Next year I’m taking 6 AP’s…and although that is a lot more than what everyone else is taking… I decided to fill my last class with another lit class (that is not an honors/AP)…as a result, my (weighted) GPA will drop…
of course, i’m not going to drop this class simply to get that 5.0
…but out of curiosity…
do colleges significantly notice that although your GPA is lower than someone with straight A’s in only 5 AP’s…it’s because you added another fun class to fill your schedule? (or do they mainly look at the GPA you have…?)
<p>i know that stanford only considers your academic GPA. see if your schools calculuates that, because then...well, depends of that lit class is considered an 'academic' i.e. college prep class or only elective. I think it's fine, they definitely take into consideration how hard the course load is. I'm taking 4 APs this year (most of my entire class), but have same GPA with all As as a bunch of other people who only have 1 or 2 APs but a bunch of honors. I have the same problem, but my gc, and colleges have repeatedly said that they not only look at the grades you get, but the classes you take. (the IvyWise index even makes them into completely separate categories!)</p>
<p>That happened to me when I took debate each year as an extra class. It lowers your gpa and though colleges know this when they look at grades and classload, your school may not. I know that at my school and many others a lower gpa invariably means a lower class ranking. The valedictorian is the one with the highest gpa regardless of anything else. I was stripped of valedictorian because I had a lower gpa even with my straight As in honors and ap courses because that extra debate class gave no extra gpa point. This is why I don't like gpa standards.</p>
<p>I sympathize, SirWatson. The same thing happened to my son. The val in our school always seems to be a person who never took an unweighted course. It's a shame, but students who care about gpa are better off taking a study hall than an extra enriching class. Perhaps it would be more fair to use only "core classes" in the gpa calculation. (But then again, some kids depend on the "A" in gym!)</p>
<p>I'm not being argumentative but I think kids are better off taking the extra class. I believe this is true in terms of personal values and also in terms of remaining competitive for top schools. (In our school even moreso as foreign language is unweighted.)</p>
<p>There is also something that really irks me about a system that encourages kids to take a lesser courseload to give the illusion of being a better student. I don't blame the kids, it's a terrible position for the administration to put them in. But so long as students and parents continue to compete for a higher class rank by taking less classes, instead of fighting the inherently flawed system - it will continue. The real heroes in my eyes are the kids who take the full schedule in spite of class rank. In the end, having the integrity to choose to hold onto their values and priorities in terms of getting the best education available will far outlast class rank. So kudos to them. They set the bar.</p>
<p>mcdeb,
I totally agree with you that the kids are better off to have taken those exploratory classes, even if unweighted. We knew that classes such as band, computer science and early foreign language were going to hurt the gpa, but my son got so much more out of it than a few tenths of a gpa point. He knows that he would have probably been val without these, but is mature enough to see that he has gained so much more. And you are correct that taking a full and rigorous courseload is a plus in college apps, as opposed to just a higher rank. If not the val, I doubt that colleges care if you are #2 or #3 or #10.<br>
This must be why some schools have chosen to drop class rank assignment!</p>