<p>I know what you mean, the state math and science high school is here. ASMS has (roughly, I haven't checked these figures at all) almost twice as many NSMFs as DD's school with about 1/3rd the number of graduates 6/45 vs 3-4/140. But the difference in ASMS and TJ is that the overall population in Alabama is smaller, much less well educated, and the school is boarding. If you moved ASMS to Huntsville, and didn't change the number of students, I'd bet the NSMF % would go from 12% to 25% immediately - just because of the difference in the population you drew from.</p>
<p>Cangel ASMS then has a 1 in 7.5 ratio and accounts for 6 of your state's 233 (05 numbers) semi-finalists. It's the ratio and the % of the entire state's semi's that is stunning to me. And Va. is a relatively populous state.</p>
<p>Oh well, another example of my ignorance. I have to get back behind the mule. Y'all fix this before I get back,O.K.? LOL.</p>
<p>Jamimom, I know whereof you speak, because the h.s. performance patterns, as well as the college admission patterns, are similar in D's h.s. You have on the one hand the "pre-selected," high-performing & super-capable students, who are sought by the private school regardless of family income, to keep the school in the selective & promising category. On the other end, you have the wealthier "development" admits, whose families are sought by the school for the cash contributions & (often) fundraising expertise/connections. The minority of the latter admits are bright achievers; more of them have limited ability and/or ambition, & their college acceptances reflect that. A few of them are industrious & very bright. And yes, admission to the top public U's from our own private h.s. is limited to the stars -- who generally also apply to Ivies or other selectives, & more often choose the privates over the publics.</p>
<p>Curmudg it is stunning, but true because TJ represents a "perfect storm" situation for magnet schools. Education level of parents, affluence, expectations, "silicon valley" type industry all are centered in NoVa. Yes there are good schools and centers of affluence in other areas of the state - Charlottesville, and when I lived there, Chesterfield County and Tuckahoe - but NoVA is a whole nother world, and TJ is getting many of the very best students, and a higher percentage of them drawn from families with high parental education levels. NoVa, based on income and population and parental education, would be expected to have the lion's share of NSMF for Va, the existence of TJ concentrates them.</p>
<p>Thomas Jefferson is not a statewide magnet but rather just serves a couple of counties and independent cities in the washingto, DC suburbs. Still the school is remarkable. But for any parent bemoaning that their child did not have the same opportunities remember that some kid in that class of 400 ranked dead last and whoever he or she was they would have probably been a big fish in their home school. Being in a true magnet can be a two edged sword - at least as far as the ego is concerned. It is also true that selective colleges do not want to take too many kids from the same school. That in some ways can hurt kids. I mean UVa does not want to admit 400 kids from TJ even if they all qualify. An interesting corrolary to this is that the presence of TJ has probably made it harder for kids from across the river in DC and the Maryland suburbs to get into UVa and William and Mary. Both schools are a little over loaded with kids from the metro area and there is tension between Northern Virginia and the rest of the state which has a more Southern culture.</p>
<p>This whole issue is why the SATs exist, which keeps the inflation in check. In fact the problem only gets worse as much pretigous schools continue this inflation. Pretty soon you'll have 25% of the graduating class classified as valedictorians. What is anyone going to do about it? Nothing, because the administration has total control over these policies. At my school the average grade is a 3.7 unweighted. Not even the biggest idiot out there would beleive an average student relative to their class should have an A- average.</p>
<p>That's why scores are so important. The SAT seems to be losing respect from everyone, but that's because it doesn't stand alone. Combine it with SAT IIs and GPA, and it is very useful.</p>
<p>One of our gazillion (17) vals from last year - a great kid, and very smart with high SATI/SATII/ACT scores - went to Cal Tech. I talked to him not too long ago and he was having a little trouble adjusting from being the tops of the high school to just an "average" Cal Tech student. Now of course, being an "average" Cal Tech student is still a remarkable achievement. I wish I could be so average.</p>
<p>I did my high school + undergrad education in India, so I'll go ahead and ask this
(possibly dumb) question - exactly what is a grade intended to measure? </p>
<ol>
<li>The student's grasp of the subject material?</li>
<li>The student's performance relative to those of his/her classmates?</li>
<li>Some combination of 1 and 2?</li>
</ol>
<p>We may have a problem if teachers are using option 3, with differing ideas as to how much weightage to give to measures 1 and 2.</p>
<p>From the perspective of this forum it is also a question of hoe college admissions decision makers use thos GPA's. Is it fair, rational, or useful to compare GPA's blindly. Note too that those values - fair, rational, and useful are not always mutually compatible.</p>
<p>If I am a large state university, even a flagship, there is a political compnoent to admissions and funding. The state coffers are only open so longs as significant numbers of state residents believe they have a stake in the university. Sometimes to maintain that support it is useful to be able to blur distinctions between admitted students. While any scale too finely graduated renders small incremental differences meaningless i.e. I cannot tell if a kid with a 1200 vs a 1210 on their SAT really has more or less (pick your choice of the year for the "A" in SAT apptitude, achievment, undefined) reason to be in my college I can certainly tell that a kid with a 1400 is more qualified than a kid with a 1200. For political reasons I decide to use a much coarser scale let's say 1400 - 1600 my "A" list and 1200 -1400 my "B" list etc. If using the grosser less finely graduated scale lets me admit anybody from the "B" I can include a lot of folks I would otherwise have had to exclude it could be very useful. Similarly emphasing GPA over other measures even if GPA measures inaccurately (rationally or fairly) can be very useful.</p>
<p>Check out this article in today's Boston Globe: <a href="http://www.boston.com/news/globe/magazine/articles/2005/01/09/making_the_grade/%5B/url%5D">http://www.boston.com/news/globe/magazine/articles/2005/01/09/making_the_grade/</a>. Belmont Hill follows the traditional bell curve with "C" as the average grade. It makes for interesting reading.</p>
<p>In my class, 2 of the 270 students have 4.0s. We also have about 7 National Merit Semi-finalists, and I'd guess the average SAT hangs around 1150-1200. I'd say the school that the OP talked about has an absolutely ridiculous amount of grade inflation.</p>
<p>But look at it flat out like this:</p>
<p>Valedictorian of TJ who has a 1500 SAT and very few EC's -- just a few math science things -- is going to any school he wants</p>
<p>Valedictorian of my school with a 1560 and a lot of EC's including 4 varsity sports and state level awards and leadership positions is so far rejected from Harvard with many more rejections to come.</p>
<p>College admissions is all about paths. To get into HYPSM from a high school in my area you almost have to be an athletic recruit or legacy. To get in from TJ you can just be a smart guy.</p>
<p>For comparison: our high school has an average class size of 500. In the last 10 yrs or so (since my kids have been in it) they have averaged 16 valedictorians. (4.0 unweighted). They have, however, averaged 14 NMS and another equally impressive number of commended. These two lists are not necessarily the same.</p>
<p>Little Mother -</p>
<p>The article didn't mention this (unless I just missed it in my rapid reading of it), but the colleges themselves have to worry about how they will be ranked. If they take students with lower GPAs, that could affect how high they're ranked.</p>
<p>Digmedia--You make a good point; however, it didn't seem to affect Harvard that accepted two kids who were rejected by UMichigan. Also, the article implied that high scores on standardized tests could offset the GPA issue in terms of college rankings. It does seem as if trickle-down "economics" plays a hand in this, doesn't it?</p>
<p>I don't think any ranking uses grades or class ranks from highschools. It's just too difficult to convert all of the grading methods used. Many schools do not provide a rank nor do they give a gpa, making the college have to calculate on. Alot of times a holistic review is given. The larger schools are stricter and tend to calculate the number needed for a gpa or class rank so they can plug the requisite numbers in the computer for a decision. That is why you certainly can be rejected by a state universtiy and accepted at an ivy league school. My son is deferred by UMich pending Mid Year grades, but was accepted to Yale and he doesn't have to send them Mid Year grades. Pretty clear which one goes more by formula.</p>
<p>A young man at his school was not accepted by UVA with SATs similar to my son, near perfect. He applied early and is a legacy. His problem is his gpa, according to UVA, and this kid's grades are higher than my son's! Even though they have to know that the kid is going to a prep school where the grading curve is steep, they just cannot bear to accept a kid who does not a a 3.5 average in the academic subjects. The other problem UVA has is that the classes are not designated as AP, and they will not rate the curriculum as such even if the kid takes the AP exam the year he takes certain courses and does well on it. The smaller private schools do take this into account. And you would think of all state schools, UVA would be able to make such adjustment. Ironically, I know a kid who is going to my oldest son's highschool that has the most terrible grade inflation I have ever seen, and a young man there was accepted from there to UVA early with much lower SATs, similar EC profile, no legacy and, yes, an outstanding transcript which many kids there do get.</p>
<p>I think optimizerdad is asking exactly the right question and coming to exactly the right conclusion. Imposing a bell curve on grades is ridiculious, because students are being graded ONLY relative to their peers. If every student displayed total mastery of the subject matter, then they should all get an A. Standardized test help measure this (I know, I know... there are always problems with standardized tests, but...).</p>
<p>The one variable in all of this however, is the teacher. Sometimes you just have a godawful teacher, or one that will go off on a tangent, or one that cannot get through all of the material. Our school is going in the direction of standardizing the exams for the courses, so that if you are taking biology, you will have the same final exam no matter which teacher you have. Will this lead to "teaching to the test." Or will it make sure students get the material they need in the course?</p>
<p>Just a wildcard question:
Do any of your children go to highschools which do not grade at all? Is anyone familiar with such highschools? (I know of many highschools who claim that they don't rank, but most still categorize students by their relative ranking).</p>
<p>Whenever grade inflation, or ranking is discussed, I always come back to the understanding that it is all relative. The student who happens to attend that top high school or college is lucky to be surrounded by such classmates, but unfortunate to be only "average" relative to their piers. Why shouldn't all students (IF they do great work) achieve A's at Harvard...or CalTech...or wherever. Certainly these students are already the top of the top anyway. Why can't we just eliminate the grades altogether?</p>
<p>Do you think all kids would sit around and become lazy if grades were eliminated? I tend to think not, but perhap that is naive. I never had a job with any type of "formal" evaluation either, but that did not stop me from trying to do my best. </p>
<p>I think grading has done more damage to my children than good. Once upon a time, they loved to learn. I think they still do -- but I don't think grading has done anything but add to their stress level. I would be very interested in hearing about any type of educational system that has taken a different approach and eliminated grades.</p>
<p>External assesments. Separate grading from teaching with different people responsible for each. That is basically what the AP tests do and the SAT II's and the IB programs use ecternal assesemts too. If you do that then comparing GPA's between schools and school systems becomes possible.</p>
<p>The downside to external grading is that teachers can end up being assesed themselves based on the passing rates of their students. Many probably would not like that and all of the teachers unions would be sure to object. There is also the potential downsides of teaching to the test and homogenizing class content.</p>
<p>Just as an example of the different situations that can arise and of how they can be unfair. My son went to a countywide magnet - an IB program hosted in a regular county high school. There are 25 or so High Schools in the county and entry to the magnets (there are 3, one IB program, one science, and one for the arts) is based largely on an entrance exam. Needless to say the 90 or so students selected for the IB were a pretty high achiving group. These magnet students represented about 25% of the class. To rank all students in the school would be pretty unfair to the student who might well have found himself at or near the top of the class but for all of the outside "ringers" brought in. So the school did not rank.</p>
<p>At the same time any kid in that kind of magnet program is going to be running with a pretty fast crowd. Among those 90 kids there were 7 1600's on the SAT that I know of and 13 kids who went to Ivy's and at least one who turned Harvard down - definitely was not my son who barely had the temerity to apply to UVa and was soundly rejected. I'd actually thought UVa would be pretty safe for him but they really want that skyscraper GPA regardless of what the rest of the transcript looks like. Bully for them. Learning experience for me. Son's guidance counselor told him he did not have a prayer. In any event to Bell curve a select group like that would be wrong. But at the same time it is only human nature to want to reward or distinguish the truly exceptional. What ends up happening is because the students are so exceptional the classes move at a pretty fast clip. Just a little slacking will turn what might have seemed a stellar performance in a "normal" school into a "B". It might even turn an advanced calculus class into a nightmare on a High School transcript for anyone applying to UVa.</p>
<p>But when all is said and done the bottom line really is what and how much your kid learns and how well they learn to learn because that is what they are going to be doing for the rest of their adult lives. You really don't have to go to Harvard to be a success. Take a look at the CV's of any of the IVY's faculty and you will that most of them did not go to an Ivy as undergrads.</p>