Do you work at a high school? Have you ever heard kids say that they take a particular course just for the "grade bump"? I have. It's sad.
It drives me nuts. You're only fooling yourself. Here's a prominent example:
TMZ reports:4.2 GPA and a 1270 SAT is a serious mismatch. And we're talking about David Hogg here, he of the Foul Mouth Brigade from the Florida shooting. Does he come across to you as intelligent in the least? (Well, perhaps in the least!) Since we've all been bombarded with this kid, answer honestly: which number do you believe is more representative of his smarts, the 4.2 or the 1270? I know which one I'd put my money on.
David has been rejected by the 4 University of California campuses where he submitted applications -- UCLA, UCSD, UCSB and UC Irvine. He says the rejection letters came 2 weeks ago. He has a 4.2 GPA and an SAT score of 1270.1270 is slightly above the average SAT score for UC Irvine.
Some see this kid as the face of the anti-gun left. I see him as the face of grade inflation. Neither one looks good.
16 comments:
At the both our kids' schools, it gets worse: kids won't take classes that might interest them, because they only score 4.0's. For example, at one school, kids either don't want to be in the pit band for the musical, or ask that it not show up on their transcript, because the 4.0 class could bring their GPA down.
Our oldest just got through the apps process (and is on a college tour at the moment) and the schools often require you to type in your courses class-by-class, so they can do the recalculation themselves. Both schools also show the unweighted GPA on transcripts.
I've also heard of schools that give 5.0's for honors and 6.0's for AP's.
Meanwhile, colleges find the classes are less and less like the actual college courses they are supposed to mimic and are making kids retake the classes. What used to be all about getting a jump on college is now just a way to goose up a high school GPA and drive kids crazy at the same time.
I got a 1270 and 4.2 sat (2nd/3rd in my graduating class of 150).
I got into ucla, ucsd, and ucsb; i was rejected by berkeley.
Now this was 20 years ago. Im curious if i would have gotten into any of those schools now.
The problem is that ratings for schools are based on the number of AP tests taken, not the number of students taking AP classes. I am hounded every year by the assistant principal in charge of AP testing to get more of my kids to take the test. The problem is that our schools don't subsidize the cost so it can end up costing hundreds of dollars to take all the tests-because the number of tests matter more than the grade. In order to lure kids into AP classes, my school had a 1.3 multiplier. That means a kid could almost fail and still have their grade register as an A. Needless to say, this lowers the urgency of the students and at the same time allows them to push their GPA artificially. As a result, I end up with kids who have no business in an AP course-who are lazy and disruptive-and the school thinks that's just peachy. I cannot wait to retire from this nonsense.
Grade bumps are for ranking purposes, to insure that the 'right' students get into the Ivy and Little Sisters. The truly qualified have much higher SAT/
ACT and they will have taken math and science on their own, since the high schools are scamming gpa by limiting coursework to what the 'right' students can do. You won't find challenging coursework such as advanced math or AP Physics in these high school, nor enough seats for the academically qualified to be admitted. Coursework is limited so that the 'right' students can say they have taken 'the most challenging courses the high school offers'.
David...I may be mistaken but the totals for the SAT change every so often. 40 years ago the total was 1200. 20 years ago I think it was 1400. In 2005 it changed to 1600 after a brief time at 2400 with an essay. Think it is still at 1600. So Hogg's complaint shows his score to only be in the upper half. Not an outstanding score. Selective schools try to only take students in the upper 20% unless they fit a quota group. His GPA does not mirror his test score. Where inconsistencies occur the college always goes with the test score. Too many differences among the quality of the high school classes and grading. I could brag and say I got an 1180 and get laughed at today. But that was 45 years ago when the total was 1200. Big difference.
I took the SAT in the early 80s and the top score then was 1600. In the 90s the test was "recentered" because scores had been going down; prior to that recentering, SAT scores above a certain value could get you into Mensa because the SAT was more of an intelligence test than an achievement test.
Later a writing component was added, raising the top score to 1600; I don't know if it's optional or if it's been dropped, but 1600 is the number I hear thrown about today.
And no, 1270 out of 1600 (after the recentering, don't forget) isn't going to get you into top universities. I mean, it might get you into the University of Michigan or something, but their standards don't seem to ever have been high :-)
Oops. After the writing component was added, the top score was raised to 2400. My bad!
"he of the Foul Mouth Brigade from the Florida shooting. "
Maybe he is modeling himself after Ted Nugent or the President Of The United States.
Maybe, although
1. I don't see Ted Nugent all over the major networks, and
2. I don't recall hearing the president speak like that in public.
So maybe not :-)
On the other hand, maybe he's modeling himself after the head of the DNC, one Tom Perez.
Thirty-plus years ago when I was a senior in high school, we didn't have weighted grades but the issue was just starting to get bandied about. One of the arguments in favor of weighted grades was that it would reward students who opted to take more challenging classes. This made sense to me at the time, because the girl who became valedictorian of our class took easier classes to make sure her GPA wasn't dragged down. The salutatorian, on the other hand, did take more challenging classes - AP Calc, AP Bio, etc. Did that affect her GPA negatively? Don't know, but she did come in second rather than first.
What you describe, however, is just as insane - only on the other end of the spectrum, so to speak. Conclusion: no matter what system is in place, kids are going to game it. Personally, I think we should go back to putting greater weight on intelligence rather than grades. Intelligence is harder to fake, and on the whole it's more meaningful than a GPA. The problem is, of course, that it runs counter to the "college for all" myth that gets pushed on society.
That comment was so stupid that I just couldn't bear to leave it up. Seriously. It saddens me that the leftie who left it thought it of value.
I replied you you did.
So much for your moral ethical foundation of your secondary education.
Put the nippie bottle down, PhillipMarlowe, you've clearly had too much.
In 1980, I scored 1320 out of 1600. Folks were very impressed when I told them my score. This put me in the ~95%+ percentile and helped get me into West Point. The average SAT score in 1980 was 994.
One thing I noticed on my quick SAT research is that no where do I see the variation of the average published. The average test score over the years has not moved dramatically (at least from what I've seen). In my day, no one scored perfect. In fact, I seem to remember it making national news the first time a kid did get a perfect score. Now according the SAT wiki, about 300 kids per year get a perfect score. I wonder if the emphasis on taking the SAT has more under-performing students take it is driving the average down but the variation in scores to be much higher then in the past.
In 2005, they've added a section that makes the top score 2400 instead of 1600. It is known that the vocabulary portion shows the person's economic class. Poorer people never learn the vocabulary that's on the SAT.
Post a Comment