<p>Ummm.... Okay This is my question... It's an example...</p>
<p>Suzanne is at a much higher level in academics than Lucie. Suzanne started Calculus in 10th grade and took the next two years of math classes at a community college. Suzanne is very intelligent and maintained a 3.9 gpa over her four years. Lucie, who took Algebra 1, Geometry, Algebra 2, and Pre-Calculus and non advanced classes got a 4.1 gpa...</p>
<p>Does Lucie win the title? If so, how fair is that???</p>
<p>bump bump bump...i'm wonderin the same thingg...</p>
<p>Most schools have weighting to deal with that sort of thing -- like an extra 1.0 for an AP or Honors class. </p>
<p>In terms of "fair" -- it's fair as long as the criteria are defined up-front. "Fair" is the reality that, in your example, even if Lucie "wins the title," Suzanne will go to a 'better" school (however that's defined). The colleges they apply to will understand how the school determines the valedictorian at that high school.</p>
<p>Overall, I don't think the colleges care if you're valedictorian; they care about your grades and your scores and your activities and your recommendations. If you happened to be first in your class, that's great, but it doesn't guarantee anything.</p>
<p>I agree with VeryHappy.</p>
<p>The title of valedictorian itself doesn't mean that much, especially at competitive schools where the difference between rank 1 and rank 15 can be so small. </p>
<p>At my school, the valedictorian has a grand total of one extracurricular activity. Rank 3 is an actress who has appeared all over St. Louis in professional theater, commercials, and made-for-TV movies. She works as an AIDS awareness activist, has battled the administration to found a Gay-Straight Alliance, paints beautifully, and plays varsity lacrosse. All that, and she got one B in high school. Guess who got into her top choice, extremely selective college and who didn't?</p>
<p>Rank isn't everything.</p>
<p>I agree with the above post ^. She sounds cool, by the way.</p>
<p>My school doesn't have a valedictorian. It, also, doesn't rank students. The administration believes the competition is too fierce as it is without ranking kids. </p>
<p>I like it. :]</p>
<p>I like the way my high school does it- the top 2% are valedictorians, which for my class is the top 15 people. The "initial" title is based solely on GPA, but then we also award the titles of #1 and #2 student to two students in the top 1%, and those titles ARE based on extracirriculars, leadership, etc.</p>
<p>Optimization:</p>
<p>Yeah, she's really cool. Her schedule is INSANE. I really admire her work ethic and her intellect... The valedictorian is a really nice girl as well, but rank 3 is such a principled, driven person.</p>
<p>At my school (private) its based solely on GPA and goes to the one person with the best GPA (however we don't "officially" rank our students. Bizarre, eh?). Those who take honors/AP courses, however, get a 0.5 boost to their GPA for each honors/AP course they take so its almost always been someone whose taken mainly (or all) honors. I find it works out rather well this way... the people who've been named valedictorians over the past 3 years have all been well-rounded, highly intelligent individuals with well-defined passions and ec involvements.</p>
<p>In my school, you get a 1.0 boost for H/AP course. So, CP classes completely ruin your GPA (as I sadly learned after taking CP Band for two years...) The only problem is that the AP version of a class is often much harder than the H version of it... so even though getting a B+ in the AP class is a huge achievement, the person taking the H class and getting an A+ earns the same amount of credits. Oh well. Bitter rant over =)</p>
<p>But, because on-topicness is good, I also think that the title of valedictorian should be solely academic. My school also gives out awards for amazing service to the community, exceptional leadership, etc.</p>
<p>There was a thread a while ago about this topid that I posted a few dissertations on. Anyway, I believe it should only be academic for a number of reasons. </p>
<p>In addition to this discussion is the weighted vs. unweighted debate. The problem with unweighted (which is what my school has an is phasing out), is that you have students who are very bright, who would do well in more difficult classes, opting out of AP's in favor of ridiculously easy honors classes ebcause they fear getting a B. To me, this just shows you have no self-confidence to believe you can succeed where others fail. </p>
<p>What happened this year:
Myself and two guys have a 4.0 uw and are vals
Anotehr guy only had one or two B's and is sal</p>
<p>One of the vals has a weighted GPA .4 lower than mine (I have the highest), and a weighted GPA .2 lower than the sal. So, technically, I should be val and the other guy who's val should be sal, but don't we want everyone to feel good?</p>
<p>What's the point of challenging students to actually pursue and excell in higher level classes rather than scaring them that they will get a B?</p>
<p>I'm personally fine with my school's system of highest weighted GPA. Over the past decade, all the vals in my school have generally been the most deserving. My year, people were especially happy about our val because they didn't want our sal to be the val, but he was definitely the most deserving. Though I def don't condone any Blair Hornstine action.</p>
<p>What I don't like about weighted GPA is it encourages people to take AP-lite classes and discourages electives, meaning you end up with students who pick courses like AP Environmental Science over debate. At my school people who take honors/regular electives are usually pretty much screwed in terms of class rank, and the top few spots are determined by how many worthless college courses you've taken over the spring/summer. (Inventive Problem Solving, anyone?)</p>
<p>I'm still glad my school's weighted, though, since unweighted GPAs do penalize higher-achieving students.</p>