<p>Why would the colleges complain about being ranked, when they look at class rankings from students. My children's school ranks students based on GPA, irrespective of the number of AP courses they take. Many students at my children's school take easy courses to boost their GPA and class rank. This will throw many bright kids out of the top quartile because so many other kids "play the GPA game". Since many schools only accept the top 20%, some of the brightest students don't get an opportunity. I think of this GPA game as a form of welfare. Schools encourage students to take easier courses to boost GPA's, just as welfare encourages recipients not to work for fear of losing their benefits. Colleges shouldn't complain about the rankings if they themselves don't compare apples to apples. A students percentile ranking should not ever be considered in the process because so many students have learned to game the system, thereby hurting the best and brightest. The desire to learn all that you can and challenge ones self should be the most important factor.</p>
<p>Student class rankings are from a single datum, GPA (adcoms are aware of the limitations, and use other data as well), but USNWR one-size-fits-all rankings are based on their own idea (a weighting of various data) of how colleges should be ranked. USNWR could produce an individual ranking for each data category (one for SATs, one for yield, etc.), but perhaps only in the on-line edition.</p>
<p>Some colleges may use other data, but the fact remains if you are not in the top 20% of your class, you will not be accepted (except of course, unless you are an athlete or American Indian).</p>
<p>I don't really condone either form of ranking, but ranking GPA I think is more helpful, at least, because what's being rated is objective. You're rating peopleby highest GPA, an objective number. </p>
<p>However, it's more more complicated, if even possible, to rate "best" colleges, just because people look for different things, and it's impossible to really quantify it.</p>
<p>
[quote]
You're rating peopleby highest GPA, an objective number.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Surely</a> you jest.</p>
<p>Rating by GPA is absurd because class difficulty has a wide range. My children have chosen the most difficult accelerated and AP courses, while many of their friends have chosen courses that will certainly enhance their GPA because they are so easy. Once again, I say, this encourages students to act like welfare recipients. By not taking difficult courses, they receive the A to A+, just as the welfare recipient chooses not to work so that he/she can receive benefits. The best and the brightest are having their opportunities stolen and the Ivy Schools are perpetuating this problem.</p>
<p>My point, is that the best and the brightest are having their opportunities stolen from them because they are choosing to push themselves and not play the GPA game. The Ivies should be bright enough to recognize that they have single handedly created this situation, just as our government has encourage people not to stand on their own two feet, but to accept welfare. One would think that the Ivy Schools would be more interested in improving the knowledge level of America so that we could begin to compete with other nations. Using GPA as a screening mechanism has done the most damage to our educational system than probably anything else.</p>
<p>You can find out if you're right (about Ivy and other adcoms not being bright enough) by checking the Common Data Set section C7 for various schools. The tables look something like this:</p>
<p>Academic
---------------- Very Important - Important - Considered - Not Considered</p>
<p>Rigor
Class rank
Academic GPA
Standardized test scores
Application Essay
Recommendation</p>
<p>with an X in one of the four columns.</p>
<p>For example, our D's selective school lists both Rigor and GPA as being Very Important, as both should be high for a top student.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, many schools will mark a students schedule as most difficult if they take 4 sciences, math, history, etc. Many high schools perpetuate the problem by encouraging some students to take the easier course (for the A+) and the school will still give them the most difficult rank. In my children's school for example: </p>
<p>Scenario 1:
biology, acc. chem, AP Bio, Physics.</p>
<p>Scenario 2: IPC, biology, chem, genetics.</p>
<p>Both scenarios would give a student the most difficult rank. The difference is that in scenario 1, a student would be lucky to get in biology a B+ as a Freshman, a B to A- in acc chem is doing great, AP Bio, B is doing great and Physics the teacher will often give a C and will even give a D to an incredibly bright student. </p>
<p>In scenario 2: IPC is an automatic A+, biology as a sophmore is more doable and can bring an A, chem, easy A+ and the same for genetics.</p>
<p>What I also found interesting was that many students that were held back in kindergarten, followed the scenario 2 route. So for example, a 17 sophomore would be in the same class as a 13 or 14 year old freshman taking biology. How can the 17 year old sophomore then be compared with another 16 year old sophomore taking acc chem? This is ludicrous.</p>
<p>I get the impression that Ivy and Ivy-peer admission officers can tell the difference between a bare-minimum "college preparatory" high school course schedule and a truly challenging course schedule with advanced courses. At any rate, we are trying the latter here. We will know admission results for my oldest son when other families know admission results for class of 2010 applicants. I have no idea yet where he will apply to college, but I have a good idea what challenges he will take on during high school.</p>
<p>Once again, the problem is that if you take the truly challenging courses and get knocked out of the top 20% by the kids that took the bare minimum, the Ivies pretty much don't even look at your application. The other kids may not have as challenging courses, but if they can get decent SAT scores, they are at least able to be considered. Of course these kids are going to get good recs, because schools want someone to get into the top schools (even if the student isn't their best and brightest).</p>
<p>Another problem is that there are plenty of applicants to selective schools who take the truly challenging courses and don't get knocked out of the top 20%, and also get high SAT scores.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Once again, the problem is that if you take the truly challenging courses and get knocked out of the top 20% by the kids that took the bare minimum, the Ivies pretty much don't even look at your application.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>How do we know this to be true? Who says so?</p>
<p>I know of one student that was a merit scholarship winner that was in the 3rd decile. This child took the difficult courses and was knocked out of the top 20% by other students with much easier classes. It was astounding because this student is involved in the community and would have been a perfect candidate for a top tier school.</p>
<p>Where is the student now?</p>
<p>The student was only accepted to second and third tier schools.</p>
<p>So a statement about a policy of Ivy League colleges is turning into an anecdote about one applicant to "top tier" colleges, and the anecdote is getting vaguer and vaguer. I'd like more verifiable information, if someone has some. </p>
<p>Here's a link to the Common Data Set information from Cornell (an Ivy League university). </p>
<p><a href="http://dpb.cornell.edu/documents/1000375.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://dpb.cornell.edu/documents/1000375.pdf</a> </p>
<p>Less than half the enrolled students at that college submitted a high school rank as part of their application.</p>
<p>Your document states that 87% were top 10% and 97% of students top quartile. This information had to be gathered from somewhere (maybe the school profile). Your document seems to prove my point. I assume the 3% not in the top quartile were student athletes. Just a guess on my part.</p>
<p>The document also states that class rank is the least important academic measure used in admission decisions.</p>
<p>Yes, the document implies (which is the proposition I was curious about) that strength of schedule gets looked at as a first cut, rather than files being removed from consideration outright just because of low class rank (which would be unknown for more than half the files of enrolled students). The point in post #92 is well taken that the REAL problem for a lot of applicants is that there are other applicants with very challenging schedules who also rack up good grades. It's hard to beat students like that under any set of admission rules.</p>