Click here to go to the NEW College Discussion Forum

First off, I remember back in the day when I graduated from high school. The valedictorians graduated with a 4.0, or a 3.9, or something like that. Nowadays, I see kids reporting their 3.7 unweighted gpa's working out to a weighted 8.6. How do colleges view this. Suddenly my child, who graduated with a 3.9, must look like a complete dumby next to the valedictorian who graduated with a 4.298. Do GPA's really mean anything anymore? What does a college do when a student says their first in the class with a 18.2 gpa? And yet, why do schools persist in saying that their GPA is on a 4.0 scale? If the highest a person can get is a 4.8 gpa then isn't it out of a 4.8?

Second, what is this about multiple valedictorians? Locally, there was a school who graduated 30+ valedictorians. Most of them had taken band--a guaranteed A--and a lot of them had gone the underwater basketweaving route. Does class rank mean anything anymore? It used to be that valedictorian meant something. Anymore, it feels like the marked honor of being a valedictorian is akin to the expansion of honor rolls. We feel like we don't want to hurt anybodies feeling so we have an honor roll with incredibly low standards, or we establish an honor roll for everyone.

I think this is all a sign of social disfunction. We aim to please even the worst people because we can't afford to crush anyone's dreams. To me it doesn't make sense to put everyone's name on an honor roll, or to make everyone a valedictorian, or to make gpa's 9.67. These things are signs of academic distinction. Not everyone should be set apart academically. Just like I should not be set apart for my mechanical abilities, or my diving and swimming abilities--most people would refer to me as "disabled" when it comes to these things. Being academically distinct is a high honor, unfortunately, we live in a society that doesn't recognize that there is high honor in being distinct in any area. Where would we be if everyone was academically distinct? Without the mechanically distinct, we would not have experienced the industrial revolution. And without the athletically distinct we wouldn't have baseball, basketball, hockey, or even the olympics.

By Elizabeth22 (Elizabeth22) on Saturday, August 21, 2004 - 12:10 pm: Edit

I entirely agree. Luckily, my school doesn't weight GPAs (though we weight for class difficulty to determine rank), and we graduate one valedictorian each year. I'd hate to see it any other way. Honor roll is already meaningless (kids from remedial math are placed on the same list as AP Calc students). My 3.6 puts me 23/266 in the class- just the way it should be.

By Emeraldkity4 (Emeraldkity4) on Saturday, August 21, 2004 - 12:12 pm: Edit

I think it depends on school. I think it is great to recognize academic distinction, but to emphaize competiveness in academics, doesn't seem to be to be the point. Shouldn't the point be about the learning, not that someone recieved a nth point more than someone else?
I was really turned off by schools that encourage competiveness, for example Lakeside a local prep school where Bill G and Paul A were classmates, post percentage points in the halls with names attached.
Public schools sometimes do that too I admit, but at least they post the student number, not the name.
My older daughter attended a school that didn't weight and didnt have AP classes although they do have honors. However the rigor of the school is such that even to be admitted you are doing pretty well and it is a given that you will work hard in your classes.
She also attends a college that doesn't routinely dispense grades, you need to make a specific appt with your profs to even see your grades, I feel this puts the emphasis where it belongs , on the work and not the grades. I feel that the grade inflation that is so rampant in both high schools and colleges is a results of emphasis on GPA rather than learning.
Her college has little grade inflation, average GPA is 2.90 however students had much higher GPAs in high school and go on to recieve phds in the top ten% in all fields so the ones that graduate are definitely getting an education

By Kryonme (Kryonme) on Saturday, August 21, 2004 - 12:20 pm: Edit

I don't think there is anything wrong with fostering a sort of competetiveness for grades, or for anything. Competition is a part of life. If you have lower grades in school though, it doesn't mean that you will fail at life. In life people are better at some things than are others. I got good grades, but I didn't come out at the top of my class. I have done very well for myself because I've competed in the world--trying to succeed at life--at the highest level. Competing for success in life is something you learn through success and failure elsewhere, including school. If a child is recognized for his sub par grades it fosters a sense of contentment with sub par achievement. A school should instead try to push their students. That means a school needs not to be afraid of hurting the student's feelings at times.

By Interesteddad (Interesteddad) on Saturday, August 21, 2004 - 12:21 pm: Edit

Actually, the weighted class ranks are designed to reward students who take the most academically challenging courses. They are a good thing for those of us who believe that AP English with an "old-school" teacher counts for more than an A+ in underwater basketweaving.

By Boysmom (Boysmom) on Saturday, August 21, 2004 - 12:29 pm: Edit

I remember it the opposite way. When I graduated from high school, our valedectorian had a GPA of about 3.6. Nowadays, everybody has over a 4.0. Back in our day, you could get into the top schools with something over a 3.0. The average GPA of kids attending Michigan from my kids school this year was around 3.9. I know one boy who was not admitted with a 3.84. I think that if 30 kids graduate with a perfect 4.0 they need to change the grading scale.

By Mom101 (Mom101) on Saturday, August 21, 2004 - 12:35 pm: Edit

Grade inflation is so rampant in CA that one needs over a 4.0 to get into a better UC. Yet the SAT scores are in the 1200s.

By Emeraldkity4 (Emeraldkity4) on Saturday, August 21, 2004 - 12:48 pm: Edit

my daughter had a 3.3 GPA but her SAT was 1370, this wasn't because she was "underacheiving" in class, but because her school didn't weight grades.
Her school was fairly academic, students who weren't necessarily valedictorians are attending competitive (including Ivies) schools.
But I do see some schools handing out lots of high grades, not differentiating between A's in physics and A's in PE when calculating GPA for honor roll. I think it is fine to give As in PE, although I like what my daughter's school did and gave A's for participation, cooperativeness and sportsman ship and not athletic prowess.
While that might be too touchy feely for some, they were upfront about what they would grade on, and true athletic talent was recognized on the sports field, in class, learning to work together, to follow directions, and meet individual goals was what was valued.
I do think that the academic honor roll should only count academic classes akin to what colleges do. Colleges don't generally count studio and performance based classes in GPA, and to do so in high school can give students an inflated idea of how they are doing.

By Thumper1 (Thumper1) on Saturday, August 21, 2004 - 12:54 pm: Edit

DD is taking a challenging courseload. Her GPA is 3.44 (unweighted) but she is 10/193 in her graduation class. She has worked hard for her grades with very little grade inflation in the classes she has taken. Many of the colleges she is looking at have statistics that say that average GPA is above 3.6 with many students in the top 10% of their classes. She ranks higher than that with a lower GPA..wonder how that will pan out at application time??

By Thebarnrat (Thebarnrat) on Saturday, August 21, 2004 - 12:57 pm: Edit

There are some school that are just really easy that throw out A's like its nothing and end up with a million 4.8s, but when a person has a 4.8 and a 1280 best or combined score, colleges know whats up. I don't know how long weighted AP/Honors grades have been in existence, but thats why a 4.9 means all As as opposed to the 4.0 before. And schools HAVE gotten really competitive, which i think is just fine. There are too many kids that I know who are coddled by their parents. If they dont get into honors english, their parents call to sue the school. If they dont get the teacher they want, the parents call to sue the school. Its BS IMHO. I know in my school, I graduated with a 4.3 and was like 63rd. 70 people graduated with above a 4.0 out of a 700 person class. And they earned it. Most SAT scores were at least 1300 +.

By Marite (Marite) on Saturday, August 21, 2004 - 01:09 pm: Edit

There are different issues here: weighted vs.unweighted grades, honors rolls, valedictorians or not.

Competition can be good, but it can also lead to ethical lapses (remember Blair Hornstein?) or even lawsuits such as was launched by the young woman who graduated early but sued her high school to be valedictorian while already a freshman at Wesleyan. Ranking can also give the wrong impression to colleges. We're not talking Olympic gold medals (but read about the flap over men's gymnastics). What is the real difference between two students separated by 1/1000th of a point? None, I sumbit.

The pursuit of grades can also be inimical to the pursuit of academic challenge. Students may not take underground basket-weaving, but they will settle for college prep courses where they can get easy As while their peers challenge themselves with college courses.

My S will be graduating early (no hope of val or sal). Not being concerned about grades or rank has had a wonderfully liberating effect on him. It has allowed him to take intellectual risks. He has gotten A- in advanced college math classes while his peers got A+ in Algebra II. I have no idea what effect it will have on his GPA or class rank. But whatever it is, he would not do anything differently.

By Interesteddad (Interesteddad) on Saturday, August 21, 2004 - 04:10 pm: Edit

Grade inflation is not universal, even in public high schools.

My daughter has had several classes where only 2 or 3 students got an A- or better grade and she ended up with B+ grades. Her unweighted GPA for 4 years was a 3.7 which increased to a 4.4 with the weighting for honors and AP courses. That was enough to be second in her class -- a completely fair ranking relative to the others in the top 5% of the class. By the end of her senior year, the top 4 ranked kids had all been kids who took the full offering of weighted academic courses. A couple of kids on the "easy" track had been ranked number 3 and 4 until the end of junior year when the lack of weighting knocked them back a bit.

All in all, it seemed to me like a very fair system and a useful one for colleges considering applicants from her school.

By J2company (J2company) on Sunday, August 22, 2004 - 01:32 am: Edit

I am a newbie on this board, but I can definitely appreciate the differences among the different comparatives. For example, my son has GPAs 3.83(U) and 4.53(W). When determining GPA, his school uses a 4.0 scale for regular classes, then adds the "weight" of 4.5 for honors classes and a 5.0 for AP. He takes a very rigorous schedule. As a junior, he took 4AP's and 1 honors class. Therefore he gets the extra weight. His unweighted score shows clearly that he is not a straight A student. The weighted GPA shows the rigor of his schedule and is used in determining class rank (13 of 403).

His high school has an AP choice program, so it offers many AP classes. It is very possible to be a straight A student and not rank in the top 50-70 students, because there are no honors or AP classes in the mix. Watching the Olympics this week, I have come to refer to this as the "Degree of Difficulty" scale. A student can choose to start from a 5.0, 4.5 or 4.0 (plus various increments in between), but unless the more challenging curriculum is attempted, the higher numbers cannot be achieved.

Of course, those numbers mean nothing unless the reputation of the school is factored in. If students routinely receive A's in their AP classes and 1's and 2's on the exams, then you have a problem. The same is true for SAT scores, etc. Fortunately, our public (strike 1), Florida (strike 2) high school is among the best in the nation. (According to Newsweek. I know you guys hate these ranking surveys.)

By Interesteddad (Interesteddad) on Sunday, August 22, 2004 - 01:39 am: Edit

I don't think public high schools put an applicant at a disadvantage in elite college admissions. To tell you the truth, I think my daughter probably had a better chance being at the top of her class at an average small-town public high school than she would have had she been further down the class rank at nearby Exeter or Andover.

We know two students (one at the 10% mark at Exeter and one in the top 5 at a major science magnet school) that fared about the same or a little worse in the applications game this year.

By J2company (J2company) on Sunday, August 22, 2004 - 01:56 am: Edit

Unfortunately, Florida public schools are ranked among the worst in the country. I have been very fortunate that for some reason, my sons have attended some wonderful schools. Believe me, it is not because we live in the "economically advantaged" areas of town.

By Marite (Marite) on Sunday, August 22, 2004 - 06:41 am: Edit

>> If students routinely receive A's in their AP classes and 1's and 2's on the exams, then you have a problem.>>


There really is no perfect system.

The problem is particularly acute if the AP classes are taken in senior year. AP classes vary in degree of difficulty and teachers have different standards for grading. What should provide a measure of standardization and a check on the quality of AP classes is the AP exam. However, there have been many reports that students take the AP class because of the weighting but have no intention of taking the exam.

Another issue is that the AP curriculum is very specific and is oriented toward broad survey courses. It is possible to have very rigorous courses in more narrowly defined subjects, such as Shakespeare's plays or Russian literature that are actually closer to what students will encounter in college. In fact, some high performing schools do not offer AP classes though their students take AP exams and do very well. If such courses were part of a mix together with AP courses, and under a system that gave extra weight to AP classes, such courses would not advantage students who took them.

By Starryqt22 (Starryqt22) on Sunday, August 22, 2004 - 09:48 pm: Edit

As a student, I believe grades should have more meaning than the SAT's. I got a 1370 yet have straight A's in almost all AP classes in a very challenging school. I hate it when people say that the SAT should mean more than grades. Also, 1200 isn't bad.

By Momoffour (Momoffour) on Monday, August 23, 2004 - 12:01 am: Edit

When a college says that the average freshman admit had a gpa of 3.7 is that weighted or unweighted gpa?

By Emeraldkity4 (Emeraldkity4) on Monday, August 23, 2004 - 12:46 am: Edit

that would be unweighted I imagine since many don't have weighted classes

By Mom101 (Mom101) on Monday, August 23, 2004 - 12:56 am: Edit

What you need to understand Starry, is that an A at one school is very different than an A at another school. Thus the reason for SATs. But there is no perfect system which is why even huge State systems like the UCs have moved away from solely quantative evaluation of students.

By Interesteddad (Interesteddad) on Monday, August 23, 2004 - 12:57 am: Edit

>> When a college says that the average freshman admit had a gpa of 3.7 is that weighted or unweighted gpa?

I don't think the colleges could even tell you what it means. It's a blank on USNew's Common Data Set form that somebody in the admissions office has to fill out.

In my opinion, GPA is meaningless without the context of the school and at least an estimate of class rank.

By Idler (Idler) on Monday, August 23, 2004 - 09:58 am: Edit

Many apps, when asking for class rank, also ask, how many share the rank?

Also, I'll add that I used to read applications, and grade inflation is matched by the inflated language of most letters of recommendation: read a few hundred of them and you realize that the language of praise is a debased currency, too

By Rhonda63 (Rhonda63) on Monday, August 23, 2004 - 10:20 am: Edit

Idler -- I completely agree. I remember reading a statement by a Chicago adcom a few years ago -- he said he'd been reviewing apps for 20 years or something, and in all that time he had read only one less-than-glowing recommendation.

By Elizabeth22 (Elizabeth22) on Monday, August 23, 2004 - 11:18 am: Edit

Starry-

I think grades are often more important than SAT scores too. It bothers me, however, when people pretend like SATs mean nothing. They're one of the few standardized methods of assessing kids, and they're almost as useful as grades in determining first year college grades. They do mean something. There's a fair amount of logic involved in math, and students who perform well in verbal are typically very wellread. Your straight As can't really be compared to any one else's straight As, because there's no standardized system of grading.

By Rhonda63 (Rhonda63) on Monday, August 23, 2004 - 11:51 am: Edit

Elizabeth -- I agree with you about the importance of SATs as one "standardized" comparison tool, esp in this age of rampant grade inflation. AP scores are another useful tool.

But one thing to keep in mind about the SAT is that there are fairly small score differences at the top. The difference btwn a 700 and 800 math, for example, can be as few as 4 questions. So I think it makes sense for a school to feel once your score is above a certain level, extra points don't matter that much -- in other words, there's not much diff btwn a 1500 and a 1600.

As for weighting, my D's school did not weight, and she was in the top 5% while taking the most difficult courseload (she and one other student had the highest number of AP classes). I think colleges can see through the weighting process that results in high rank, and really the most elite schools expect kids to have high unweighted ranks while taking the most difficult courseload.

By Muppetcoat (Muppetcoat) on Monday, August 23, 2004 - 12:20 pm: Edit

sorry to pick on your original post- but was your child in band?

At many high schools band is anything BUT an easy A. Do you have any idea how much of a time commitment it is? Rehearsals after school, rehearsals during the summer, competitions on weekends, year round performances, individual practice time spent, and other various required performances (area band auditions for one) Plus so many music teachers are sick of people taking their classes expecting easy As that they make it harder for the people who are actually passionate.

Still, people are always talking about how students involved in art classes do better over all, so maybe a valedictorian in band is a positive thing for band, rather than a negative thing towards the school.

And when you think about it- if your weighted GPA really is a 4.9, taking an "easy A" class that's only out of 4 would actually hurt your GPA.