ranking may be part of the problem at your example, but it’s only part of the problem. A school that doesn’t rank needs to be aware of how that will impact its students during the admissions process - just reporting quartiles is of little help, as you suggest.</p>
<p>But that goes for most things in life that are in comparison.
The winner of an Olympic gold medal may have been only two-hundredths of a second ahead of the next person. And the time difference between first and tenth is very small.</p>
<p>I would hope that college ad officials are smart enough and aware of that fact and realize that, yes, there is a very small difference between one and ten but a big difference between first and 500th.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sorry, dont follow how the scattergram would fix that. Those who had the easy grader will still show high grades and the students who had the tough grader will still have lower grades.</p>
<p>CTscout, I realize that your position is based on a view from the outside. Don’t you think it is naive to believe that the GC could overcome or defy a decision to NOT release the rank until the last month of school? I did write that the GC reports the ranking in QUARTILES when asked. Her hands were tied.</p>
<p>Again, the school does this ON PURPOSE under the misguided desire to report MORE top students. </p>
<p>In addition, please be aware that this school is in Texas and that the absence of rank in Junior year precludes the direct admission at UT-Austin for the top ranked students. </p>
<p>Lastly, please note that this situation infuriated the families of the top two students who figured out they were easily Val and sal. They realized the ranking was drastically hindering their chances at scholarships and plum summer programs. Fwiw, in the eyes of many, a reported rank of top 25 percent directly intimates the student was not ranked in the top 10 percent, as that is clear from the CDS.</p>
<p>A saving grace? A very well informed set of parents and the fact that the Val had the highest grades in almost every class and that each teacher accepted to comment on a shared letter that described the grades in context. A practice borrowed from a top school in the country. This was done without the input or knowledge of the GC. </p>
<p>All in all, it forced many to jump through hoops all the while not helping anyone in the 3 to 25 percentile.</p>
<p>The GC doesn’t have to defy any decision, but put the GPA in context - and yes I think it’s ridiculous to report in quartiles - they are to broad to mean anything. They’re not really reporting more top students, they’re simply reporting everybody in the top quartile as among the top quartile.</p>
<p>All I was saying was the not reporting rank in and of itself is not really the problem. The problems that infuriate the top students there are not that different from the problems that infuriate top students at schools that rank. D’s school reports GPA on a 4.0 scale, with .4 extra weight for honors, .8 extra for AP (and -.4 / -.8 for classes below “academic” level). But then they calculate rank based on an unweighted average, giving the edge to kids who don’t take honors in favor of higher grades. Last year’s class was particularly upset because the Val didn’t take any honors classes until senior year, and had a 4.0 in all academic level classes. Yes, they get the advantage of higher GPA on their transcript, but it doesn’t really mean anything when paired with a lower ranking. You would think if the 25th ranked student has a 4.3 that the Val would have somewhere around a 4.4, but he doesn’t!</p>
<p>One would think that, being in class-rank-obsessed Texas, if they wanted avoid giving out ranks (not that I agree with that), they would at least use thresholds like “top 7%”, “top 10%”, “top 25%”, etc. (or whatever the thresholds matching the auto-admit thresholds are for Texas public universities). And also name the valedictorian, due to some scholarships existing for valedictorians.</p>
<p>Of course, this presumes a sensible class rank calculation. It appears that a lot of high schools have class rank calculations that penalize taking additional non-weighted courses, so the student trying to game the class rank system will avoid taking non-weighted elective courses beyond the minimum, even if it means taking fewer courses overall (i.e. having an empty period instead of a non-weighted art, music, or auto shop course in addition to a full schedule of weighted courses).</p>
<p>ucb - that’s exactly the problem, how does the school calculate that rank, and what impact does that calculation have?</p>
<p>At a school that adds weight for advanced classes, you see rank-conscious students avoiding non-weighted classes. In some cases that can impact school culture - what happens when talented musicians don’t participate in the chorus and band because they don’t want those grades dragging down their GPA? For those applying to highly selective schools, they will find outside ECs to supplement their applications, but it also hinders the poorer kids without the resources to participate in those outside activities.</p>
<p>At a school that doesn’t weight, the students are more likely to take any and all classes, but those who are rank aware, may be more likely to take less rigorous classes, particularly if they are planning to attend an auto-admit school, or a less selective school. The kids applying to highly selective schools are faced with the choice of class rank or rigor - and if they want to get into HYPS, rigor must win. Our town’s valedictorians typically attend UConn, not HYPS or other highly selective schools, because they generally are NOT the top students. The town gets to boast of Vals who are also two-sport lettermen, and captain of at least one of those teams, because they took academic level classes and had the time to concentrate on their sports.</p>
<p>Then you have our hybrid system which ranks according to unweighted GPA, but reports weighted GPA. Class rank or GPA doesn’t get auto admit into our state flagship, but being valedictorian does qualify students to apply for a significant scholarship (full tuition, offered to less than 10 students per year). Because it is a competitive scholarship, I’m not sure that our district is doing these kids any favors by making them eligible - the 3rd or 4th ranked student with the higher GPA might stand a better chance, if allowed to apply.</p>
<p>Back in an age when all students were taking the same set of classes, class rank made sense. But with all the differentiation of class level, I’m not sure it’s such a good thing anymore. How do you honestly compare the student who take more, harder classes, with the student who takes a lighter load, but has higher grades? Yet another reason I believe in holistic admissions, because they’re at least looking at the whole picture (or at least a bigger part of it).</p>
<p>The problem can at least partially be addressed by ranking based on grade points, not grade point averages. Then, an additional non-weighted (or underweighted if the school chooses to underweight non-academic courses) course will not penalize the student compared to leaving the schedule space blank.</p>
<p>Either I did not explain the issue correctly or you read between the lines, but you are missing the point completely. There are no problems in how the students are ranked. The entire and ONLY issue is that the school does NOT release the rank directly or indirectly before three weeks before graduation. All the GC would do is share a quartile rank in the applications. And this by choice and desire.</p>
<p>And, fwiw, some of the most successful schools in Texas (read private) could not care less about the 7-10 percent rule as their top students are not interested in the benefits of the automatic admission at UT or TAMU. They are attending OOS schools or interested in UT majors that are not included in the automatic admission.</p>
<p>No one is missing the point. It is just that it appears that everyone agrees with your point that not disclosing rank is bad idea in this case (where rank is very important for admissions and scholarships that the students at the school may seek), so there is little or no discussion about it.</p>
<p>xiggi, we’re not missing the point. The school does rank, but doesn’t release that rank to anyone. It is hurting the students, and the students and parents don’t like the policy. Perhaps the students should approach whoever is responsible for the policy, and discuss it with them. Perhaps if they understand that the majority of the students and their families would prefer ranking, and they are shown why it is preferred, the policy could be changed. A policy of not ranking can work, as demonstrated by the HS I attended. They still don’t rank, because they choose not to weight grades, and they believe there is no fair way to give concrete ranks. They also don’t have a valedictorian - they don’t rank at all, ever.</p>
<p>The problem with the school you mention is that they do end up ranking in the end. They have not taken the stance that there is no fair way to rank - they just don’t believe in releasing those ranks. The reality is that the very competition they try to avoid by not ranking is not eliminated - precisely because the DO in fact rank just before graduation. </p>
<p>Whoever is in charge of this policy needs to be made aware that it is hurting the kids it is meant to help - unless they have no desire to help the top students, and don’t see their reputation as resting on where their students attend college. And there is a very real possibility that they don’t care, because they are girls.</p>
<p>Smarter students will game the system to inflate their GPA/rank, so it’s all well and good. People who are victimized by the ranking system are those not wise enough to figure it out, and probably don’t belong in the schools where rank is that important.</p>
<p>However, a high school whose class rank system can be gamed to produce a higher rank with the same grades in a less rigorous schedule is not exactly giving the best incentives to students preparing for college.</p>
<p>I was actually being a bit facetious. I agree with most in this thread that class rank can be misleading. I think ranking in quartiles or maybe distinguishing the top 10% could remain useful. Specific rankings aren’t particularly meaningful and encourage kids to take particular classes for their GPA instead of for their interests/for college prep.</p>
<p>That being said, college students do the exact same thing. GPA is gamed just as much in college as it is in highschool. Two kids with the same major can have a pretty drastically different amount of rigor in their course-load based on the electives and professors they choose. How’s choosing the easiest class/prof to inflate your GPA any different than choosing certain courses to inflate your rank?</p>
<p>I might be unpopular, but I think class rank should be purely based on GPA. That’s how my hs did it. Sure, there were a few kids who never took an AP class in their life, but for the most part, they didn’t end up in the top 10%. Honestly, colleges will see if your lower grade is reflected in your harder classes. That’s what transcripts are for.</p>
<p>The whole point isn’t what you’d personally be satisfied doing; this is more or less a thread for debating what would be the most effectively method of distinguishing ranks among classes. Sure a student who has only taken regular courses may be more intelligent than those with maxed schedules, but does that mean the slacker is a better student? Of course not.</p>
<p>Interesting discussion - as for the debate of students taking unweighted electives, I enjoy the way my school approaches this problem. My school has a weighted ranking system, where our valedictorian has about a 4.8 and I have a 4.6, ranked 12/510. The top students, including our valedictorian, do take electives that are not weighted, which WOULD bring their GPAs down. But, to avoid this problem, our school allows us to take elective classes pass/fail. This allows top students to still take classes in which they’d enjoy, without hindering their weighted GPA/rank. However, to prevent lower students from abusing the pass/fail system, we are only allowed to take one class pass/fail per semester.</p>
<p>There is a debate among many top students of whether or not we should take pass fails - do college admission counselors frown upon a “P” instead of an A? I don’t think so. I’m under the belief that a 4.0 student would get an A in an elective taken P/F, and adcoms know that.</p>
<p>There are region-specific levels of importance for class rank. In Texas public schools where students want to go to Texas public universities, class rank (or at least specifying where the student falls with respect to the auto-admission thresholds) is very important. In California, class rank is not considered by the public universities, so it is not as important overall (although it may be important for students applying to some private or out-of-state public universities).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, and that is the incentive that medical and law schools give to college students. Whether that ultimately produces the best physicians and lawyers is something that can be argued. (PhD programs are more likely to consider course selection, presumably holistically.)</p>
<p>Pat, I think the pass/fail electives would be an excellent solution in many schools. I always felt like my involvement in different electives at my high school brought my weighted gpa down (and it did, a lot), but being valedictorian or something like that was not terribly important to me, so I took the classes I wanted to. It would’ve been nice to do both though</p>
<p>Interestingly, up until a few years ago, the University of Michigan used to take an applicant’s weighted GPA, unweight it, and discount classes that were not core academic classes to arrive at a “true” GPA. When they switched, the admissions dept made a comment that they ceased the practice because on balance, it didn’t make much of a difference. And that’s a school that openly prefers candidates are in the top 10 percent of their respective classes. But they also give weight to the known track record of particular schools for producing students who perform well at U Mich.</p>