<p>Thank you for your kind words, Roger. Unfortunately, we are the only ones to know that he is ranked 3. All of the accolades go to Number 1 and 2 and them alone. There was an article in today's paper announcing their stellar high school career. No mention of any of the other kids in the class. After thinking about this for a few days, I think what irks me the most is the lack of communication from the school. We knew my son was very highly ranked and were well aware of his phenomenal grades. For four years the school told us parents - we don't rank the kids. One month ago, he received an application for a scholarship limited to the top 2% of the class - okay, now we know he is one of the top 3. I think a letter or conversation letting him know that he missed out before the announcement was in order. But, they did nothing of the sort. Now for the next month, all eyes are on two kids, who are both very strong students and deserving of the honor but what about kids 3,4 and 5 who are fractions of a point away from number 1 and 2, and also had stellar performances. I think schools need to be a little sensitive about this and do a better job communicating with the students. If you are not going to rank the kids, don't all of a sudden tell the world about your top two students. I greatly appreciate hearing how other schools handle this. I don't recall such close calls in my day and it is good to hear that some schools have taken very creative approaches to handling this.</p>
<p>my high school had a V & S and then names the rest of the top 10, but not in order. No one else was ranked. </p>
<p>Then again, i went to a hs that sent more than the top 10 to good colleges - I can understand how at some schools, where really only one or two have a chance (I have several friends here who are either the only one or one of very few not at state schools), not being named either could be more problematic.</p>
<p>I don't understand what the all the commotion is about. Why do people feel in such need of accolades? I was actually in this same position at #3 out of ~ 280 and thought it was a perfect position because I had done pretty well, which would help for getting into college purposes, but didn't have to give a speech. I had no concern for rank, other than how it related to getting into college. I would have been fine to be # 1,3,5,10 or 20 as long as I could get into a good college. If anything, I was slightly embarrased about having a high rank, which can potentially point to deficiencies in other areas, but felt I was pretty good there also to not be too ashamed. I think the graduation program had an asterisk next to the ~ 20 people that had gotten at least a 3.5 GPA and that was it. After that, why does anyone care?</p>
<p>I think part of this clustering problem has to do with what seems like recent rampant grade inflation. In my hs (which was probably a slightly above average public school), the #1 person had 4 B's and I at #3 had 6 B's. It seems from these boards that people are so ultra competitive that the teachers are pressured to hand out so many A's that in the name of students trying to stand out that the end result is no real distinction among students at all. What are college admissions people supposed to make of 17 valedictorians?</p>
<p>We now have over 60 posts on this thread alone, many of which point out some of the many problems, issues, controversies, misguided priorities, inconsistencies, emotional distress, and seeming injustices that arise when high schools allow miniscule, immaterial differences in GPA to become a prime measure of academic achievement and the basis for public accolades. </p>
<p>All the more reason, in my view, to drop the the public announcement of exact class rank altogether and simply report something like GPA and decile class rank to colleges.</p>
<p>just out of curiousity, what state do you live in (to the OP)? this sounds a lot like a school in my area</p>
<p>To me, class rank is more important than GPA. A student who has 3.6 GPA and ranks 5/300 is going to be at a grave unfair advantage to someone at a different school who has a 3.85 GPA and is ranked 28/300. Both would be in the top 10%, but the former (who with full info is much stronger) is going to appear much weaker without the reporting of class rank. </p>
<p>While the difference between 3.887 & 3.884 may be very small in determining who is #2 and who is #3, unless you're just not going to have a val and sal at all (which doesn't seem to solve anything), there's is no other way to measure distinctions. If the #3 person really cares to be #2 so much, he should have gotten an A in a class he got a B in somewhere along the line.</p>
<p>The difference between 3.887 and 3.884 doesn't mean anything when A is from 93-100. that's why the 4.0 system is crap and schools should use the 100 point system</p>
<p>Being a V & S means absolutely nothing at our school, except you have to make a speech at graduation. On intelligence alone, the top two kids are not that well off, they just worked their buts off for four years. Lower ranked kids around 10-15 got into an ivy and better schools, myself included, than the top kids (who were rejected from all except a few small state LAC's). </p>
<p>It's an unfair setup though, because the kids at my highschool come from four different middle schools. Three of those middle schools allowed the students to pick their freshman classes, in which they took all GT (highest for freshman). My middle school had teachers select the classes to what aptitude they thought we were at. If we didnt agree with a class you had to go through a long process to get it overturned, IF you could get it overturned. So our V & S were the ones who chose GT classes and have those few extra points from it, while us kids who were stuck in Honors and Standard freshman year are only a couple of points off, and in most cases, smarter.</p>
<p>No weighted grades. All seniors with a 4.0 GPA after 4 years are "valedictorians." This past year we had 14 of them. I don't think that's a problem at all, and we avoided all the usual controversies (like the ones brought up here).</p>
<p>I think that the 100 point system is even worse because it really forces grade grubbing on the micro level even more as you can't be satisfied with a 97 because it makes a difference that someone else got a 98. So, this meaningless distinction is forced into action on any every assignment. At least, the 4.0 scale only measures distinction at a higher macro level. It also awards students who are more well-rounded as a 93 in two classes would be a 4.0, while a 95 and 91 would be a 3.5.</p>
<p>I think 14 valedictorians is stupid. What is the point of ranking if you are just going to cop out and say that a large number of students are equal? Valedictorian is supposed to be for the #1 student, not #14. It waters down the significance of the award.</p>
<p>
[quote]
No weighted grades. All seniors with a 4.0 GPA after 4 years are "valedictorians." This past year we had 14 of them. I don't think that's a problem at all, and we avoided all the usual controversies (like the ones brought up here).
[/quote]
Having class rank and using unweighted grades can raises a different problem ... one of the (silent) highlights of my HS academic career was getting into schools our Val did not. Our Val had a 4.0 and was a smart, hard-working, arrogant, pain-in-the-butt ... we didn't have weighted grades and he did not take anything close to the toughest course load ... at my school getting a B in any class ensured you had no chance of making Val and virtually everyone taking the toughest courses got a B along the way. With unweighted grades the way to become Val was to work hard and not take the toughest courses. Fortunately, colleges saw through this and the kids that got into the top schools had taken the toughest courses even if this led to a apparently mismatched class rank.</p>
<p>I can't imagine that a high school kid is going to really care about class rank as soon as he/she sets foot on the college campus. After all, no self-respecting freshman goes around bragging about hs achievements. Sounds like its more of a parent problem than kid's.</p>
<p>As with any reward system, it seems to me that you need to determine three factors.</p>
<ol>
<li> What is the behavior that the reward is trying to encourage?</li>
<li> Is the reward effective in encouraging that behavior, without detrimental side effects to the other participants?</li>
<li> Is there another reward that would be more effective in achieving the desired objective?</li>
</ol>
<p>It seems that the purpose of the val/sal system is to motivate students to high levels of academic achievement, or more accurately, to achieve high grade point averages (particularly when the grade points are unweighted). I guess I'm just not sure that recognizing the top two is more effective in achieving that goal than recognizing the top ten, or grade points over 3.8, etc. Kids at this end of the academic spectrum are largely self-motivated and have their eyes on other goals, like college or, god forbid, learning something. And if the educational benefits are the same with two, ten or a set grade point, why not recognize more kids?</p>
<p>I tend to look suspiciously at any system that puts grade point over love of learning, and the val/sal system has the potential of doing just that.</p>
<p>Last year my S's HS had 44 Vals. Most had a full compliment of AP & Honors courses. All had 4.0's; each one spoke for about 20 or 30 seconds. It was kind of fun. The kids came up with some very clever one-liners. Much better than listening to a 15 minute speech from one student.</p>
<p>44 Vals??? No wonder the selective schools can publish the stats they do about rejecting vals.</p>
<p>One has to wonder if there were really 44 4.0...out of how many total graduates...did they all deserve As in all classes all four years? me tends to wonder</p>
<p>I don't see the problem. Valedictorian and Salutatorian are titles for people who are the best of the best. Simply put, your son didn't make it. Yes he has great grades and you should be proud, but the fact is that he was not good enough to earn those titles.</p>
<p>Instead of complaining about your son's loss of title, why don't you just appreciate how much he HAS accomplished? If you know that he worked hard and performed excellently, I don't think you would still be upset over his ranking. If I were your son, I would be upset.</p>
<p>Motherdear - wow, is that true. As the father of a now-turning sophomore in college, all of the HS achievements are a distant memory. One thing that DOES matter about being named a Val is that some schools offer extra merit money for that.</p>
<p>My kids high school determined based on scale of 100. Top places were very close. My youngest S. was #3 and was VERY happy at his placement. Only the top 2 have to give speeches and he did not want to have to do that! :) (There's always a silver lining!)</p>
<p>"Valedictorian and Salutatorian are titles for people who are the best of the best."</p>
<p>This is not always true, if kids don't take tough classes, if teachers grade differently</p>
<p>On this site, there was one kid saying his AP teacher taught nothing but graded really easy, if he gets higher grade, is that the best of the best</p>
<p>Some kids take easier classes to get the higher GPA, is that the best?</p>
<p>That is the issue here...not all VaLS and Sals are created equally...as you can see from all the posts on this thread</p>
<p>and the supposed benefits are also very different...</p>