<p>It doesn't really help honors students get ahead. It just changes the scale a little. If you get a B in an honors class, you'll have a 4.0, but you'll still be behind the person who got an A.
Not every school weights GPA, so I assume colleges have to convert everyone's GPA back to their own scale anyway.
Some people say weighted grades are good because they help distinguish between honors students and people who got A's in easy classes. But high schools can see your transcript when they determine class rank, and colleges can see your transcript when they determine whether to admit you or not. They can tell if you've challenged yourself. (Weighting the grades does make this less subjective, but that's the only good thing I can think of.)</p>
<p>So schools see both your unweighted and weighted GPA. Of course getting a B in a honors class is not the same as an A. By weighted the GPA your high school is saying that this B is better then say an A in a non-honors class, basically they are recognizing the extra work you put in. Most colleges these days recalculate a weighted GPA as well, but if they get a lot of applicants from a school they will already be familiar with that schools system. Yes, colleges do see the difference on the transcript, but it is still good to see that distinction.</p>
<p>Well, does your school rank based on weighted or unweighted, OP? Ours is the former, so naturally it’s all important.</p>
<p>Let me tell you a story: Weighted GPA mattered when they picked people for our school’s chapter of NHS - you had to have a 3.5 unweighted. I was not thrilled to hear that my best friend that doesn’t take any honors courses (here, honors courses are the standard while non-honors is…frowned upon) had almost a perfect 4.0 while I had a 3.3 in honors classes (granted, I had a rough time early on and with personal issues). </p>
<p>Am I mad that I didn’t get in? Actually, no, because our NHS doesn’t do anything. Am I annoyed that someone who admittedly doesn’t work as hard as I do (and she agreed with this sentiment) got in instead? Kind of.</p>
<p>And i’m a really laid-back person with my grades, so i’m not even the CC extreme in this case. If it happened to a lot of other people they would be absolutely livid.</p>
<p>I think, if someone is going to use weighting as a unit of measurement of relative academic effort, it’s more accurate than just giving one weight to everything. I also do think it’s fair to the people that work around the clock for that extra weighting while others choose to coast (and yes, some people do choose that; might be a bit hard for someone here to fathom). You get what you put in.</p>
<p>Granted, the bitter person can console themselves with the fact that the people who get the grade they didn’t deserve are going to have a rough time in college and in the future. Taking shortcuts almost always never pays off.</p>
<p>Well, my school doesn<code>t rank at all, but our GPA is used to determine NHS qualification and more importantly, if we graduate with honors or not. And they use our weighted GPA, so it helps me out because if I get an A in an AP class, it</code>s essentially a 5.0, so it boosts my GPA.</p>
<p>Does NHS actually do anything?</p>
<p>Debatable. I’ve heard from the people in mine that they don’t. I saw them at graduation handing out the program and helping some elderly folks to their seat. I know that each member has to design their own service project and do 2 hours/month of tutoring, plus maintain their 3.5.</p>
<p>That’s something that most people can do, I think, regardless of GPA. Which is partly why I think it’s redundant. I also think it’s silly because some people got really worked up about it.</p>
<p>@aomame
They say they use unweighted GPA, course rigor, and total number of credits to calculate class rank. They probably do calculate a weighted GPA of some sort (we’re probably ranked by a computer), but it’s not reported to us.</p>
<p>For our NHS, you have to have a 3.2 to be eligible and then they essentially pick you based on how many school activities you’re involved in. The salutatorian, who has a 4.0, was rejected, but a football player with a 3.2 or so was accepted.
I got rejected as well. I don’t care about NHS itself (although tutoring is fun), but I do worry that whatever kept me out of NHS will keep me out of a good college.</p>
<p>You know having a 4.0 doesn’t automatically better than a person with a 3.2. Maybe numerically, but holistically it isn’t a given.</p>
<p>At my school NHS, is highly involved. You have a nice core of 20 students that really pull their weight and get things done. Chapters vary school to school, but you got to give props to the chapters that above and beyond.</p>
<p>Indeed, “course rigor” seems to imply that they favor those who took harder classes and did decently well.</p>
<p>I think that’s kind of a jerk move to favor the people who are “more involved,” because a lot of that is a popularity contest. Like in my UNICEF club, the girl who founded it picked her boyfriend and two best friends to be officers for three years. It does make sense in that a more well-rounded person is attractive, but it’s all of the “lopsided” people that makes a group interesting.</p>
<p>@Niquii; that’s naturally a given…</p>
<p>“You know having a 4.0 doesn’t automatically better than a person with a 3.2.”</p>
<p>I know, but a person with a 3.2 isn’t necessarily better than a person with a 3.1. But the 3.1 person can’t get into NHS. I always figured NHS was shallow that way, especially at my school. So the results of the selection surprised me.</p>
<p>@aomame Your response wasn’t vague at all…</p>
<p>What’s naturally a given?</p>
<p>
You’re right. Why should they pick kids that are involved in the community? They should pick kids that soley focus on their schedules classes or that shy away from joing clubs. That’s a highly specific example you through out there. If you were so miffed about not being in officer in that club, why didn you go to the sponsor? Why didn’t you come up with ideas or events that you’d be in charge of?</p>
<p>@OP It’s just a cut off point. At my school, our cut off is a 3.5. I don’t think having a cut off point is shallow. That’s like saying a scholarship that requires you to be a senior is shallow because they won’t let a junior apply. It’s a cut off point. A requirement.</p>
<p>What would I gain by talking to the advisor? (which I did; and she pointed out that the girl DID found it, so she had free will) Nothing.</p>
<p>I just wanted to throw a random example out there.</p>
<p>And I meant it was a given that a person with a 4.0 wouldn’t automatically be better than the person with the 3.2. I can only think of maybe 3 or 4 people that I know with high GPA’s (in that 4.0+ range) that I would actually want to spend time with compared to all the people I know with lower GPA’s, but i’m biased because I am essentially that kid with the 3.2. It all depends on how you look at it.</p>
<p>The 4.0 person might be better for tutoring, but I’m not sure about that either. I’ve had several teachers who were really intelligent but couldn’t explain anything.</p>
<p>@aomame You have a poor way of agreeing with someone.</p>
<p>I aim to please, Niquii.</p>
<p>Well, at my school our GPA is weighted for ranking. There was a case about 5 years ago where the valedictorian was a student who had almost a full schedule of music classes, and then P.I.G. and regular English. Her GPA was incredibly high because she was a good musician, but her schedule was also very easy compared to other students who were going for an IB diploma. So now IB and AP courses are weighted, so that the students taking the hardest classes will be ranked higher than those in regular classes.</p>