Can someone explain why this area has no valedictorians? Trophy-era gone mad!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have friends in Texas where class rank is hugely important because of the way admissions to UT Austin and A & M work. They tell me that it punishes kids for taking risks (e.g. kids don't take calculus because they're afraid of a B, instead they limit themselves to classes where an A is within reach), or for involvement in the arts (e.g. a kid who takes 6 honors classes plus a free period can get a 5.0, but a kid who takes 6 honors classes plus theater can't because the arts classes aren't weighted). I don't want that for my kid.

I see your point here. It's too bad.

Why do you think "it's too bad".
I think its an appropriate adjustment to the reality of high-achieving high school students today.
Kids are still recognized for being the the absolute top group of students at their high school, without creating the situation described above in the quoted text. More and more districts are recognizing this phenomenon and colleges are taking it into account. As long as there is a system in place that allows the college to know that the student is in the top 10%, 5% of their class, they don't "lose ground" against another kid for not being at a school with valedictorians.

It is not creating a system where "everyone gets a trophy". It's recognizing that there isn't much value in a system in which the top 20 academic superstars at a high school are ranked when the differences between them are insignificant.

Simmer down SAHM with too much time on your hands. Too bad meant that such a ranking did not allow student to take risks. Only a special kind of person argues against someone who agrees with them.