<p>My take is, some vals, not all, do not tend to be movers and shakers because their focus is just to get the best grades to become a val and that involves a whole lot of doing really boring stuff including things you don't have a passion for. Differently wired people are the movers and shakers as everyone has said before. This could be someone like Soozie's younger daughter or Soozie's older one who was a val. Time will tell.
How about Watson and Crick who spent most of their time in Cambridge pubs but made the connection to what the double helix really looks like from x-rays taken by another scientist and leaked to them...granted that wasn't the best thing to do, but still these two were movers and shakers. Or maybe Ben Franklin who did not go to Harvard even though he was top of his class because his father thought he was not pious enough and they did not have money (raising 16 children will do it for you).....well Franklin WAS a mover and shaker.</p>
<p>Come to think of it, Franklin should have been included in the 'Dale and Krueger' study which says kids who get into but do not necessarily go to the most prestigious colleges are the ones who are successful..! :)</p>
<p>I don't know what it means to be a "mover and shaker." Einstein-caliber? GWB (He certainly moves and shakes--including his cabinet!)? Mother Teresa?<br>
How many people we think of as movers and shakers are in the US? And how many high schools and therefore vals in any given year? It stands to reason that most vals will not remake the world. By the way, of the three people I cited, only one attended an American high school.</p>
<p>Certainly, the probability of anyone influencing or remaking the world is low. The probability, though, of influencing or remaking one's own sector or area of the world is somewhat higher.</p>
<p>I think the point of the article, though, was that vals are less likely at any level to be the influencers, the remakers, than their rank would suggest. And, the reasons for that, as suggested by others above, might have to do with the fact that being a val often means having or developing the personality or habit of playing by the existing, set practices and customs, the exisiting rules, most or all of the time. Always knowing or figuring out and doing what it takes to get that A, to maintain that high GPA.</p>
<p>But influencing, remaking involve the different skills of questioning the practices, challenging the customs, ignoring the way things are currently being done, and having prioities other than getting an "A" according to the current standard of performance (in or out of school).</p>
<p>I agree with achat. Being val is a function of how much time you put into studying and homework. Vals make sure they pull the A+'s, even in classes they aren't particularly interested in. Other kids (like mine) do very well in classes that interest them, and pull A-'s or B's in those that bore them. Time is another factor. My kids played sports year round, and never ever arrived home before 7; at least twice a week it wasn't before 10. Try to compete academically with someone studying 3 or more hours a night, when you're putting in 1 or 2. Does this mean the val is likely to do better in college or after? Depends on time and effort.
This is kind of like the SAT. My son refuses to prep- I'm convinced he would break 2300 if he did but he's content with 2100 and doing nothing. Does this mean he's less prepared for college work than someone who did the 60 hour course and took 10 practice tests? (I wish he would)
Actually, a student who's had to get results in less time may even be better prepared for what life has in store.
BTW, the val is worthy of admiration and respect- he or she consistently demonstrated exceptional academic achievement over 4 years and that deserves something.</p>
<p>n1bigdude, my brother made horrible grades in school and went on to graduate with a 4.0 in engineering. He just had to start over again with his math (algebra) so it took a little longer. I've known lots of people who do so-so in high school, work for a few years, go to college late and graduate at the head of the class. I don't believe high school grades predict future success.</p>
<p>I'm not sure if this post belongs here or on another val thread but I wonder what you all think of this. </p>
<p>My S's school has changed its criteria for how they determine valedictorian twice just in the past year. I thought it was a great idea and this is what they are doing:</p>
<p>*student must have and unweighted gpa of 4.0
*student must have taken at least 12 honors classes over the past 4 years
*of those 12 honors classes at least 4 must be AP</p>
<p>there might be more to it, but that's basically it. In my son's class of 465 seniors 15 kids were awarded Val.</p>
<p>our valedictorian wants to be a surgeon and I am salutatorian and want to be a portfolio manager or lawyer</p>
<p>My junior S who is one semester away from val status at his school did not focus on his grades other than to make sure he took care of his business. He studied when he needed to, but with athletics, time was tight. He just sort of made a deal with himself that he would try to keep his grades as high as he could (my H and I honestly never thought he would make all A's). His number one passion is football, which he loves alot more than any of his AP or honors classes, I can tell you that!! That probably doesn't sound like the prototypical val. Hence, my opinion is that all kids are different - including vals. All vals may not be the brainy kid who studies all the time to keep their grades up, just as all football players may not be the dumb jock who doesn't care about school.</p>
<p>our school's val is whoever is ranked #1</p>
<p>in the top ten of our school, only the #2 and #7 are actually intelligent and have EC's to back it up </p>
<p>everyone either 1.) just knows how to get A's 2.) cheats like hell 3.) knows how to bs good</p>
<p>i'm ranked #51/520 (my freshman year i had straight A"s and then slacked off and got 2 C's and a B because i thought freshman year didnt matter...which is true for UC's, but i forgot that it affected your class rank)</p>
<p>i can honestly say that i belong is the top 5%, but whatever...i don't really care about my rank anyways</p>
<p>Doubleplay, your generalizations about vals is inaccurate in many cases. While it's true that they do what's needed to excell in all their classes, as opposed to just those that interest them, it is NOT true that they necessarily spend all their time studying rather than pursuing ec's.</p>
<p>My son, a val, was a nationally ranked debater and team capt., played two instruments (area-all state in one), was a ranked USTA tennis player (travelling all over for tournments) and team capt., consistently took a full load of classes in addition to college courses, and had leadership roles in various clubs. He was also heavily involved in science research in the summers, which meant writing papers for publication and competitions during the school year. He was always home late, and he missed a lot of school traveling the country to compete in debate tournaments. </p>
<p>And at his college, there are tons of kids like him who were vals. Also tons of kids whose parents post on this forum--read some of soozievt's posts, for example, about her val daughter who played three sports and two instruments, etc, etc.! (likewise for curmudgeon's d.)</p>
<p>So, I think it is quite unfair of you to characterize all vals as those who simply stay home and study.</p>
<p>I wasn't suggesting that at all. While there may be some students who can take a rigorous courseload and make top grades by studying an hour per night, I'd guess that that is rare. The students who do are extremely intellectually gifted. I didn't say that vals do nothing but study- just that they probably study more. I didn't say that anyone who becomes val doesn't have ECs.<br>
For the average student, results are going to correlate with effort- the more time spent studying, the higher the grades. At least that's how it works in my family.
The vals I've known studied a heck of a lot more than my kids. Had mine wanted to graduate at the top of their class, they would have had to study more. They would have had to give up some (not all) of their activities and get their tails home at least in time to put in 2 or 3 hours of work, or work over weekends.</p>
<p>I'm hoping that I haven't offended anyone on these boards. I know there are a lot of proud parents of deserving vals out there and I don't mean to suggest that your kids aren't going to be successful. The thread was about whether being val means becoming a mover and shaker later in life. In our school, the val is the person with the highest GPA, that's it. No other variables are accounted for. On the basis of that alone, I don't believe there can be a conclusion. Maybe someone out there knows of studies that have been done to prove that A's in 9-12th grade correlate with a higher level of success later in life. I think there's a lot more to it than that- whether the person continues to work hard, their personality, popularity, will, looks (unfortunately in some cases), luck (again, unfortunately), having a great idea, being in the right place at the right time...
You all know your kids better than anyone else here. Congratulations to them and to you!</p>
<p>
I would point out that the word superior or the word poor can be substituted for the word average and the sentence would be as true. </p>
<p>
And what makes you think it would have been their choice? That's both silly and overly optimistic. </p>
<p>Are some of you really just rationalizing why your kids weren't val? I am trying to understand and it appears that some of you think that being val somehow makes you less intelligent, or is evidence of less than superior intelligence. Yeah, right. It does appear though that slackard behavior is a clear indicator of brilliance. ;)</p>
<p>To repeat, at our school #1 and #2 also won the vast majority of non grade-based "best student" awards, ranked #1 and #2 on standardized testing , were the first two Ivy acceptances at our school, and had a list of EC's that equal any I've seen on CC. My daughter alone was a state qualifier in solo and ensemble, a district math champion, a regional math medal winner, a state championship basketball player, a Girls State leader, a section leader in a state ranked military marching band, and .............never mind. She doesn't need defending. You see, she's the val. She doesn't have to prove anything. At least not tonight. LOL. ;) </p>
<p>Let me close with a word to this year's vals. Be proud of your accomplishment. Remember, there are always going to be petty, jealous people who react to their "betters" accomplishments with "if little Johnny had really wanted to be val , he would have been". Hogwash. Talk is cheap, Little Johnny, do the work.</p>
<p>P.S. When you graduate with honors from college, the same people will be there sniping at you again. You can count on it.</p>
<p>(And yes, you offended the hell out of me.)</p>
<p>All right. You're right, I can't prove that my kids would have had higher GPAs if they had studied harder, but it is a rational assumption. But I am going to vehemently defend the presumption that they are slackards, or that I take slackard behavior to mean brilliance.
Mine graduated 8th. Is he "better" (your words) than the 16th? Or the 100th? Or less so than the 3rd?<br>
He worked hard, 8 varsity letters, multiple sports awards, constantly in the paper, community service in youth sports, president of government and NHS, Mu Alpha Theta, accomplished in an instrument, leadership awards at the community and state level, 3.9 UW GPA (only 2 Bs in AP classes- and if he'd studied harder he could have made As). He is in the honors program at his college. He received numerous scholarships (merit).<br>
I'm saying all this not to brag but to defend my kid. He's not a slacker. I'm not rationalizing or jealous. He's done with high school and on to college with no looking back. It's disappointing to get insulted by total strangers when I've gone out of my way to give kudos to your kids. I never dreamed that saying hard work (studying) leads to top grades would get people riled up. Congratulations to you and your "better" daughter.</p>
<p>but that's not all you said, now is it?</p>
<p>Secondly, my post was directed at all the naysayers. Not just you. </p>
<p>And third, are you saying your kids worked as hard as they could in high school? Or less than as hard as they could? I'm trying to understand your antipathy toward vals.</p>
<p>Oh, and my word was "your 'better's'" (colloquial) not "better".</p>
<p>What is it that your reading that I'm not?</p>
<p>"Congratulations to you and your "better" daughter."
That was uncalled for.</p>
<p>As I read it, doubleplay you believe that vals are worthy of some recognition ("he or she consistently demonstrated exceptional academic achievement over 4 years and that deserves something"), but not much since any of the kids could have achieved the same thing if they had bothered to (or had the time to) put in the effort. Is this what you meant to convey?</p>
<p>
I know just how you feel.;) That broad brush gets a little unwieldy, doesn't it?</p>
<p>Sounds to me like y'all must have had a conversation in your house about those two B's. Why was that? You already said he wasn't interested in the classes. That is why he didn't study enough right? It was his choice NOT to study? So why get upset if someone chose to study for all their assigned classes and do all the EC's too? And I really don't see how logical your extrapolation is that had your kid worked harder he would have been val. How about the other kids who beat him ? Couldn't they work even harder, too? LOL. Or were they at the top of their limited ladder? </p>
<p>This really doesn't have anything to do with my kid. She loved her AP classes. She did all these things (State champ, Ivy acceptance, top test scores, almost a million dollars in merit awards), too but she's proudest of the val. At our school , it is a big deal. Maybe other schools where there is a lot of gaming it's different. But here it's just "let the best man win" and sometimes that's a girl.;) Maybe it means more here because the sal was such a worthy competitor. But don't try to diminish the accomplishments of a group of kids you know nothing about by suggesting they did it all by "working hard" . Maybe some are more brilliant, too. It could happen.</p>
<p>One issue about vals is the emotional energy that parents of vals sometimes bring to the table. It seems difficult to discuss the significance of being a val rationally, since some take any questioning of the significance of being val as a personal affront to their own val. And to say that a certain kid was not only first in GPA, but also first in the xyz EC, has nothing to do with the general question IMO.</p>
<p>All of those things, high GPA, excellence in ECs, are wonderful achievements. I know that vals are terrific kids. But the question remains: does child (and sometimes parent) energetically striving to be first in GPA at one particular high school tend to encourage a certain habit of mind that tends away from creative, breakthrough thinking later in life? It is a legitimate question.</p>
<p>These types of issues and discussions are why I, personally, think it best to not rank kids in high school. The intellectual and emotional energy spent by students, parents, teachers, and administrators on this topic are better, more educationally, spent elsewhere, IMO. Differences of hundredths of a point in GPA are not, IMO, indicators of superiority in high school performance, nor are they, IMO, predictors of superior performance in life generally.</p>