<p>You don’t need to believe it but that is in fact what some colleges do. They don’t do it by hand anymore, BTW. Most of these places actually use computers! Of course, they do enter the data by hand.</p>
<p>Keep in mind that this is only true at a handful of universities. But it is only a handful of universities that are selective enough that they reject most applicants. Being selective has a price - one being that admissions is much more labor intensive. Highly selective colleges are where this is most likely to happen, and they staff accordingly.</p>
<p>As I noted, public schools must do it because the states have laws designed to make sure each kid’s transcript is evaluated the same. Imagine if a kid was graded on a 5 point scale and had a 3.9 and that was considered the same as a 3.9 on a 4 point scale and then put that in the political context of state high schools and state colleges. Private colleges do the same thing for the same reason but they aren’t, AFAIK, bound to do it by law.</p>
<p>Neither of the schools attended by my two D’s weighted any grades. Private prep didn’t rank- inner city public did.
However- colleges I assumed calculated their own scores as they each were admitted to all the schools they applied.</p>
<p>We don’t have “pre-AP” courses either. AP/IB courses are weighted +1.0 (on a 4.0 scale). Honors courses are also weighted +1.0 but only if they are UC approved honors courses, i.e., UC weights them for the purposes of UC admissions eligibility. By policy, only district-taught courses can be weighted, so Dual Credit courses are not weighted. Thus, many kids do not request that such courses be added to the HS transcript.</p>
<p>btw: our district does not rank, neither do ~half of the Calif publics.</p>
<p>Son’s school doesn’t weight anything. Does it really matter? I understand and appreciate the arguments on all sides, but I admit that when the B in freshman gym looks to be the only thing between a kid taking the most rigorous courseload the school offers (and it’s quite rigorous) and the possibility of making Val, it’s aggravating. Yep – freshman gym and AP Physics are treated exactly alike. School usually has a handful of Vals, and usually some of them took the basket-weaving route to academic success. And climbed the rope faster, of course. </p>
<p>As for college admission and merit aid, I trust the selective schools will look under the covers at course rigor.</p>
<p>Many if not most schools look at the academic classes, not gym. They may consider the overall GPA for merit aid since they need to have cutoff lines.</p>
Yep – freshman gym and AP Physics are treated exactly alike.
[/quote]
Exactly. And when students can define their own independent study courses (virtually guaranteed A’s), this really can become an issue. It’s not such a problem for college admissions, but class rank is determined entirely by the high school – and does affect merit scholarships, both institutional and private.</p>
<p>I used to think that grade weighting was a joke. Now, having seen the way people can and do game an unweighted system, I think I’m more in favor of weighting. Or something that takes course rigor into account.</p>
<p>As the O.P. I think I should mention that I am from that oddball state, TX. If a student wants to go to UT Austin they have to care about their rank. Also, in TX there is no standard for calculating GPA. This was proposed by the legislature and opened up all kinds of questions and opposition to the proposals made. I’m not sure where this legislation stands right now but at least for the moment each school district weights according to their own set of criteria.</p>
<p>I’m surprised by all the huge weighting for AP classes–a full letter grade? No wonder colleges are increasingly suspicious of weighted GPAs. My school weights 0.3 for AP, 0.2 for honors, 0.1 for the intermediate level between honors and CP. Electives are all intermediate, but still do pull down GPA somewhat. No rank released.</p>
<p>My son attends a math-and-science school where nothing is weighted. I think weighting is dubious anyway. It’s an attempt to quantify something that is subjective. My son’s previous school had a ridiculous weighting system that resulted in some students having GPAs of nearly 7.0, and I couldn’t imagine it being of any use to colleges in the admissions process.</p>
<p>My biggest problem with weighting is that it keeps bright, ambitious students from dabbling in unusual areas of interest. There is no “honors woodworking,” but what if the best student in school wants to try it? Is he going to risk his Valedictorian status by taking woodworking, where an A will substantially <em>reduce</em> his GPA? It’s stupid.</p>
<p>mantori.suzuki: That is the flip side of the equation I guess there is give and take with everything. No weight to a class does open up possibilities for students who are worried about maintaining their rank. But what about the kid who wants the challenge of taking an advanced class but is doubtful about his ability to achieve the kind of grade he could in a regular class. Should they take the rigorous class and possibly sacrifice rank or take the easy class and sacrifice knowledge? A system that doesn’t rank doesn’t encourage a student to take the challenge. In some ways it discourages it. Colleges can calculate GPA’s using whatever formula they choose but rank is determined by the formula that the school uses. It is unfortunate that kids have to make these kinds of choices but regardless of the system some kids will be making choices to support their rank if they go to a school that ranks and especially if they go to school in Texas. It seems that it is a question about what you value more, taking rigorous academic classes or not hurting the GPA by taking classes like woodworking. Of course if you go to a school that doesn’t rank you can also have a stellar GPA and possibly even be valedictorian with lots of shop classes and no AP or advanced classes at all.</p>
<p>You make a good point about how weighted GPA’s make class rankings possible or meaningful in some schools. I am frustrated, however, that it then allows college admissions officers to judge a student by that number instead of by the actual content of his or her transcript.</p>
<p>Take for example, the obvious case: One student takes normal-level, general-ed classes, while another at the same school takes as many honors and AP/IB classes as possible. Suppose the first student gets all A’s while the second gets a mix of A’s and B’s. A glance at both students’ transcripts will make it clear that the second student is at least as good as, and probably considerably better than, the first. Is it asking the admissions staff too much to take ten seconds to glance at the contents of the transcript, without regard to numerical rank?</p>
<p>As for determining a Valedictorian, well, I’m a skeptic about that, too. In most schools the difference between the number one and number five student is about as big as the difference between the number one and number five schools in the US News & World Report college rankings, and we all seem to have pretty much the same opinion about that.</p>
<p>This is all academic, of course, because most schools do rank their students and weight GPA’s. I’m just exercising my right to gripe about it, I suppose.</p>
Whether this is an issue or not depends on the college.</p>
<p>Let’s not be so quick as to judge all colleges by the same measure. There is a world of difference between an elite college like Stanford and the next tier down, such as U. Rochester or U. Mich. </p>
<p>For an elite, the truth is that they look for kids that both take the most challenging courses and get A grades in them. May not be fair, but those are the facts. </p>
<p>For the next tier down, it is more of a mix, where grades and difficulty both count.</p>
<p>But where you get into the “mass markets”, where most state U reside, it is a complete jumble. They are all over the map. Some use formulas that depend heavily on GPA, perhaps weighted, perhaps not. Others may weight SAT heavily. Some, like Texas, use class rank. Many, like Texas and California, suffer from the heavy hand of the state legislature. </p>
<p>So what? For more selective colleges, admissions is a competition. For any competition, there will be winners and losers depending on the judging criteria. In this competition, there are a lot of different approaches, so you have many ways to win.</p>
<p>Why not start focusing on the factors you can control, such as where your kids apply? Arguing the fine points of weighting (or not!), motivation and admissions criteria misses quite a few things:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>it is too late to move to a different school district that may have a grading policy that fits your kid better.</p></li>
<li><p>colleges and school districts will not change their approach just to keep you happy.</p></li>
<li><p>for most kids (i.e. those not applying to elite colleges) this discussion is irrelevant. They face other issues, like standing out from the pack in any way, affordability etc. </p></li>
</ul>
<p>D’s New England prep school does not rank or weight anything. They leave that to colleges, by providing active informational on the strength and rigor of individual classes.</p>
<p>All valid points, newmassdad, and of course I will be encouraging my son to apply to schools with a “holistic” admissions policy. But every school has to figure out what’s best to get the kind of students they want. I just happen to think…don’t we all?..that my particular kind of student is the best. :D</p>
<p>First, there was an error in my post above. I meant to say, if you go to a school that doesn’t weight you can also have a stellar GPA and possibly even be valedictorian with lots of shop classes and no AP or advanced classes at all.</p>
<p>In the case of our district a decision has just been made to stop weighting pre-AP classes, these are probably equivalent to honors classes in other parts of the country. They are also reducing the weight on AP classes. Many parents are not happy about this and I was originally just trying to see it this change was in line with what is occurring in other schools. My concern about this is mainly related to rank since this is very significant in Texas schools. I am also really having a hard time understanding why the district and the school board would consider this change a good thing.</p>
<p>mantori.suzuki: As for rank and the differences between the valedictorian and the top 5 not being very significant I agree with you there. But still finishing #1 is quite an accomplishment.</p>
<p>And trust me, you cannot skirt buy with shop classes (primarily because we don’t even have shop classes at the upper school level). Reputation of school goes a long way in getting kids into their first and second choice schools more often than not.</p>
<p>There’s no weighting at our kids’ hs. I have mixed feelings about this as there are 16 “valedictorians” this year with 4.0’s- and, my D informs me, not all of them took the most rigorous courseload available. Of course, come awards night you can imagine how this plays out… </p>
<p>We continually come back to the questions, “What is the purpose of learning/education?” and “What are you passionate about?” </p>
<p>Our D’s have both had a fabulous teacher who warns her students of merely being a 4.0 dittohead (as in, going for the grade for the grade’s sake and the coveted 4.0).</p>
<p>Is the student internally motivated or externally driven?</p>
but that is in fact what some colleges do. They don’t do it by hand anymore, BTW. Most of these places actually use computers! Of course, they do enter the data by hand.</p>