<p>Adad, Let me take a wild guess, your kid wasn't the val either? LOL</p>
<p>Also, I believe it was doubleplay's post about EC's. </p>
<p>And I think there is an equal defensiveness tag on lil' Johnny's parents who think "he could have been the val had he worked harder (or wanted it, or wasn't cheated)" . (See the post above). Do you think their energy expended defending why their kid isn't val is more rational?</p>
<p>And just for the record, I do believe that some vals-who scheme and plot and take lesser classes and transfer schools well, that's just crazy thinking. But the majority I know haven't done that. </p>
<p>While I also believe that there are late bloomers who will set the world on it's ear, I doubt that it's any more likely to come from number 10 than number 1. Some kids who are number 1 are still blooming , too. I think that's what we can't get across. (No matter how many times we try.) Being named val didn't take away IQ points, future success, future innovative behavior from the val, and for the life of me I can't see why y'all don't see that.</p>
<p>I have no idea what will become of my D who happened to be val. I don't think she is better than someone else who was not val. There is no way to say someone who had one more A or something is a better or will have more success. </p>
<p>Here, val is who has the best grades. </p>
<p>I don't agree with the notion that vals only study. My val did study very hard, but not to become val but just because that is the kind of student she is. She sets high standards for herself and doesn't cut corners. She strives to do her very best, not just what is needed to get through. She was VERY active in ECs every single afternoon and evening and on weekends. She commonly spent about 30 hours per week at EC endeavors. She did not have a lot of free time (though didn't mind because she enjoys the EC activities for pleasure) and had to fit in 3-5 hours of homework per night and usually spent about 10 hours on homework on the weekends. Yes, she studied hard. But she is so much more than an academic student. She has won not only academic awards but awards in sports and the performing arts. At our HS, the top students ALL are very active in ECs. In fact, a high percentage of them are also in sports and another high percent are involved in music. They are well balanced and excel beyond the classroom. But to excel IN the classroom, they had to study many hours to rise to the top. </p>
<p>I see no point in thinking about what becomes of vals because there are far more successful students coming out of high schools than just the vals. The vals are strong but so are many others. The kids I know who have been vals, tend to not be slackers when they get to college and beyond but are still high achievers. Again, that is true of many students. I honestly don't follow vals enough to know. My sister in law and mother in law were vals. I think my hubby was a sal.</p>
<p>PS...I did not see ADad's question but I don't think one can predict that vals will be successful any more than some other students will be. And just as that is not predictable, I also do not think one can generalize that vals won't be movers/shakers or creative types. Last year's val went on to major in art. Last year's sal went on to focus in musical theater. My D who was val is going into a creative field, architecture. I know plenty of really really good students who also are leaders/shakers and creative types in the arts. Just because someone gets good grades (as val indicates....it is only about grades), doesn't then mean that they only conform. The kids I am hearing about that go to a highly selective school with my D, all seem to be real movers/shakers. None of them seem to be just smart academics. My D has told me what many of her peers are doing this summer, for example, and so many of them have great initiative and drive and create opportunities and/or lead. </p>
<p>So many kids who I know that get high grades, ALSO are real go getters outside of the classroom. It is not an either/or proposition when it comes to good grades vs. creative types / shakers/shapers.</p>
<p>
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Neither of my kids was a val or a sal. But I question why there is an assumption that kids strive "to be first in GPA"and that this tends to encourage </p>
<p>Good grief, this is beginning to sound as petty and resentful as the "advantages of top colleges" thread. I've always been convinced that Mensa was invented as self-solace for sour-grapes slackers, and I think some gift memberships are in order here. We just had our closing awards ceremony, and I always enjoy attending and adding my kudos to the kids who win the awards--academic, sports, arts, character-- which they have richly earned.</p>
<p>Ann, thanks. I think you have their position down perfectly.</p>
<p>Val = dullard, or grade grubber or schemer, while non-val slackard = brilliant, late bloomer, soon to be mover and shaker. Slackard , for this purpose only (and to keep the natives riled ;)), means "kid who slacks off on classes they don't like and by this 'choice' makes less than an A", because of course, had the kid tried they'd have been val. But wait, wouldn't their brilliant late bloomer mover and shaker kid then be a dullard? I'd think this one through folks. LOL.</p>
<p>I'll try again. How's this? Not all vals are brilliant, but it does not necessarily follow that brilliant kids can't be vals.</p>
<p>Adad, it's funny that you said that about the emotional energy the parents of vals put forward. That could not be farther from the truth in our house. In fact, (totally true story) when my s was a freshman and had made all A's the first semester, this WAY overly involved mom made a comment to me about how her daughter and my S could be valedictorians together. I laughed and said basically that there was no way in heck :) that my S was going to be the val. If anything, my H and I could be said to be over involved in his athletics. Unlike many on this board, my H and I were so far from being val, that I have conveniently forgotten where I was ranked ;) but I'm sure it was somewhere (hopefully) toward the middle! </p>
<p>I am extremely proud of my s, but trust me, his academic success has come as a huge shock to not only us, but everyone around him. He is much more considered a "jock" at his school than a "brain".</p>
<p>There was a study on this subject called "Lives of Promise: What Becomes of High School Valedictorians" by Dr. Arnold. She did a lengthy detailed study of the Vals from Illinois. Some of her quotes:</p>
<p>"But while valedictorians may not change the world, they run it and run it well, since they are the best of the mainstream." </p>
<p>"They obey rules, work hard and like learning, but they're not the mold breakers," said Arnold of the 81 Illinois high school valedictorians - 46 women and 35 men - she has tracked since their graduation in 1981. "They work best within the system and aren't likely to change it." </p>
<p>My experience is that Vals tend to be extremely focused and achievement oriented. They know what they want and what it takes to get there. The #1, #2, and #3 at my son's school are all of that and more.</p>
<p>Lukester, I would agree with your last paragraph as it applies to my s. I would say that he is definitely focused and achievement oriented. This is not only obvious in the class room, but on the football field, the lacrosse field, at power lifting meets, at student council meetings, etc. He doesn't change his stripes, no matter the venue.</p>
<p>Lukestar, while my kid who became val is focused and achievement oriented, one thing about her doesn't fit the description of that study:</p>
<p>""They work best within the system and aren't likely to change it." </p>
<p>This same kid initiated and developed two policies for the school and worked two years to get them through the faculty, administration and eventually the school board and community. It was an uproad process, not a smooth one. She cared about these issues and thus researched and developed the policies. She effected change in her school that has affected those who came after her once she left. A couple recs mentioned that they had never seen a kid who had done this before in the school and really affect change. They said some talk about this or that but they had not seen a kid actually do something. She wasn't an elected officer but just took this on because she wanted to make a difference. </p>
<p>I think you can have a strong work ethic and care about achievement and also be someone who creates, initiates, leads and moves.</p>
<p>Remember, sometimes the difference between #1 and #10 is not the occasional B as a result of disinterest or slacking off, but the basic system of determining gpa. My son was in the top handful of students, took honors and AP classes whenever available and never got a B. But I think our school's liklihood of eliminating rankings is probably a good thing. Ranking discouraged many from trying non-weighted courses, and those who did take a fine art class, a second foreign language, a tech ed course, or even a creative writing class were punished with a diminished gpa. In our school, you are numerically better off to take a study hall...which is just wrong! Some schools don't count non-academic classes, some don't give added weight to honors classes, etc. There is just no consistancy. The real shame of it is that substantial amounts of money are rewarded for val and sal, even though those exact positions may not mean a whole lot.</p>
<p>I totally agree with soozievt and lkf725...I graduated from a small-town high school in NY and I felt that many people near the top of the list took the safe way out and projected their GPA through easy classes. I graduated in 2004 and so far half of the top 10% have left there four year colleges and enrolled in a community college and a few others dropped out of college altogether. I think that out of the top 10% only 2 are at 4 year universities right now. So, I don't think that this is a good representation of the classes potential.</p>
I agree with most of what you've written and I decry schemers who game the system , sometimes unfairly, but I feel compelled every time someone speaks of val/sal scholarships as a bad idea, to ask : As compared to NMF scholarships that reward effort on the PSAT? As compared to scholarship for certain ACT or SAT scores? As opposed to scholarships for certain GPA? Why pick on val scholarships? I've got to say the one that gets me is NMF scholarships, why is that such a big deal? If you are a fan of tests, shouldn't a 2400 be a bigger deal? Or a 36 ACT? Say a kid made a 35 ACT, there are 7 times as many NMF's than kids who make a 35 or 36, which student do they directly reward and why? </p>
<p>Just like the parents of kids who didn't get val , I don't think a lot of the NMF award. Unlike them , I admit that I'd think slightly more of it had my daughter won it. LOL.</p>
<p>I just mean that the difference between #1 and #3 may be that #1 took study halls while #3 took a non-weighted class. Yet, #1 will get admission and scholarship benefits that #3 will not. I might add that my son is not necessarily smarter or more deserving that the student 10 numbers below him. A kid in the top 1% is not necessarily better than a kid in the top 2%. </p>
<p>Colleges give out "goodies" based upon really arbitrary systems in place at our high schools. I'm not slamming scholarships for top students, but I still would favor colleges looking at students as individuals rather than a ranking number. Maybe if high schools eliminate ranking, it would encourage colleges to look at the student in a more holistic manner.</p>
<p>lkf, I agree that arbitrary systems are in place at both some of the high schools and some of the colleges, but why pick on vals? I think there are far worse examples of weirdness. At a state uni here a kid can be val and have a 2400 or 36 but no NMF (for whatever reason) and their top scholarship is automatically limited to $4k a year. They can be NMF and have a 2100 and be lower in their class rank and automatically get (what is in effect) a full-ride. Say what? Does that make any sense to you, at all?</p>
<p>It is unfortunate that at some schools, the system doesn't encourage students to take the most rigorous route. I don't have any stats to back it up, but I would bet that those instances are in the minority. Val controversies tend to make the news. My guess is that at most schools the Val selection process is fair and accurate. At our son's school, the Val has the absolute top GPA weighted by honors and AP. There is no controversy, no complaining that he took the easy classes to boost his GPA, etc He is #1 and he earned it. He beat out the #2 by a mere .007 or so. He will end up graduating with over 14 AP classes and was the top student in most every class. I tend to agree with the study "Lives of Promises," in that most Vals will be successful, but not wildly outside the box type successful. Soozievt's kid is a nice exception. From what I've observed, most Vals/Sals exceed overall, not just in academics. It is more common to see the Vals/Sals as leaders of their school, accomplished muscians, athletes, etc. Succeed and excel is just a part of what they do, like brushing their teeth. I think a more interesting question would be to ask, "what makes a kid become a Val or Sal?" Is it nature or nurture?</p>
<p>Just because all systems of judging valedictorian aren't fair doesn't mean that there is a problem with the val himself. At the very least, the val of most schools has demonstrated the ability to succeed at a high level - which suggests both work ethic and intelligence, both admirable qualities. Some vals have gamed the system. Some cheated. Some are just really, really hard workers (combined with at least a high level of intelligence). And yes, some are truly brilliant all-around students. It just isn't fair to generalize - as other posters have said, how many people at any level of a class go on to do great things for the world? Exceptional people are by definition very, very rare. </p>
<p>And I say this as a non-val (rank 12) from a class in which the val was someone who had clawed her way to the top by dishonest methods.</p>
I agree with this. It's the systems of ranking that I call into question, not the val students themselves.</p>
<p>Cur,
No, it makes no sense at all. We unfortunately have experience with that scenario also. I know kids in my son's high school class who had far lower numbers (ie, far greater than the difference between #1 and #10) and no notable EC's, and got full rides because they did better on PSAT day. Not surprisingly, they aren't doing as well in their college classes either. </p>
<p>I only talked about the val/sal issue because that was the title of this thread. If I had come across the NMF = money thread, I would have put my 2 cents in there, too.</p>
<p>Lukester, my kid is like the kid ag54 describes. She's just wired to excel.</p>
<p>Independently. To be the best she can be even if no one is watching, and , so far at least, to be the best in the room, school, state when someone is watching . (As her stage gets larger , maybe even the nation but I don't know what she will do. There is still time for her to fall in love and live in the low rent trailer park with a guy named Buford, and I recognize that.) </p>
<p>She "doesn't change her stripes" when she changes activities (although she is learning to scale it back a notch in powder puff football :eek: ). But, she would be that way at #10 or 2 (and she came very close to being #2).</p>
<p>Rank didn't make her this way, the way she is resulted in the rank. </p>
<p>I would never suggest that being 2 or 19 or 190 means that a student can't become a college or career mover and shaker , but somehow it seems O.K. to suggest that of vals. </p>
<p>All super high achiever kids w/ the lowest rank, the big grades test scores and EC's make some "compromise" however slight it may be. If they haven't learned triage by now things might not be pretty at college. Mine gave up some part of her social life. To those of you following along, this was also not my idea. </p>
<p>Just don't paint the vals with the same broad (schemer, dullard, grade grubber, studyworm, less than brilliant, never wuzzer) brush and I'll be O.K. with that.</p>