School Board Votes to Ban Having Valedictorians Because the ‘Competition’ is ‘Unheal

[hashtag45]

I have no clue what valedictorian is, or GPA or the convoluted process of getting into universities in the States entail.
And I might be off topic here, since I don't quite understand what people are talking about.

But why don't they just reduce it all to some final exams at the end of High School?
That will eliminate any potential bias, and kids will also focus on studying instead of wasting time on all that PC and useless stuff like "volunteering" or all sorts of ways to improve their CV.
That complicated process makes more sense imo at college or uni level (for further training or in order to secure a job) - but school kids are too young.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

I have no clue what valedictorian is, or GPA or the convoluted process of getting into universities in the States entail.
And I might be off topic here, since I don't quite understand what people are talking about.

But why don't they just reduce it all to some final exams at the end of High School?
That will eliminate any potential bias, and kids will also focus on studying instead of wasting time on all that PC and useless stuff like "volunteering" or all sorts of ways to improve their CV.
That complicated process makes more sense imo at college or uni level (for further training or in order to secure a job) - but school kids are too young.

I'm not quite sure what you mean. A few minutes ago you thought this was humorous, now you're saying you don't know what it's about.

Kids don't need to do any volunteering for their GPA. I'm also going to disagree with you about what you said about getting into college or getting a job.

 

[hashtag45]

I'm not quite sure what you mean. A few minutes ago you thought this was humorous, now you're saying you don't know what it's about.

Kids don't need to do any volunteering for their GPA. I'm also going to disagree with you about what you said about getting into college or getting a job.

What I meant was : the admission process seems very complicated and more worrisome, can be biased. For example: I bet it makes it easier for Yale to justify why they select mostly kids of the Elite and, -with the exception of the most brightest- very few kids of blue collar workers.

If I were in charge of the admission process, I'd wipe out everything But "admission test scores" and "SAT2 scores". There's nothing more objective than a final written exam.
- Because : I agree that being able to ingurgitate and then reproduce info (aka high test scores) are not the only important thing, and that other factors (a well rounded personality and so on) are just as important. But whereas the latter can be faked by someone who is taught how to "play the game", exam test scores are objective and never lie.



_________________________________________________________________________________________
My impression is based on what I read here:

College_admissions_in_the_United_States#How_colleges_evaluate_applicants
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/

"How colleges evaluate applicants
Factors having considerable importance

Grades in college prep courses 83%
Strength of curriculum 66%
Admission test scores 59%
Grades in all courses 46%
Essay or writing sample 27%
Student's demonstrated interest 23%
Class rank 22%
Counselor recommendation 19%
Teacher recommendation 19%
Subject test scores 10%
Interview 9%
Extracurricular activities 7%
Portfolio 6%
SAT II scores 5%
State graduation exam 4%

It is a complicated task for admissions staff at selective colleges to analyze and process thousands of applications with a "huge mail deluge" since there are often six pieces of mail for each applicant, including transcripts, letters of recommendation, and the application itself."

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

What I meant was : the admission process seems very complicated and more worrisome, can be biased. For example: I bet it makes it easier for Yale to justify why they select mostly kids of the Elite and, -with the exception of the most brightest- very few kids of blue collar workers.

If I were in charge of the admission process, I'd wipe out everything But "admission test scores" and "SAT2 scores". There's nothing more objective than a final written exam.
- Because : I agree that being able to ingurgitate and then reproduce info (aka high test scores) are not the only important thing, and that other factors (a well rounded personality and so on) are just as important. But whereas the latter can be faked by someone who is taught how to "play the game", exam test scores are objective and never lie.




_________________________________________________________________________________________
My impression is based on what I read here:

College_admissions_in_the_United_States#How_colleges_evaluate_applicants
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/

"How colleges evaluate applicants
Factors having considerable importance

Grades in college prep courses 83%
Strength of curriculum 66%
Admission test scores 59%
Grades in all courses 46%
Essay or writing sample 27%
Student's demonstrated interest 23%
Class rank 22%
Counselor recommendation 19%
Teacher recommendation 19%
Subject test scores 10%
Interview 9%
Extracurricular activities 7%
Portfolio 6%
SAT II scores 5%
State graduation exam 4%

It is a complicated task for admissions staff at selective colleges to analyze and process thousands of applications with a "huge mail deluge" since there are often six pieces of mail for each applicant, including transcripts, letters of recommendation, and the application itself."

So are high test scores simply students regurgitating information or are they the only way to determine who the best students are?

Exam scores always lie. Admission counselors never know if someone got the answer right because they could do the work, or if they just guessed B and were lucky. Your college also seems a little stiff. You're not going to have a music program, a theatre program, an arts department?



Your percentages come out to more than 100%. I'm not sure that's mathematically possible.

 

[hashtag45]

So are high test scores simply students regurgitating information or are they the only way to determine who the best students are?

Cut me some slack, will you? My e communication skills aren't the best.
I meant they are the best way to determine who the best students are, of course.

Exam scores always lie. Admission counselors never know if someone got the answer right because they could do the work, or if they just guessed B and were lucky.

What? Out of more than 200 exam questions, you have to have a truckload of luck, if you put down one's success mainly to luck or guessing. And I suspect that not all exam questions are mcq's.

I'm a firm believer in written exams. They might not always be perfect, but if conceived intelligently, they are the best way to gage either one's existing skills, or one's potential.
The other things that I saw on the list seemed a bit subjective therefore biased imo.