<p>Playing trumpet with your mouth full might be interesting, though, celloguy. Especially if you have good aim and there's somebody you don't like in the class. ;)</p>
<p>This has been an interesting discussion. By the way, my kids did get a lunch period. </p>
<p>I have to go as I am running late and leaving to go out of town to ironically see my 17 year old perform in a professional show where she is working out of state all summer. Carry on....great convo, thanks.</p>
<p>Marian, eating while playing music works better for a cello player than a clarinetist or singer like my kids, lol.</p>
<p>celloguy - Our high school is far from PERFECT, but after reading about scheduling issues at other schools, I do appreciate the scheduling system at our school. The lunch eating is not necessarily during music class :) It can be allowed by the teacher of any class during the middle of the day (e.g. history, etc.) This is good since my daughter plays trumpet and she is very careful about washing her mouth before playing. She has told me stories of some of her band colleagues (boys of course!) who have had mold growing in their trumpets :(</p>
<p>To add to my earlier post, it IS possible to take 6 academic courses at our school (with or without the extra seventh class). For example, science-oriented students may take AP Biology or a Computer Science class (regular or AP) as their sixth class in their junior year, in addition to the Honors Physics class which is the standard junior course in our science sequence. AP Psychology may be taken by seniors either as a sixth class or as one of five academic classes. This sixth academic class would be instead of an elective in art, music, business, etc. </p>
<p>However, things are not as crazy at our school as at some of the schools discussed above, as far as strategizing for higher GPA/rank. For example, I know that several of the students who have ranked second or third in our very large graduating classes have not taken all of the APs available, even though APs are weighted more than honors, which are weighted more than college prep classes. For example, some of the more science and math-oriented top students chose to take honors, rather than AP, English. My own daughter did not take AP Calculus (she took honors) or AP science, but still graduated well within the top 2% of her class.</p>
<p>
[quote]
For example, I know that several of the students who have ranked second or third in our very large graduating classes have not taken all of the APs available, even though APs are weighted more than honors, which are weighted more than college prep classes
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I just don't understand the math. How is it possible to rank #2 taking classes that yield less than a 5.0 when other students are taking all APs?</p>
<p>It seems such a shame that so many kids (and their parents) these days are forced to worry about how course choices will affect their GPA and potential college choices and thus feel pressured to give up things like music and the arts. My daughter chose to go to the local public high school over our excellent public magnet (where her older brothers went) because she didn't want to give up marching band and the better music program offered at the non-magnet. But in so doing, she is almost certainly giving up any opportunity to go to those very top colleges, because they do favor the magnet school, without question. While our local high school is probably better than most, its most rigorous courseload comes nowhere close to the magnet's offerings. But we are lucky in that we have the choice of a magnet, we could never afford private school for four kids. I commended my daughter for sticking with her music, regardless of what happens. She enjoys it and she shouldn't have to give that up just because of college worries.
It was so much easier 30 years ago!</p>
<p>PS to mam1959: Your magnet may have better SAT scores, but ours has a better acronym! There was an interesting article a while back about that in the school newspaper. Amazing what these kids will find to compete over.</p>
<p>"
Achieving that "top 1%" at a public HS seems to require strategic planning rather than simply brilliance and hard work. "</p>
<p>It can, but it doesn't have to. You could for example only calculate GPA based on "academic" courses. </p>
<p>All I know is that most of the kids ahead of my son GPA-wise are probably taking more music and arts electives - not the bare minimum he took. (His preference, not strategic planning.)</p>
<p>"Also, how is it possible that Stuy doesn't have 9 kids a year go to MIT?"</p>
<p>Maybe the MIT kids in NYC are at the Bronx High School of Science?</p>
<p>"Re: Stuy and MIT. The year I attended HMMT, I was surprised that Stuy did not participate. AAST sent a whole busload, the winning team was from FLA. But no Stuy."</p>
<p>I really think Stuy is stronger in humanities. We finished ahead of them in Science Olympiad the first year we even qualified for states.</p>
<p>Marian - sports present just as much of a challenge in terms of time management as music and the arts. The difference is that I think it is even harder to gain state or regional acclaim in music or the arts. There are a number of sports, and while one must have talent to do them, they can accept collectively a wide range of skills. But with music - the level of music talent must be stratospheric to win state-wide acclaim, especially given the thousands who participate. So I think your point is that the bang for the buck (and you don't get much academic credit for music) isn't that great with music and the like is well taken. So in the end the kid has to do these things because they really like them, and if it knocks a gpa point or two off the ledger, so be it. Extra-curriculars are the way kids often express themselves to the world - a pretty important thing. By the way, as a former very serious athlete at the high school and Div. 1 level, I can assure you that my friends in music and theater had waaay more fun than I did. Training and competing was so stressful on my body sleep and controlling nervous energy to focus were the primary goals. So much for the fun road trips like the band kids had. I traveled a heck of lot, but saw mostly the inside of a hotel room and an athletic venue. So music and arts kids, take solace that no matter what kind of junk jocks spin, serious athletes are not having as much fun as you are.</p>
<p>You're right, mam1959, but the difference is that the jocks are not required to enroll in a course that lowers their weighted GPA in order to participate. At least where I live, school sports are conducted outside of school hours.</p>
<p>Of course, music people aren't the only ones who face the dilemma of whether to take what they love and get a lower weighted GPA or whether to give up their interests and take the hardest course load possible. For example, at some schools, kids interested in journalism have the same problem. At some of the high schools in my area, only those kids who are taking or have previously taken the school's journalism course are allowed to write for the school newspaper. The journalism course is a non-honors elective. So these kids are in a similar situation to the music kids.</p>
<p>" I just don't understand the math. How is it possible to rank #2 taking classes that yield less than a 5.0 when other students are taking all APs?"</p>
<p>It is possible that a student who did not take all APs ranks higher than a student who takes the maximum number of APs because the students who take all APs do not necessarily get A's in every one of their classes. An A in an honors class is better than a B in an AP class, in terms of GPA. I believe the valedictorian is usually or always a student who has taken all APs and gotten straight A's or very close to that, but I am not aware that there have been ties for valedictorian, at least during the six years that my two kids attended the school. </p>
<p>For what it's worth, students from my daughter's graduating class attend the following colleges that I can think of off the top of my head: Yale, Cornell, Johns Hopkins, University of Pennylvania, U. of Michigan, U. of Virginia, NYU, Carnegie Mellon, Colby, Georgia Tech, Wesleyan, Swarthmore, Northwestern, Haverford, our state university's Honors College.</p>
<p>Actually, Stuy DID send at least 9 kids to MIT last year -- 9 out of the half of the class in that article. When The Wall Street Journal did its high school ranking based on sending kids to Ivies (-Columbia, which wouldn't cooperate) / Chicago / Duke / Pomona (as a substitute for Stanford, which wouldn't cooperate), Stuy had something like 120 kids going to those 10 schools. Pretty stunning.</p>
<p>This thread has turned a little scary. I would be very upset if my S were choosing his classes solely to boost his class rank. I'm sure that enters into it, a little, but he has taken several very tough but unweighted electives because they had good teachers and were interesting courses -- Biochemistry, Organic Chemistry, World Conflicts. I think scheduling would make it impossible to take more than 4 AP classes a year; he took two his sophmore year and three last year, and I think he still expects a top-10 rank. He will take four this year, and get no college-application boost out of it at all. They're just the classes he wants to take with the kids he wants to be with.</p>
<p>JHS, you are right that it is scary to think of kids choosing classes due to class rank and in some schools, it appears taking arts classes is like a penalty. None of that jazz goes on here. </p>
<p>Since while my kids were attending, it was still an unweighted system, if they TRULY were strategizing, they'd have taken the easier classes as it made it easier to get a good rank. But they WANTED the harder classes. Plus , college look at the rigor of the curriculum, not just the rank and GPA. They took what they wanted to take. They followed their interests. They preferred challenging academics. I suppose you could say my younger child took science (hardest levels) which she doesn't like cause she had to knowing you have to take science and challenging classes if you want to go to a good college in general but other than that, there wasn't strategizing over rank issues. </p>
<p>We have 8 class periods per day. However, the Honors or AP science classes (which my kids were in every year) require TWO full class periods to allow for labs twice a week. That means the second period is a "'wasted" period, requiring a study hall which they never would choose to take, three days per week. However, our music dept. designed to have Jazz Theory classes three times per week around the kids' science labs because it was precisely the kids who take the Honors classes who tend to be in music and had no periods left to fit in Jazz theory. Also we have requirements in Health, Gym, arts, computers that must be fit in. </p>
<p>I hate to see comparisons between the arts and sports. Kids who do either work very hard and have huge time committments. Even the arts kids have hours of committment outside the school day to their activities. Also both have "fun". I have kids in both. My oldest child was an All State Musician on one instrument, studied privately on a second instrument involving national auditions / adjudication each year, and dance but still was in three varsity sports with achievements in those. So, I can't tell you which "side" of her worked harder or had more fun. BOTH sides did, lol. She plays varsity sports in college too. I'd say the hours required for either of my kids in the performing arts or sports was a LOT. My theater kid often got home at 10 each night. So, let's not do a lot of comparing. The main thing is for a kid to follow her genuine interests, rather than strategize for college admissions. My kids did and had successful admissions outcomes.</p>
<p>Clarification - when I said "all APs" above, I meant "all APs that are offerred in that grade level", not that every course taken would necessarily be AP. At our school, you can take 1 AP in 10th grade, up to 3 in 11th grade, and up to 5 in 12th grade. Very few students do take this many though.</p>
<p>Cello--we have nine periods at our hs. So even with lunch and gym, there's plenty room for electives. Music at the upper levels is considered an honors class, I think. Anyway, it doesn't matter, since just about all top kids seem to be in it. Plus, we don't have that many APs that someone could fill their schedule with them instead (and I guess that's our downfall, too, though as I said before, my kids with their subpar educations seem to be thriving at tough schools.)</p>
<p>I told my kids to take what they loved, and take the hardest level they could handle of what they took. Not to choose classes just because of rank. So they were 5 and 7, not 1 or 2. Neither in top one percent. Didn't seem to hurt them. (Val of S's class was in the band, btw).</p>
<p>I can understand why some schools rank- if most kids are going to universities that are mainly looking at GPA and test scores as well as ranking in the high school, rather than also taking essays and knowing something about the classes at that particular high school.</p>
<p>It would be a lot faster & clearer to just take the top whatever % of the kids by weighted GPAs.</p>
<p>However- neither one of my daughters high schools rank or weight.
I think we did have to ask what older Ds rank was in high school for a scholarship that requested that information, but I have really no idea where she fell. Her GPA was not honor roll, but Reed was at least as academic if slightly less competitive ( at the time) than the other schools where the kids who were on the honor roll went ( Carleton , Barnard, & Smith were some of the schools)</p>
<p>Reed however- makes a point of not going strictly by GPA or test scores- one reason why she felt comfortable applying.</p>
<p>We will also be looking for colleges like that for her sister, although her school does rank, they don't weight. </p>
<p>So they had 44 valedictorians a year or so ago, something that was thought to be unusual,with students who had as many AP classes that they could cram in, standing up with students who were in the auto body program. ( this is an example- I don't have the course schedule of the students)</p>
<p>This received a lot of teasing in the media, but I have rarely heard parents or students at her school have a problem with it. Many colleges look at more than your GPA, they look at your test scores and your classes, and if someone has earned a 4.00 in their courses, even if they were not as academic as those of the students who are going to Princeton, I like to see them up there as valedictorian with all the other 43 kids :)</p>
<p>
[quote]
"It is possible that a student who did not take all APs ranks higher than a student who takes the maximum number of APs because the students who take all APs do not necessarily get A's in every one of their classes."
[/quote]
</p>
<p>We're talking about the top 1% GPA here, right? At any public HS in our city the top 4% definitely get all A's (grade inflation no doubt). None of those kids has ever seen a B. The only thing that differentiates their GPA is proportion of AP/college courses to "regular" (A=4.0) courses, such as music, art, or theatre.</p>
<p>
[quote]
So they had 44 valedictorians a year or so ago,
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I love it. That's the way to go. Just like having 17 co-captains of the volleyball squad. It kinda' reminds me of the story (apocryphal?) of Jews in Denmark in the 30s being told to wear yellow armbands or else, so they did, and so did everybody else. I hope it's a true story. Now if we could only do something about the .005 % difference between a National Merit Scholar and an ordinary schmuck :)</p>
<p>Well, I guess that is the difference between our h.s and the public h.s.'s in your city. If all of the top 4% are getting all As in a difficult curriculum, I doubt any differences in college admission success between them are a result mainly of whether they are in the top 2% or the top 4% of their class. It is probably due to the myriad of other factors such as test scores, ECs, essays, recommendations, etc.</p>