<p>I am seeing with increasing frequency that colleges are using class rank as more of a major factor in admissions. Some colleges, such as University of Cincinnati, require the top 10% of the high school class to be admitted into their honors program.</p>
<p>My question is simple: Why are colleges doing this? To me, it makes no sense. If my kids attends a top competitive high school with magnet programs, there will be many top kids that aren't in the top 10 or even 20% who probably would easily be in the top 10% elsewere. A good example involved one of my sons. He was in the top 5% of his middle school class. We transfered to one of the top high schools in Maryland ( and according to US News and World Reports, one of the top 20 high schools in the nation). He, however, graduated probably in the top 35% with a 3.6+ unweighted average ( weighted about 3.9). Clearly, had he stayed at his old high school, he would have been in the top 10%. Thus, the question is why is this a factor?</p>
<p>I can only think of one reason: an alternative to affirmative action. Affirmative action has a lot of negative legal ramifications. However, if they use class rank, students from poorer districts will get a leg up over those of richer districts and even magnet program schools. Can someone enlighten me.?</p>
<p>This was the topic of our lunch-time conversation today. My son was just saying how unfair it was that being in the school district we are in, he could never be even in the top 25%, while if we lived in many other areas, he would really stand out as a hardworking and smart kid. I offered him the explanation, that if indeed we lived in such areas, the likelihood would be pretty high, that his parents would also have been lesser educated, or lower income, or less interested in academics, and that would probably reflect in his performance. But no-one at the table was convinced.</p>
<p>In a reverse situation, it reminds me of the story (from here on CC) about the Asian female student, who paid a consultant, and was advised to rent an apartment in a "lower caliber" school district. Her family did this, and 2 years later she graduated as Val or Sal, and was admitted into some Ivy school. </p>
<p>I would think though, that it is a kind of AA, otherwise bright students from poorer districts would never improve their lot, or have the opportunities that the more fortunate do.</p>
<p>At State schools, you're not getting a lot of kids from top privates. I suppose middle class kids from magnets are who really get caught at the bad end of this. Just read through these boards to see hom obnoxious grade inflation is, kids with 3.9 in the top 20%. For most State schools, the top percentage works given who is mostly applying.</p>
<p>In the end, rank usually makes a lot more sense than GPA.</p>
<p>If you are asking about class rank, you could also be asking about GPA. After all, in a less challenging environment, a student might earn a higher GPA than in a more challenging one. Most schools send a school profile with the student's transcript. It tells things like the number of AP and honors courses the school offers, the range of GPA's in the class, some demographic information about the community (rural, suburban etc) and sometimes even the average %age of students who go on to college. Also, many colleges know about the reputations of some of the private prep schools and even some of the more notable public schools. Some colleges adcoms are familiar with specific high school programs as well.</p>
<p>I don't see the use of class rank as indirect AA. It may be used to identify the top performers at a particular school unknown to adcoms so that they have some sense of where this kid fits given the educational environment that he/she comes from. Well known prep and public high schools don't seem to have too much trouble getting many of their graduates into the most elite colleges and some of those students are not going to be in the top 10 of their class. I doubt that class rank is going to trump other factors on the application and is probably weighted fourth or fifth at most colleges.</p>
<p>You all still haven't answered my question: Why is class rank becoming more important?</p>
<p>If I send my kids to a crappy school, and he/she scores in the top 5%, why is this any better than a top notch kids in a very competitive school with magnet programs who is not in the top 10% but probably is as sharp if not SHARPER than the first kid? Class rank only shows where that kids ranks with regard to the others. Even then, it is misleading. The kid with the higher rank could have taken easier courses to boost their rank then the kid in the magnet school. All in all, it doesn't make sense.</p>
<p>It's a definite problem. Some top high schools have, in response, stopped calculating class rank.</p>
<p>My S ran into this in an unfortunate way this past year. He attended a very top-notch private school in CA. His class size was 123, and his final GPA was 4.4w. With 1560/800/800/760 SATs, National AP Scholar status (at least 8 APs all scores 4 or 5), National Merit Finalist, 2500 hours of leadership in a meaningful community service project over 4 years, other great ECs and fantastic recs and essays, he was not one of the students awarded my employer's annual scholarship honors, BECAUSE THERE WERE 12 STUDENTS WITH HIGHER GPAs in his class at the time of application. "Top 10% class rank" was a requirement for the scholarship.</p>
<p>In the local public school, or even a larger private school, he would have easily been in the top 10% class rank. Oops, sorry, I'll get off my sour soapbox now. I agree with you, taxguy, ranking stinks for able kids in high-achievement schools and is not a fair way to compare students from different schools. The topic leaves me with a sour taste.</p>
<p>I think the real answer to your question is in the fact that kids who go to inferior schools deserve a break. They tend to be poor and have not had opportunities. So if you go to a good private or magnet you will tend to be more middle class and have a parents who can pay or at least drive you. Schools have to draw the line somewhere, this is just one of the many.</p>
<p>I question the initial issue. Public schools are making more use of class rank because it appears less arbitrary and gives them a form of SES diversity. This gives them a degree of political insulation/support. Remember that voters and legislators are rather evenly distributed throughout the population, so it looks good if even the kids from the more downmarket suburbs and towns can get top opportunities at their public unis. Keep in mind Cinci is a public uni, no?</p>
<p>Conversely, I don't think anything has changed at private unis. They use a mix of factors.</p>
<p>Newmassdad notes,"Remember that voters and legislators are rather evenly distributed throughout the population, so it looks good if even the kids from the more downmarket suburbs and towns can get top opportunities at their public unis. Keep in mind Cinci is a public uni, no?"</p>
<p>Response: Thus, you agree with my premise that this is an indirect form of affirmative action.</p>
<p>As for only public universities emphasizing class rank, this is not true. There were a number of private schools that we looked at that also had this as a major admission's factor.</p>
<p>I always thought that the SAT was a better indicator since all the kids all over the country take the same test under the same type conditions, but there are threads that say this isn't fair, either. And even in the best schools, private or magnet or really good public, kids play the GPA game. If GPA, class rank, and SAT are all unfair, what is a college to do? They have to make a decision based on something. I guess they think that class rank is most fair because it shows how this student stacked up against others in a similar environment (even tho some may have had harder graders, etc.), same curriculum, etc. I have no preference one way or the other, just a comment. I see problems with all of them - perhaps class rank is the lesser of the evils.</p>
<p>LOL, Token, of course you don't worry about it. Homeschoolers, by definition, graduate first in their class (unless they are twins!) Of course, they also graduate last in their class too!</p>
<p>Colleges always like to brag about how many valedictorians are in their entering classes---hmmm, I wonder if they use homeschoolers to help pump up those figures, by counting them as "valedictorians."</p>
<p>No, I don't worry about it because there is no reason to obsess about any of these things. No one can hold a child down if the child is committed to doing his or her best.</p>
<p>"Why is class rank becoming more important?"
Another possible reason: grade inflation.</p>
<p>It really does not require a personal experience like mootmom's to realize that class rank is totally BS and unfair. It has been used as an alternative to AA in California and Texas. If you were in a certain top % of your class, you were guaranteed a spot at the big public universities of that state. Even the universities themselves protested, because they knew they could pick better URMs with AA than with class rank. Class rank is a more salable and less effective version of AA than the real thing. It's disheartening to see public schools like Berkeley (as evidenced by its 99% in the top 10%) and to a lesser extent private schools use this measure.</p>
<p>"the fact that kids who go to inferior schools deserve a break."
fact: a piece of information presented as having objective reality
- in fact : in truth
Quite the tactic there, proclaiming your argument as fact. </p>
<p>"They tend to be poor and have not had opportunities. So if you go to a good private or magnet you will tend to be more middle class and have a parents who can pay or at least drive you. Schools have to draw the line somewhere, this is just one of the many."
According to you, schools MUST practice the SES based AA. The question is how much. That's quite a loaded argument.
There just might be some people who dislike all such preferences.</p>
<p>Rank is indeed a strong factor in admissions. In my opinion, it might very well be the STRONGEST factor of all, and has been for a long time. </p>
<p>However, its application is far from being universal. While it is true that a few state universities systems such as the University of Texas grant automatic acceptances to the top XX% of their students, the 10% number might not have the same validity at the post selective schools.</p>
<p>At the most selective schools, students from known feeder may fall as far as a top 30% and still have a chance. On the other hand, for lesser known and less rigorous schools, the top ten percent is quasi meaningless ... there are you are talking about top 1-3 students. </p>
<p>So, the rank is indeed extremely important, but there is no real magic of a top 10%. A student ranked in the middle of the pack at a tough high school would not fare much better if he were to be ONLY in the top 10% at a lesser school. </p>
<p>The reality is very simple: parents should make educated decisions prior to their children entering high school. Finding out about the recent colleges' matriculation of the targeted high school is critical. This is especially true for the better than average private schools that seem to rest on their laurels and have not adapted in the past 15 years to the common practices of grade inflation and watered down honors or IB programs at lackluster schools. </p>
<p>Simply relying on the local reputation of schools is a recipe for disaster. The good news is that it is easily avoided.</p>
<p>Gosh, to me it's just logical to use class rank. Imagine you are an adcom trying to choose between all these great kids. You have all your 1450 and above SAT kids, or your 1500 and above, and they all have straight A's. Well, you want to know who's straight A's are better. who's 1500 was better...so you look at the quality of the school, and then at the class ranking of the schools. I imagine an algorithm - School = school quality ranking/socioeconomic status (classranking) + SAT(socioeconomic status)+ excellence in EC (socioeconomic status) etc. etc. etc.</p>
<p>;) I'm still waiting for the first "post against interest" by a parent. You know, the post from the parent of the 1600 SAT(2400 SAT) kid decrying SAT use in selective admissions. Or the parent of the val that eschews ranking as an element. Maybe the parent of the football star saying sports preferences are wrong, or the legacy commenting on how stupid where they went to school is in determining the next generation's admission to college. All you usually have to do is figure out what each poster's kid shines at to know what they consider the most valid indicators to be. It would be refreshing for at least one of us to go against our vested interest. It just won't be me 'cause I'm the father of a val/athlete. LOL.</p>
<p>Here is another twist. In the state of Washington, GPA's are not weighted, ever. So, a student at a public high school in the full IB diploma program will receive no extra gpa boost for honors level work. Same with AP classes. Students who take a much lighter course load are frequently ranked higher than the students in the most rigorous programs. While most colleges will look at the student transcript and recognize the IB and AP students have achieved at a higher level, these students can miss out on merit scholarship opportunities. The magical top 10% is often a hard and fast criteria for selection for scholarships, and unfortunately these kids miss out. Frustrating!</p>
<p>I tend to agree with Tokenadult-dont worry about it. I suspect that adcoms take many things into account including the quality of the overall student body of situations like magnet schools, private preps, high rent publics, etc. I would hope that the adcoms would take this into account for special admissions like honors programs too. This is one reason why some highly affluent districts in our area are eliminating class rank altogether. It solves a sticky problem for their students.</p>