<p>I second what kathiep says about PA. For example, three neighboring suburban school districts, all roughly the same size of student population, relatively similar socio-economic status: District A weights AP classes on a 6.0 scale - honors classes on a 5.0 scale - “regular” classes on a 4.0 scale: District B weights AP classes on a 5.0 scale - honors classes on a 4.5 scale and “regular” classes on 4.0 scale: District C does not weight ANY classes. Now, tell me what a college admissions advisor looking at a 3.9 GPA on a transcript from students from any of those three districts is supposed to think. Oh yeah, and none of them rank their students. (And yes, each district does have a profile, but still…)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Your D’s school’s APUSH is significantly easier than the class in my school. Our AP Test breakdown is roughly 60 5’s, 35 4’s and 1-2 3’s per year and usually only 3-4 people receive a grade over 90.</p>
<p>^^^I am sure your school’s profile would reflect that and adcom would take it into consideration.</p>
<p>Some schools give out extra credit assignments like candy; our schools aren’t allowed to do so. One of my kids was bitten by the 88.5-89.4 bug many times. Counts as a 3.0!<br>
It is also not uncommon in the programs my kids attended to get Bs in a class and a 5 on the AP.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree with this. IMHO, the national-based standardized tests are the great equalizer in the equation. A student with a high GPA and a high SAT/ACT and AP test scores have really proven they are the ‘top’ students.</p>
<p>Those with high GPAs and middling test scores are probably in schools with grade inflation. </p>
<p>On the other hand, those with high test scores but not so stellar GPAs are usually kids not working up to their potential.</p>
<p>I understand these are all broad generalizations and don’t apply in every case and that there are some kids out there that simply can’t do well on a standardized test. Although, IRL, I’ve rarely seen a top student who is not be able to do well on a standardized test unless they have been at a school where there is rampant grade inflation. See it all the time in our local public schools. In my son’s school, there are a number of kids with high test scores but not the best grades but not many where they have high GPAs but not the test scores to go along with them.</p>
<p>Which is why, no matter how often colleges threaten to do away with the standardized tests, I don’t see them doing that.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I still continue to believe that colleges aren’t doing any kind of hand-calculating of all this stuff, and they’re looking to see whether a kid is in the general ballpark. If Bobby has a 3.8 at Public School A and Billy at 3.9 at Public School B, they’re generally comparable. Colleges aren’t going to take 20,000 apps and recalculate because Public School A includes gym in the calculation or Public School B weights honors at a different level from AP. It’s just not feasible.</p>
<p>^If this is the case, then wouldn’t high schools be foolish not to count the “fluff” or do unweighted GPA on a 4.3 scale or simply give weighted GPA only to give their seniors a boost?</p>
<p>My daughter’s college also uses 4.3 scale, more specifically 4.33.</p>
<p>Well, at my high school, 35 years ago and under the British system, an “A” was 70% and very very hard to get. To pass (“E” grade) was 40%. Teachers basically did not give scores above 80%, ever. A mean teacher (think physics) could give an average of 17% for a mid-term test (I was very proud of earning 37% on that one).</p>
<p>^If this is the case, then wouldn’t high schools be foolish not to count the “fluff” or do unweighted GPA on a 4.3 scale or simply give weighted GPA only to give their seniors a boost?"</p>
<p>My high school does count the “fluff” in calculating both UW and W GPA.</p>
<p>" In real life, probably only the top 5% of each high school have had straight As throughout their high school career."</p>
<p>More like top 1%, maybe even less than that.</p>
<p>PizzaGirl, until this year, UMich did recalculate grades. They took off all weighting, they got rid of all non-academic classes like gym and art.</p>
<p>I stopped being impressed by 4.0 GPAs a long time ago. I’ve met too many “perfect” students who are imbeciles and too many “bad” students who are brilliant. At most schools, a 4.0 means only that you know how to follow instructions really, really well. (There are exceptions.) If you’re brilliant, it will be evident in other ways as well. To my way of thinking, the correlation between GPA and the things that matter in life is positive but weak.</p>
<p>I’m so glad to see this discussed here at CC. Grade inflation and weighting is a huge topic of conversation with one of my out-of-state friends – we both have seniors in high school. When we began researching colleges, the issue became apparent, and I must admit I get myself into a tizzy worrying about whether colleges will recalculate so that all applicants are assessed equally. Our school’s valedictorian last year had a GPA of 3.9. Merit scholarships based solely on GPA? Tsk, tsk.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Even worse, some schools don’t care if it’s weighted or unweighted! They just use whatever number appears on the transcript. You took ten AP courses, but your high school doesn’t weight the grades? Oh well, too bad, no scholarship for you.</p>
<p>What exactly is grade inflation? Everyone talks about it, but I’m not really sure what it means.</p>
<p>Yes, we’ve seen the truly brilliant students in our high school bypassed for nomination for various scholarships in favor of less accomplished students. The kids with higher GPA’s took regular and honors classes and few to no AP’s, while kids taking ALL APs but who earned a few A-'s were shut out of consideration. This stinks. </p>
<p>Funny, a girlfriend this morning just commented that her child must be an imbecile, because every parent she meets claims their child gets staight A’s and hers certainly doesn’t! They really need to enforce a standard system at least within each state.</p>
<p>My kids both have UW in the 3.6-3.7 range and W in the 4.0-4.2 range. This is a system in which A=4.0, B=3.0, etc. and honors/AP classes are weighted a point above, but there is a limit on those classes. Everything is included in the GPA, including gym which is required daily all 4 years per our state. Class rank is based on W GPA. They’re both at the lower part of the top 10%, if that makes sense. </p>
<p>So … do I conclude there is grade inflation? Deflation? How do I judge? What “should” a 3.6 UW be in terms of class rank to assume there is no grade inflation? Obviously it’s deflated if the 3.6 is the valedictorian and obviously it’s inflated if 90% of the class has a 3.6, but what are the metrics in between? What’s the rule of thumb as to what the GPA distribution “should” be in a “fair” grading situation?</p>
<p>Three words: Massive. Grade. Inflation.</p>
<p>The school I went to was a college prepatory school. There was no WAY you could get a 4.0…unless you were extremely bright. We only had a few students that earned straight A’s all four years of high school. Most of us were familiar with B’s and C’s (I know I was!). Nevertheless, I graduated with a [cummulative] 3.4 and first honors. </p>
<p>Many of the kids with these “4.0s” and honors in high school can’t even write a decent paper to save their lives in college, whereas someone from a harder prep school with a 3.0-3.3 could do very well and impressed their professors. Not to say that all 4.0 students are taking easy classes and are not prepared for college, but too many of them are. They’ll cruise through four years of high school, but flunk out of the first year of college.</p>
<p>slipjig, </p>
<p>Grade inflation is a relative thing. If an assessment is made such that the average student scores 75%, then, by convention, you have a C average class whereby depending on the curve used, you may have equal numbers of students with A’s, B’s, C’s, D’s & F’s, or you may have diminishing number of students on both ends of the C grade. In the old fashion way, this method bins the students into 5 levels of achieved subject competency. So, basically a C in this system means you are an average student in the class relative to your peers. Here is how Harvard University Extension School defines a C grade: “C+, C, and C− grades designate an average command of the course material.”</p>
<p>If this grading policy is what vast majority of the schools starts with then if a school suddenly decides that its average grade is going to be a B or that it is going to give twice as many A’s as other letter grades, then you have a case of grade inflation. It is unfair to the other schools because the general public’s understanding of what a C or B stands for hasn’t changed. </p>
<p>However, if sufficient number of schools “move up” their grading system then you will start to hear about “grade deflation” being called on those schools that still retain the old system. What’s important here is the “general public’s understanding” which imho does not differ much from the adcoms’ understanding and the understanding of those who grant scholarships. Obviously this understanding changes with time, but it lags behind the grade inflation/deflation practice by many years.</p>
<p>My D school does not grade inflate. So many colleges are looking for these grades. However some kids play games like on they day they have four tests will call in sick so they can split up their makeups and study longer I have seen this.</p>