Congratulations!

I think it's a bad idea if you're No. 26 and you're valedictorian. In the real world, you do get ranked.

Amen, Chris Healy. And No. 26 isn't going to put down that he shared valedictorian with 25 other people. You do get ranked in the real world, and that's incentive to do everything you can to rank as high as you can. It's called drive. If it matters to you, you try, and if it doesn't, you live with it.

This seems to me another facet of the helicopter parent(/teacher) problem. They're telling these kids from toddlerhood on that they're just the bestest at whatever it is, no matter if it's true. Because to say otherwise would hurt their feelings. And Cody, who ranked 26 but still gets to call himself valedictorian, is going to be in for a rude awakening at some point. If not college, then in the job market, where that law firm he wants to make him a partner doesn't care that he doesn't like to compete for ranking.

To use a favorite movie quote of mine, statements like this make my ass twitch:

a more equitable way to honor achievement, particularly when No. 1 and No. 5 may be separated by only the smallest fraction of a grade from sophomore science.

Get fucking real. The words "equitable" and "achievement" don't belong in the same sentence. Achievement is achievement, no matter how you slice it. There's nothing equitable about it, because someone will inevitably achieve more than someone else. That smallest fraction of a grade from that one class does matter when you're talking about achievement. Poor Emily lost out because she got a 98.7 and Justin got a 98.9? Too fucking bad. If Emily had the wherewithal and/or desire to score those extra two tenths of a point, she would have. That's how it works.

That story from Jay Mohr ticks me off every time. I can understand the rule that lets every kid play at least a little, because that's a lot of the point of those teams. But to not let a kid score an honest home run is just stupid and cruel. The parents don't like it when their kid feels bad about a home run? Teach him to pitch, catch, or throw better. And don't even get me started on the sports teams that don't keep score because "it's not about winning."

If you aren't keeping score then it might as well be called practice and not a game.

Congrats on being finalist!

Kids aren't idiots. They know that there are winners and losers, and people who do better and those whose efforts turn out worse. They know this from an early age. So when they see the system patronizing them, they hold it in contempt. They think it's worthless, and they start tuning out. I've seen this. No kid ever values an 'E for Effort award'; they know it's B.S.

Mainly these things are done to appease parents. Because too many parents, instead of treating their kids as separate individuals whom they have to guide and raise, instead treat their kids like extensions of themselves (or these prized ponies they have to trot out); and parents compete with each other on who has the all-around most accomplished and decorated kid. You'd be surprised how, even at the college level, you have mothers and fathers calling professors and TAs to complain about grades. It's so sad.

The unfortunate thing is that, there will come a day, maybe soon, that enough people come up through this shared mediocrity that competition in the "real world" will become politically incorrect. Then we all will share this same mediocrity. In economic and political terms, this is called communism.

Hey Amy, your last paragraph gives me an idea. I think that every movie released during a given year should win an Oscar! After all, why should some movies be ranked above others based on entirely arbitrary and bourgeois criteria like "artistry" and "acting skill"? Doesn't that make the directors and actors and writer of non-Oscar winning movies feel bad? Wouldn't it be great if *everyone* could see their favorite movie and favorite actor win an Oscar? Imagine the ratings that the awards show would get! Oh, wait, ratings are arbitrary and bourgeois competitive criteria...

I suspect that many of the people who think this way are themselves emotionally-fragile individuals who are projecting their own vulnerabilities and insecurities onto the kids.

Ha, that's funny, I just read this article and thought it was pompous bullshit by old people who don't realize how competitive kids are now, academically. I don't actually think it's grade inflation as much better performance by students who have been planning their college aps since fifth grade, and recognition system hasn't quite caught up yet. (And I was a valedictorian! Shared it with one other student, because they went by un-weighted GPA, I would have been alone with a weighted GPA. Doesn't really mean much at all, I think they should drop the whole tradition. Thought to be honest the group speeches are SO much more interesting than one nerd - me - stammering out a thank you to teachers and parents.)

I remember a college roommate complaining as we prepared for graduation that she was a tenth of a point away from magna cum laude, and how they should just let her have it.

I told her that the distinctions were meaningless if they were flexible. When she told me I didn't understand how it felt to be in her position, I blew her mind. I was one hundredth of a grade point away from summa cum laude. I was perfectly happy to be recognized for the level I had achieved, rather than bellyaching about how the rules should be stretched to accommodate me.

In high school, I would have had a chance for valedictorian, but instead I chose to pursue my passions and take band and sing in two choirs in addition to my AP weighted courses. The girl who "won" loved to sing, but dropped choir when our director refused to let her take it for no credit rather than "water down" her GPA. I'm completely happy with the choice I made, but I bet she's still bitter.

Actually, it's worse than described. We are not letting kids compete, which they do naturally.

When I am interviewing 3 candidates for one job, there is a winner. That's life, kids might as well get used to it.

The biggest problem I see is that grading is often times quite inconsistent. For example, My first semester in college I had one prof for a history class that I got C+ from and he considered that a good grade (he said he would have had a little bit of concern if I was a history major), the highest grade in the class was B. If I had taken it from the other prof that teaches the class, few people would have received less then a B. So my GPA took a big hit because I didn't know of the prof and I had the bad luck drawing to be in the last 30 people to register for classes -- it was literally, hmmm...what class has a spot open...hear is one!

In my cousin's graduation their was around 20 students who all had perfect GPAs. Only two spoke though.

The year before I graduated, the person with the highest GPA was the star athlete and most of his classes where things liked Advanced Training 2, his most academic class was College Prep. English - 75% of students took that class. Yes, he is a great Athlete (was in the Super Bowl a few years ago) but not a great academic. It was a bit of a local scandal.

I think the real problem is these honors are held in high regard, yet don't always - or even all at that often - reflect what they are supposed to.

26 valedictorians is overkill. But I see nothing wrong with recognizing excellence in more than one kid. 2-3 valedictorians I think is fine.

We're rooting for you, Red!

The biggest problem I see is that grading is often times quite inconsistent.

I wish that professor of yours had graded on a curve, TFB. I don't usually like that, but there are professors (I don't think it happens as much in high school) who score so harshly that they use a curve or some sort of compensatory system to prevent skewed GPAs. I'm not saying everyone should, but I think there are circumstances where it fits.

One of my favorite classes I ever had was a neuroscience class where 60% was an A. When the professor announced that at the beginning, most of the students thought it would be a cakewalk. I don't think anyone walked out of there with an A average. He was exacting, and the material required such precision, but he knew that so he just asked the administration to lower the standard for the grades to reflect that. He used all types of questions on his exams, and there were usually well over a hundred questions. His reasoning was that if you knew enough to get at least sixty percent of those questions right, then you deserved an A. I studied my ass off to get a B+ average.

I wish that professor of yours had graded on a curve, TFB.

He did a sort of curve. What he said in class was he believed in a curve based on C but had changed that under pressure - though he did not say exactly what the change was.

I think nearly all my profs did some kind of adjustment. Either on the individual assignments or the final grade.

While high school grading was somewhat different. It still seem inconsistent. The difference between a 3.9 and 4.0 could totally be the luck of the draw as to which teachers you had for various laws.

And the various honors in university...well, I look at it this way. In my last two years I was there only 1 person from the Math, CS, or Physics departments. I am not familiar with the exactly what the other hard science did, but I do know that 90% or more had major like English or Business. So if you majored in a hard science, not getting honors met nothing. For an English major, that indicated you were not close to the top of your class.