We're all Number 1! Is 21 Valedictorians too many?
 

What say you, GCers? Should there only be one valedictorian? Is this more of that "everyone gets a trophy" mentality? Is this indicative of a watering down of grades and of teachers handing out As, as the article suggests? Or is rewarding and praising multiple students a good thing?

http://vitals.nbcnews.com/_news/2013...-too-many?lite

This is so crazy I don't even know where to begin.

At one of the schools, it seems as though they don't weigh the advanced courses more heavily and that 4.0 is the highest GPA you can get. The more rigorous courses should be worth more.

And if there are 34 Valedictorians, I'm sorry but they need to be finding a way to determine who the "true" valedictorian us, whether through lot, vote, or hunger games.

I guess you can have that many students who never made a B. what are you going to do? Go back and average out the number grades to see who had the highest A?

In my attending's son's school in San Antonio, students got points towards Valedictorian status. grades were only part of the equation. Extra-curricular activities and clubs counted. My attending was pissed because his son with all A's was below another kid with the same grades. His son was quarterback on the football team and had been a 4 year varsity member while the other kid played in the band. Apparently the band counted for more points than football.

ETA: I told my attending to quit bitching since his son won the top scholarship given to incoming students to UT. Wah, wah, wah. I was salutatorian. How will I ever recover?

Perhaps it is time to place Valedictorian/Salutatorian by the wayside and go with Summa, Magna, and Cum Laude. Or, as Sen suggests, Hunger Games.

How have they been doing it up to this point? This is the first I've heard of there being multiple valedictorians at a school, so there must have been some system of figuring out who was truly #1.

I had just over 900 students in my senior class, and we still only had one valedictorian.

What seems strange to me is that more than 10% of a graduating class can be valedictorian, as is the case for that Ohio high school in the article. Something seems really off there. Even 21 valedictorians out of 365 students seems excessive. I don't blame colleges for questioning how that can happen and for praising the valedictorian status a little less than they have in the past.

Sounds like a plan!

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000..._CJEducation_7

Maybe those 21 vals should hear this speech in 4 years :)

I honestly think that if you have that many valedictorians then maybe your classes aren't hard enough? At least they should weigh in the AP courses and maybe extracurriculars too. It would be much easier to get a 4.0 if you took just the regular classes and didn't do anything with the rest of your time but study while other people are involved and such.

This is what many schools are beginning to adopt. The speakers are chosen by either the student body or by tryouts. Colored cords or stoles are given to the students earning those three distinctions with each color corresponding to a certain level.

My high school graduating class was 160 people and about 40 of us were valedictorians, as the title was conferred upon anyone with a 4.0 or higher, and AP/IB classes were weighted with an extra point (so an A was a 5.0, B 4.0, etc). So I graduated with like a 4.2 weighted, 3.7 unweighted.

Out of the 40 or so of us, we had to like apply to be valedictorian speakers, I think, and two were selected to speak at graduation. I don't remember if they were chosen by the graduating class, by teachers, or some combination, though.

I would think that this is what happens to a society when everybody gets trophies for showing up, from T-Ball to GPAs.

I vote Hunger Games.

For me, at least, it had the opposite effect—when 1/4 of the class is a valedictorian, it really doesn't mean anything to be a valedictorian, and I think most of us knew/realized that. Besides, by that point, we already knew where we were going to college, which really kind of established the hierarchy of intelligence, as awful as that sounds.

edit: maybe that's not the opposite effect, I'm not sure. Eh, oh well.

And this is why the valedictorian accomplishment is going to become meaningless.


ETA: You beat me to it.

Which is why giving everybody a trophy is false self-esteem.

Our local high school uses the term Senior Scholars for the top 25 students -- using a weighted combination of 50% GPA, 25% ACT score, and 25% advanced/AP classes. This replaced the old Valedictorian/Salutatorian system about 15 years ago. I think it's fair and it works well. My daughter worked hard to earn this honor. She graduated 5th in her class, and they make a nice fuss over all 25 kids. I think this is much better than showcasing just a couple hard-working kids.

On the other hand...I went to the neighboring school. Shortly before I graduated, they got rid of the V/S system and started designating Distinguished Academic Leaders...those with a 3.9 or above. My graduating class of almost 500 (last of the Baby Boomers...largest class up to that time, or since) had 10 classmates who earned this honor. Last year's graduating class, with 100 less students, had almost 60 DALs. That's grade inflation for you.

Remember when only male students were named high school valedictorian? In the 1960's my aunt raised two (male) valedictorians and two (female) salutatorians; they all attended/graduated same undergrad college with the men eventually working as lawyers and the women, teachers.

Our high school graduation program listed top 25 members of graduating class with asterisk(s) next to their names. It was common knowledge who was actually ranked number one (of 1075 class members) because the school had our rank list available after each quarter ended, and you were allowed to inquire of anyone's rank.

We had sets of numeric/weighed grade rankings, with an "A" in Advanced Placement courses earning 5 points but an "A" in Regular courses earning 4 points. The tougher a course, the higher the numeric weight of the grade earned toward GPA. Our smarties had GPAs above 4.0 due to this system.

The school occasionally pictured top 10/top 25 students in yearbooks and school/local newspapers.

As to becoming a student speaker at graduation, we had to submit speeches in advance to a coalition of teachers/admins for reading/approval. Our valedictorian did not speak (I believe she had more important, scholastic things to accomplish), but two of three chosen speakers were among top 25 students.

15 years ago, my HS class eliminated valedictorians and just did summa, magna, and cum laude. My school is considerably more competitive now than it was when I graduated, and the threshold for each designation is super high. Kids take summer classes at the local college to boost their gpa. No such things as gut classes anymore!

So, while it's cute to moan about "everyone gets a trophy" and grade inflation, that's not true for a lot of schools. If anything, the kids are more ruthless and competitive because there are a lot of kids competing for a decreasing number of resources.

I graduate Cum Laude at my high school, but we also had Valedictorian and Salutatorian. Our high school did not have weighted GPA (so the max was a 4.0) and only one graduate my four years actually had a perfect 4.0. Because of this there was rarely a tie for Valedictorian, but I think in the past there have been a few instances of ties and they've broken the tie based on courses taken (ex: taking more AP classes/honors classes, etc.). You also could only graduate Cum Laude/Valedictorian/Salutatorian if you were taking challenging courses--multiple AP classes, honors projects. Graduating multiple Valedictorians to me just screams "grade inflation". So I'm much more proud of my 3.75 unweighted compared to high schools graduating kids with 4.5s who got to take college courses.

I think it is all a bit ridiculous that everyone wins just for showing up. That isn't how it is in the real world, and it sets young people up for inability to cope later when they don't "win."

For example, my friend's elementary school aged-kids were showing off their gymnastics "medals" recently. But in reality, they were "medals" for participating in an end of season showcase. I'm glad the kids are jazzed about gymnastics, but they didn't earn a medal; their parents paid for them to participate in a recital.

My high school did/does this. The valedictorian almost always was a student taking many AP courses. I don't think there has ever been more than one person as valedictorian, but then again, when I graduated from high school, the school was only about 10 years old.

Since there were a lot of students with really high GPAs, they were given ropes or stoles depending on where their GPA fell on a scale.

Came to this thread expecting to see my generation ripped a new one about how we're lazy, think we're entitled, spoiled, etc. etc. blah blah blah. Was pleasantly surprised at the comments and agree with most everything I saw. :)

That is ridiculous. I wonder why the adults in charge would allow that ;)

I realize that by now I am probably closer in age to said adults, but this argument always bothers me. When everyone on my t-ball team got trophies, it's not like we asked or expected them for them!?! I didn't know what a damn trophy was until it was handed to me. If you're (hypothetical you, not you adpiucf) blaming the parents, fine, but I have definitely read arguments where the blame gets placed on the kids. When you're 5, it's not like you have control of that...

And of course this goes for any accolades, not just literally trophies, lol

I actually kind of like that idea! (also the idea of Summa, Magna or Cum Laude)

I've always felt that it was just probably a few parents who threatened to sue the school, little league, dance team, and any thing else their kid was into if their kid was not the winner.

I think the coaches, advisors and sponsors of these groups just gave in to prevent being sued.

So, I don't think all parents are "guilty" of ensuring their precious snowflake is always the winner.

In my class (1983) of 713, we had summa, magna and cum laude. The top 10 ranked kids represented 3 GPAs. We didn't have AP classes, but we had an accelerated math program that began in 8th grade. If you didn't start it in 8th grade, you couldn't get into it later. We had to test into it and have a math teacher recommendation. Those 3 high school courses (High school was 10-12th grade only) were graded on a 5 point scale. 4 kids shared the #1 rank with As in every course, 5 kids shared the #5 rank with all As and an A- in an accelerated math class (alll in Calculus), the rest of us were at #10 with all As and a B+ in ... Calculus.

My kids school still does Val/Sal. There are usually around 250 graduates. Six AP classes are offered which are scored on a 5.0 scale. The Val is always someone who takes all 6 and gets straight As. Last year, there were 3, but there is usually 1 or 2. This year there was only one and next year it looks like there will be only one. Right now, Halostar (son of AGDee) is ranked 2nd so if he can keep with all As, he'll be Sal.

I don't think lawyers and the threat of (frivolous) lawsuits are to be blamed for this one. It comes from a well-intentioned but completely mistaken belief that not being a "winner" damages healthy self-esteem.

Oh totally agree!

With this one too!

I graduated with 1300 on a 5.0 scale and we still only one valedictorian.

I don't understand why more than one person needs that title. Understand, you may have graduated 5th in your class, and that's damn good accomplishment, but you weren't #1. You're not any less special, talented, smart, or anything else just because you didn't get a speech and a fancy title.

Screw this everyone wins bull.

Frankly, I think this whole "everybody is a winner" philosophy robs people of the chance to learn how to win graciously. IMHO, it's the better lesson to learn in life.

Yep.

I wonder how that would work in Texas, with the "valedictorian scholarships" that are (or were?) given out.

Those schools would be poor af with 300 valedictorians. lol

It robs people of the chance to win, period.

When everyone is the best, then no one is. Imagine if 4 teams won the Superbowl each year.. or if 3 men won the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor.. or if 10 contestants were crowned "The new American Idol"... Winning would ultimately lose it's value.

I'd rather be ranked #25 in my graduating class than have to share the title of "the best" with potentially dozens of other people.

The school district from which my kids graduated named everyone in the class at each HS who had over a 4.0 average a Valedictorian. The student who had the absolute highest GPA graduated #1 and was named the Scholar of Scholar. That student would graduate first in the class. The Valedictorians would all graduated in alphabetical order followed by the rest of the student body. All Valedictorians wore white gowns while the rest of the student bodies wore the main color for their HS (in my kids' case-- blue).

DaffyKD

So why not just recognize the students who earned a 4.0, and honor that one top student as valedictorian?

Again, this is why being named valedictorian will lose all meaning.

According to the free dictionary:

val·e·dic·to·ri·an (vl-dk-tôr-n, -tr-)
n.
The student with the highest academic rank in a class who delivers the valedictory at graduation.


The schools calling everybody with over a 4.0 a valedictorian need a vocabulary lesson.

I do think a few students who actually did have the same GPA with the same rigor of classes could share the title. Once you get too many though, the school is better off going with the summa cum laude, magna cum laude, & cum laude system. I didn't mention that when I graduated, the class president gave the speech. Our class president was a joke of a student who was just super hot and popular. His speech reflected his attitude toward academics.

Haha.. I definitely looked up the definition, as well. "THE student" is what stood out in all sources that I found.

One thing I realized very quickly right after I graduated hs was that hs class rankings are meaningless at that point.

Grew up in a college town surrounded by farmland. I graduated from hs in the mid/late 70's, our parents were most definitely NOT part of the "everyone gets a trophy" generation. That being said, there were a few different tracks. Some kids took cosmetology, some vo/ag, some took the most rigorous courses they could, as they intended to not only get a BS, but to get a PhD. Every year there was a kerfuffle regarding valedictorian, etc. basically because there was the divide over "whoever gets the highest GPA should get valedictorian" versus "but why should a cosmetology student get valedictorian while a kid with a much more difficult coursework doesn't get it?" Nowadays, with AP courses and the like, a kid can be knocked out of contention by one tenth of a point. With 500 in a typical class in our local hs, my vote would be for recognition for anyone with a GPA over 4.0. I don't care what you call them.

And I don't know about y'all, but in some ways my kids worked harder in high school than I ever did-5 AP courses each (we didn't have those), reading books in 8th grade that I read in 11th grade, and taking algebra in 8th grade. Now I will say that the area that I was ahead of my kids was the ability to write research papers. But then again, we had very little creative writing (thank goodness, how I hated that, but that's me), while my kids had quite a bit of it, while the kind of writing they would need in the real world and college was not emphasized as much.

Totally this at my HS - there was lots of anger that Vo-Tech kids could get into National Honor Society. Those kids should be able to say "I was 16th in a class of 100" and also "among students in the college preparatory course of study, I was 2nd out of 50."

If that many kids are getting 4.0s, then just let the class president give the speech and be done with it. I've heard some really effing boring valedictorian speeches.

My high school went from a val/sal system to a "distinguished senior scholar" of the top 1% (500ish graduates each year) about 5 years after I graduated. One of the reasons (so I hear), was because there were students who would take 6-8 academic classes, mix of AP (5.0) and standard (4.0) classes - however there would also be students who only took 4-6 academic classes + 2 "non-graded" classes (such as cheer leading, monitor, study hall, etc). Those only taking 4ish academic classes (in AP classes) would end up with higher GPAs, even though they took fewer academic classes. I tended to think that they just new the system and worked it - but there were finally a bunch of helicopter parents with influence who changed the system :)

While looking at the course schedule for information for my kids, I see that each student is only allowed to take 1 non-graded class now. Probably a better idea.

Try thousandths of a point. I graduated 15 years ago from a hypercompetitive school and our designations were pretty tight.

I graduated from HS 15 years ago.

Our GPA was calculated according to letter grades (A= 4.0; A- = 3.7, etc.), however, we could get a GPA boost for Honors (A= 4.5; A- = 4.2, etc.) or AP (A= 5.0; A- = 4.7, etc.) courses. So yes, the harder your classes were, the more weight it counted for in your GPA. That was done to reward people for taking harder courses and not have a valedictorian who had the highest GPA but not have the academic rigor of a student who may have taken all AP classes senior year.

But in terms of class rank, you could only have 1 student in each slot. Although my class was large (686 students) it was highly competitive. In order to achieve the 'one kid in a slot' rank, our GPAs were calculated to the 1000th point. (For frame of reference, I graduated with a 4.184). If there were any 'ties' the tie-breaker was done based on the # of harder courses you took. In general, there were no ties, at least towards the top of the class. I did get annoyed that the girl just above me in the class beat me out by .001 of a point, but I took more honors and AP classes than she did (she just got As where I may have gotten an A- or B+ that pulled me down a little).

Apparently, one year, valedictorian came down to the fact that one kid had taken Honors Gym (yes, we had Honors gym--harder courses e.g. dance or being a PE ass't for freshman/sophomore gym. Honors gym was only available to juniors and seniors) and the salutatorian had not. As someone who took Honors dance for gym--it wasn't easy--I can see where the salutatorian would've been pissed that year but the other person had to have worked hard to get an A.

It is my understanding that my HS still does things this way, but they are looking into changing it as we seem to be an island amongst our HS neighbors; most of whom no longer report rank. This was taken from a forum about that issue:
"In the Class of 2012, there was a .096 difference in grade point average between students ranked 5 and 25. There was a 0.689 difference in grade point average between students ranked 50-100."

And as a side note--I was particularly proud of the women in my HS class. One one member of the top 10 in my class was male (and he was #10).

I have a friend who went to another HS in my state and he was 1 of 5 valedictorians. He was miffed that he took a harder course load than any of the others but they were rewarded the same way.