<p>The high school I attended originally used a class ranking system based on numerical average in which a kid who took an AP class and got a 91 would be ranked below a kid who took a PE class and got a 100. Now my school has based the class ranking system on weighted GPAs in which a kid who gets a 91 in an AP class will have a higher GPA, and thus a higher rank, than the kid who took the PE class. Unfortunately, it seems that through changing the system, more kids who previously would have stayed out of accelerated classes such as APs and honors because they could not handle the tough work load are signing up for the accelerated courses, not because they can now handle the work, but because they want a higher class rank. Now it seems that the school's policies are actually making kids hurt themselves. As valedictorian, the new system is not hurting me at all, but I was just wondering what other people thought about weighted GPAs and class ranking systems.</p>
<p>How would a weighted class ranking system be bad? If the kids hurt their gpa, it's their fault.</p>
<p>soccerunner is inferring that the kids are overloading themselves with work that they aren't prepared for. technically it's not really hurting them, unless they screw up bad and get horrid grades. for kids who can prevail in AP classes, it's like Christmas. for kids who can't, it's one hell of a long year.</p>
<p>Weighting class rank is superior to unweighted class rank. Period.</p>
<p>My school's transcripts include both weighted and unweighted rank. I think that's a good idea because the kids who don't take challenging classes but do well get some recognition, lol... as well as the opposite, I guess.</p>
<p>I love weighted GPAs :]
Although it SUCKS when "regular" classes that you have to take [PE, health, stuff like that] actually bring down your GPA.. lol.
[but I guess that's irrelevant when some people do GPA only by core classes.]</p>