Valedictorians and Student Rankings
BY KIRTANA KRISHNAKUMAR '20
The sun shines brightly, glinting off pearly white chairs dotting the grassy field. Parents, teachers, and students look on as a girl steps up to the mahogany podium. She straightens her cap, clears her throat, and begins, smiling down at the expectant faces. Laughs reverberate as she recounts her graduating class’s memories; the audience applauds while she honors her peers’ hard work; and after ending with advice for the future, everyone stands to clap and cheer.
As the holder of the highest GPA, this girl is the school’s pride. She is the valedictorian, a word that has come to mean the epitome of excellence. Interestingly, the word itself—of the Latin root vale dicere—has nothing to do with achievement; it simply means “to say farewell.” And certainly, valedictorians were once only known for their final address to a graduating class. However, over time, the term has come to signify far more: it is now a symbol of student ranking and a rather contentious practice.
Though valedictorians have been a long-held tradition in conventional American high schools, ranking has slowly become an obsolete practice. Modern psychologists and education experts agree that it increases competition and has negative impacts on both learning and development. Hence, many high schools are now taking action. Some are outright abolishing the practice and simply selecting a deserving student to give the final address. Others hope to keep recognizing academic achievement by awarding the top 10 students or acknowledging all students with GPAs above a certain number. Even so, while ranks are not explicit, high schools still preserve test-based evaluations of students’ achievements, maintaining a simplistic system that prioritizes selecting talent rather than developing it—all for an inconsistent and ambiguous college admissions process.
Years of debate have preceded the current reduction in class rankings. According to The Washington Post, many proponents feel that naming multiple valedictorians “water[s] down” the title. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution’s readers believe that titles improve students’ chances of success, especially since their state’s valedictorians receive direct benefits: automatic admission to the Georgia Institute of Technology and the Zell Miller college scholarship. However, even those who do not receive special perks worry that multiple valedictorians would only be “vexing admissions officers, who don’t know if a student finished first or 100th in the class.”
While these arguments—especially the last two—may have been valid a decade ago, education experts find that rankings oversimplify student achievement and endorse unhealthy competition. Many agree that academic achievement should be recognized, but class ranking could actually rob competent students of opportunities. The Washington Post’s Valerie Straus describes that “[t]he differences in grade-point averages among high-achieving students are usually statistically insignificant,” so prestigious colleges may dismiss highly-qualified students who did not receive a title. Luckily, this grows more unlikely as more high schools end their class ranking policies; nowadays, prestigious colleges give less weight to these titles as more students receive them.
Moreover, anti-ranking activists argue that the system not only unnecessarily compares students, but also incorrectly assumes that titles—and hence GPAs themselves—are the best indicator for merit. Straus from The Washington Post suggests that academic titles have far more to do with “playing the game of school” and prioritizing grades over all else. And certainly, Quartz reports that titles do not identify those who will become “standout successes” in the workforce. A 1995 study that tracked eighty-one valedictorians for fourteen years reveals that though valedictorians achieve a moderate level of success, they rarely go on “to reinvent the system or lead it.” Rather, they are so deeply integrated in the high school grading system that they only excel within it, a skill that does not necessarily help advance the real world.
Now, the primary takeaway here isn’t that valedictorians are overvalued; high-achieving students still move on to become important professionals in society. Instead, titles provide insight into our school systems and their potential flaws. Though the United States has seen a decrease in rankings, the underlying principles remain. Schools may have finally abolished explicit comparisons, but GPAs perpetuate implicit ones. Josh Moody from The US News reflects that students tend to treat GPAs as a representation of their academic work throughout high school. Colleges likewise consider them predictive of a student’s potential to succeed, causing substantial stress over GPAs. Unfortunately, this concern manifests in using GPAs as “an opportunity to see where they rank and how they compare with their peers.” At many schools—and certainly at Acton-Boxborough—there’s no question that many students self-rank by asking for GPAs from those they consider “competition.” So how does abolishing class rank change anything?
Indeed, it doesn’t eliminate the competitive academic environment that mental health and education experts denounce. In a Phi Delta Kappan study, Professor Guskey explains that educators must decide whether their purpose is “to select talent” or “develop talent,” a choice that greatly impacts their effectiveness as a teaching institution, as well as the scope of their work. Selection requires teachers to “maximize differences” between students, which often works best when the teaching itself is poor or minimal. This distinguishes the students who direct their own learning and excel regardless. However, since the majority require more guidance to succeed, schools that focus on “selecting talent” actually end up inhibiting most students’ success.
In contrast, talent development requires teachers to set learning goals for students then “do everything possible to ensure that all students learn those things well.” This often requires educators to adapt to students’ abilities and needs. Teachers end up developing strong bonds with their students, and they provide the guidance necessary for their success. Since each student receives adequate attention, graduates have little variation in their academic achievement. Unfortunately, creating this level playing field would require the government to fully reform the current education system, a task considered too formidable to achieve.
Still, the US must rethink its education system. As pressure increases to diversify universities’ student body, scandals call the admissions process into question. While colleges struggle to offset costs after COVID-19, the Department of Education must decide whether to prioritize talent selection or development. Even with metrics like GPAs, people feel lost when it comes to college admissions. More and more universities are beginning to describe their admissions process as “holistic,” which only causes more confusion. Atlantic writer Phoebe Maltz Bovy warns that universities send the false message that they are passing judgement on students’ personalities, both increasing anxiety and “incentiviz[ing] students to distort their identities,” according to Atlantic writer Alia Wong. So let’s clear up the definition of holistic admissions. While universities do consider more than just test scores, the term “holistic” exists so that universities can “shape a class” as Atlantic writer Jonathan Cole puts it. He explains that colleges look for ethnic and economic diversity, but also variation in extracurriculars to fill sports teams, music groups, and more. Indeed, colleges that use holistic admissions tend to enroll a more diverse student body—but not without accounting for GPA; Cole adds that “[t]here is an appreciation for diverse talents, but only if they go hand-in-hand with great College Board scores and uniformly high GPAs.”
Hence, colleges still take GPAs into account when admitting students, and “holistic admissions” exist to keep the acceptance process vague. But even this isn’t consistent across all universities; only the most selective schools take a holistic approach, with the vast majority focusing instead on deficits and declining enrollment. Simply put, the education system remains unbalanced despite the Department of Education’s clear purpose: “fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access.” Thus far, we’ve seen that fewer high schools are naming valedictorians due to concerns about competition, but GPAs still serve as a counterproductive policy that “selects” talent rather than “developing” it. Elite universities confound their college admissions processes; they look for high GPAs and specific skills to mold their student body while smaller universities that struggle under financial costs exacerbate income inequalities by admitting wealthier students. Given that more low-income students—even high academic achievers—rarely apply to elite universities who may account for financial status, one cannot help but wonder whether talent selection does much for anyone but the wealthiest, most elite groups.
As the holder of the highest GPA, this girl is the school’s pride. She is the valedictorian, a word that has come to mean the epitome of excellence. Interestingly, the word itself—of the Latin root vale dicere—has nothing to do with achievement; it simply means “to say farewell.” And certainly, valedictorians were once only known for their final address to a graduating class. However, over time, the term has come to signify far more: it is now a symbol of student ranking and a rather contentious practice.
Though valedictorians have been a long-held tradition in conventional American high schools, ranking has slowly become an obsolete practice. Modern psychologists and education experts agree that it increases competition and has negative impacts on both learning and development. Hence, many high schools are now taking action. Some are outright abolishing the practice and simply selecting a deserving student to give the final address. Others hope to keep recognizing academic achievement by awarding the top 10 students or acknowledging all students with GPAs above a certain number. Even so, while ranks are not explicit, high schools still preserve test-based evaluations of students’ achievements, maintaining a simplistic system that prioritizes selecting talent rather than developing it—all for an inconsistent and ambiguous college admissions process.
Years of debate have preceded the current reduction in class rankings. According to The Washington Post, many proponents feel that naming multiple valedictorians “water[s] down” the title. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution’s readers believe that titles improve students’ chances of success, especially since their state’s valedictorians receive direct benefits: automatic admission to the Georgia Institute of Technology and the Zell Miller college scholarship. However, even those who do not receive special perks worry that multiple valedictorians would only be “vexing admissions officers, who don’t know if a student finished first or 100th in the class.”
While these arguments—especially the last two—may have been valid a decade ago, education experts find that rankings oversimplify student achievement and endorse unhealthy competition. Many agree that academic achievement should be recognized, but class ranking could actually rob competent students of opportunities. The Washington Post’s Valerie Straus describes that “[t]he differences in grade-point averages among high-achieving students are usually statistically insignificant,” so prestigious colleges may dismiss highly-qualified students who did not receive a title. Luckily, this grows more unlikely as more high schools end their class ranking policies; nowadays, prestigious colleges give less weight to these titles as more students receive them.
Moreover, anti-ranking activists argue that the system not only unnecessarily compares students, but also incorrectly assumes that titles—and hence GPAs themselves—are the best indicator for merit. Straus from The Washington Post suggests that academic titles have far more to do with “playing the game of school” and prioritizing grades over all else. And certainly, Quartz reports that titles do not identify those who will become “standout successes” in the workforce. A 1995 study that tracked eighty-one valedictorians for fourteen years reveals that though valedictorians achieve a moderate level of success, they rarely go on “to reinvent the system or lead it.” Rather, they are so deeply integrated in the high school grading system that they only excel within it, a skill that does not necessarily help advance the real world.
Now, the primary takeaway here isn’t that valedictorians are overvalued; high-achieving students still move on to become important professionals in society. Instead, titles provide insight into our school systems and their potential flaws. Though the United States has seen a decrease in rankings, the underlying principles remain. Schools may have finally abolished explicit comparisons, but GPAs perpetuate implicit ones. Josh Moody from The US News reflects that students tend to treat GPAs as a representation of their academic work throughout high school. Colleges likewise consider them predictive of a student’s potential to succeed, causing substantial stress over GPAs. Unfortunately, this concern manifests in using GPAs as “an opportunity to see where they rank and how they compare with their peers.” At many schools—and certainly at Acton-Boxborough—there’s no question that many students self-rank by asking for GPAs from those they consider “competition.” So how does abolishing class rank change anything?
Indeed, it doesn’t eliminate the competitive academic environment that mental health and education experts denounce. In a Phi Delta Kappan study, Professor Guskey explains that educators must decide whether their purpose is “to select talent” or “develop talent,” a choice that greatly impacts their effectiveness as a teaching institution, as well as the scope of their work. Selection requires teachers to “maximize differences” between students, which often works best when the teaching itself is poor or minimal. This distinguishes the students who direct their own learning and excel regardless. However, since the majority require more guidance to succeed, schools that focus on “selecting talent” actually end up inhibiting most students’ success.
In contrast, talent development requires teachers to set learning goals for students then “do everything possible to ensure that all students learn those things well.” This often requires educators to adapt to students’ abilities and needs. Teachers end up developing strong bonds with their students, and they provide the guidance necessary for their success. Since each student receives adequate attention, graduates have little variation in their academic achievement. Unfortunately, creating this level playing field would require the government to fully reform the current education system, a task considered too formidable to achieve.
Still, the US must rethink its education system. As pressure increases to diversify universities’ student body, scandals call the admissions process into question. While colleges struggle to offset costs after COVID-19, the Department of Education must decide whether to prioritize talent selection or development. Even with metrics like GPAs, people feel lost when it comes to college admissions. More and more universities are beginning to describe their admissions process as “holistic,” which only causes more confusion. Atlantic writer Phoebe Maltz Bovy warns that universities send the false message that they are passing judgement on students’ personalities, both increasing anxiety and “incentiviz[ing] students to distort their identities,” according to Atlantic writer Alia Wong. So let’s clear up the definition of holistic admissions. While universities do consider more than just test scores, the term “holistic” exists so that universities can “shape a class” as Atlantic writer Jonathan Cole puts it. He explains that colleges look for ethnic and economic diversity, but also variation in extracurriculars to fill sports teams, music groups, and more. Indeed, colleges that use holistic admissions tend to enroll a more diverse student body—but not without accounting for GPA; Cole adds that “[t]here is an appreciation for diverse talents, but only if they go hand-in-hand with great College Board scores and uniformly high GPAs.”
Hence, colleges still take GPAs into account when admitting students, and “holistic admissions” exist to keep the acceptance process vague. But even this isn’t consistent across all universities; only the most selective schools take a holistic approach, with the vast majority focusing instead on deficits and declining enrollment. Simply put, the education system remains unbalanced despite the Department of Education’s clear purpose: “fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access.” Thus far, we’ve seen that fewer high schools are naming valedictorians due to concerns about competition, but GPAs still serve as a counterproductive policy that “selects” talent rather than “developing” it. Elite universities confound their college admissions processes; they look for high GPAs and specific skills to mold their student body while smaller universities that struggle under financial costs exacerbate income inequalities by admitting wealthier students. Given that more low-income students—even high academic achievers—rarely apply to elite universities who may account for financial status, one cannot help but wonder whether talent selection does much for anyone but the wealthiest, most elite groups.
