<p>you know what i really hate? i have some friends who are smart, but do not want to take the AP classes. i have a friend who is taking only 1 AP, 3 accelerated classes, but im taking 4 AP and 2 accelerated, and the thing im annoyed at is that his gpa (i think) is higher than mine. i know a lot of ppl who do this just to get a high gpa and better rank. they do well in the accelerated classes and regular classes, but refuse to take an AP class. AP is weighted higher than accelerated at my school, and accelerated is weighted a little bit. any1 else have the same issue at their school?</p>
<p>ummm.... not really. People in my school take any oppertunity that they can to take honors and AP courses. AP is also weighted the same as a honors class at my school. People care about their GPA, but they also realize that taking harder courses is better.</p>
<p>I don't think this happens at my school. Most people take regular classes simply because they don't want to take more difficult classes, we have a ton of slackers. Our senior class is pretty much made up of the IB kids, AP/H kids, and...everyone else (the lazy bums).</p>
<p>Anyway your post makes me think about one of my friends who is smart (well not like super genius or anything, but still) and she's probably not going to apply to ANY colleges whatsoever. I know it's mostly because she just doesn't want to actually go through the process of applications (i.e. writing the essays) so she's just settling for community college. It makes me sad :(</p>
<p>My school is like that. I'm taking two AP's my sophomore year (3 are offered for 10th graders) and the rest are staying with honors when they could be taking AP's. And it does make me a bit mad because they have higher GPA's while I'm struggling to keep up.</p>
<p>yes...always...i hate this, because people are always like oh, i have a 4.0...uhhh thats because you're not taking a single advanced class...people like this annoy me because then they make a big deal out of how they are doing good in a hard math class(that is normal for their grade)...and they do better than you did...cuz you took it two years ago....sorry that didnt make any sense...but i dont feel like editing</p>
<p>You should quit caring about that :)
Purpose of school is not in getting good grades but getting education and education is what you get from AP.</p>
<p>i am pretty much the opposite. i moaned and groaned over dropping AP bio, even though my grade was dipping into the 50's lol. i still miss all the learning i did in that class, its a shame i couldnt keep up with the homework and labs.</p>
<p>OH! and i found out just 3 days after i dropped that the teacher was allowing our final test score to replace our class grade. that made me so mad because i know i would have done well on the final, the only reason i dropped was because i was failing the class.</p>
<p>My school doesn't weight AP or Honors courses, so there are lots of people with 4.0s who really aren't that serious about their education--they've taken Woodshop I-III, been an office aid four times, and don't have a full schedule senior year, you know... oh, but they've got 4.0s, so they'll be valedictorians! It's sick. It would hurt my pride tremendously if, say, I--I, who will have taken more AP courses than anybody else in my class and gotten the only 5s in the school on all but one of my AP exams (for one of them, I was one of two people who earned a 5... the other person was two years older than me, though)--got an A- in AP Physics, which would singlehandedly knock me out of the running for valedictorian, and then had to sit through the valedictorian speeches at the commencement ceremony listening to kids who can barely string a sentence together. Arrgh. I would be furious. </p>
<p>BUT I'm very glad--they're considering weighting grades when figuring out valedictorians! So maybe now there'll only be ONE val! I don't know why it takes so much deliberation to decide on an issue like this. It can only help, and it's so easy to weight grades.</p>
<p>We weight, so everyone makes a huge deal about AP credits here. #2 at my school even tried to take Fundamentals of Engineering at a local college to boost her weighted GPA, only to find it was counted as an honors class...she pretty much had a fit. What's strange about it is -- she was NUMBER TWO, and number one's leaving school after junior year so she'll be out of the running.</p>
<p>Unfortunately AP and Honors are weighted the same at my school, and it really makes some people mad. We talk about how its stupid that some pretty smart kids are taking "boom-boom" classes and get 4.0s. We always thought that only weighted GPAs counted towards the top decile, but its unweighted too which is absolutely ridiculous. My AP Psychology teacher wants to change it to an AP only, eliminating honors if the equivalent is offered. </p>
<p>But you have to remember class strength is a strong factor in college admissions.</p>
<p>hmm..interesting responses</p>
<p>
[quote]
BUT I'm very glad--they're considering weighting grades when figuring out valedictorians! So maybe now there'll only be ONE val! I don't know why it takes so much deliberation to decide on an issue like this. It can only help, and it's so easy to weight grades.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Weighting isn't always the best thing.</p>
<p>What if you have two people, both have all A's and are taking the exact same classes except one is taking orchestra, and the other has a study hall, so the latter has a higher GPA. Is that fair?</p>
<p>^^Study hall is weighted honors? Where I come from all those sorts of classes are regular.</p>
<p>shravas..i dont think that its fair</p>
<p>also, i dont c why we should be ranked..since colleges usually take your unweighted average and recalculate ur GPA based on their scales, so being in the top 5 or 10% of ur graduating class may not be accurate compared to other schools and other students around the country. so i dont think that colleges should look at rank at all either, when usually at the top colleges ur class rank is considered "very important" or "important" (as shown in collegeboard.com)</p>
<p>"^^Study hall is weighted honors? Where I come from all those sorts of classes are regular."</p>
<p>he meant that having no credit at all would mantain a weighted GPA higher than 4.0, while carrying an A in an unweighted class would lower it. I could take one AP class, get an A, and have a 5.0, while you could take 5 AP's and one unweighted course, carry straight A's, and end up with a 4.833.</p>
<p>Consider an anology: do you believe that people who are naturally tall and well built are obligated to pursue competitive athletics? I don't believe so. </p>
<p>I don't remember who it was that said "a brain is a terrible thing to waste", but these kids have a right to decide whether they are taking a more or less difficult course load. I don't see what you think is unfair -- even if you have a lower unweighted GPA and rank, your weighted would be higher if your grades are decent, and colleges will see that you have taken harder AP/H classes when they consider your application. Some colleges say they place much more import on weighted gpa's. Instead of worrying about low achieving friends, allow them to choose their path through high school and focus on your own grades so that you can boost your ranking and gpa.</p>
<p>Some things about the college app process will always be slightly skewed. A student with a 4.0 in the middle of nowhere might get only a 3.0 in an elite new england prep school. A valedictorian in the middle of nowhere might fall in the mediocre category at a more intensive school. However, colleges are aware of which regions are academically stronger. Nevertheless, some students gain a false sense of security from inflated numbers, not realizing that they come from less competitive districts, and that's a real danger.</p>
<p>topasz, unfairness works in the other direction, too. If someone is getting a 4.0 uw in the hardest classes available at a noncompetitive high school in the "middle of nowhere," assuming that the student would get a 3.0 at a top prep school is unfair because you really don't know how they'd perform in the competitive environment - after all, 4.0 uw is the top of the scale, so even the best student in the world couldn't get a better GPA.</p>
<p>Perplexitudinous, I agree. It's possible that a high achieving student in a low - opportunity might be at the top of the class in a competitive school, had she been raised in that district. It's also possible that that student would not have been able to cope in that district. It depends on the student, and there are probably plenty of both. But the thing I'm trying to say is that these kids were schooled where they were schooled, and regardless of how they might have turned out if they had lived in a different region, they did not receive educations at competitive schools, so the "potential" argument is sort of moot. The truth is that the top students who come from urban or very rural schools are often less knowledgeable than their counterparts at different schools, even if their GPA's and rankings speak to the contrary. In no way should these kids be punished, because, as you said, they have done the bast they can. It just goes to show that a 4.0 means something very different in different places. It is fantastic to be a student with lots of potential, but from a purely books-smart point of view, it's even better for a college to receive a student with potential who has been giving the great number of opportunities to achieve. So it might be a bit unfair for a kid from a prep school to get a lower GPA than a kid elsewhere, even if they are equally capable, but it's also unfair that not everyone has the same opportunities to take advanced classes with good teachers. I guess we can only hope that all these "unfairnesses" balance themselves out, and maybe they do.</p>
<p>
[quote]
but from a purely books-smart point of view, it's even better for a college to receive a student with potential who has been giving the great number of opportunities to achieve
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yes, that's particularly true when you have a very low-income student coming in from a very noncompetitive school. Then the college (as well as society, through federal & state grants) must pay a significant portion of the student's costs, while at the same time receiving someone who may not be well-prepared to go to a top university. It's a substantial monetary risk and the sacrifice of a seat for a well-prepared individual. However, I feel that, in the end, it is worthwhile to invest in students who may or may not be well-prepared so that they can attend top universities, because it's a step towards removing the social barriers which create these dilemmas in the first place.</p>
<p>As you pointed out, from a societal perspective, and stemming from the common belief in this nation that the "purity of the blood" shouldn't be a bar from success, colleges would do well to admit low income students and give them exposure to better environments, and many colleges do such a thing regularly (affirmitive action, lowered standards on standardized testing for URM's and from poor regions etc). From other perspectives -- economic, as you have mentioned, and for the prestige of the school, the school is hurt by admitting many of these temporarily less qualified students. So it is always a challenge to balance these different priorities, I guess.</p>