http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5990929.html
[/quote]
High school students across Texas would no longer get extra credit in their grade point averages for some advanced classes under rules proposed by the state's higher education commissioner.

The proposal from Raymund Paredes, intended to bring more fairness to college admissions decisions, sparked a furor Monday about one of the most controversial topics in high schools: GPAs. The number determines where seniors rank in their high school classes and whether they are guaranteed admission into a Texas public college or university. "It affects students' lives and parents' pocketbooks," said Jackie Lain, of the Texas Association of School Boards.

[/quote]

yeah, let's just call everyone who graduates the 8th grade a Doctor and start punishing kids for getting 100 on the test. They're making everyone else look bad, and that hurts their chances of getting into college.

The last line of the article is priceless... Apparently despite the fact that competition for a high GPA is enormous, this teacher claims that not one of her students is taking the class because it offers a higher GPA value.

I think my takeaways from this are more positive than yours. It sounds like the goal is simply to make GPAs more comparable across students from different schools. The proposal isn't to strip all extra points from classes, but to make sure there's some rigor around which classes offer extra points:

Quote:Paredes argues that extra points should not be awarded for pre-AP, pre-IB and honors courses in part because they are not bound by a specific, standardized curriculum, and the rigor could vary from one school to another.

"It's also his concern that school districts or schools will start creating a new series of these courses without any standardization in order to give their students an advantage in the calculations," said Montiel, the assistant director of state relations for the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board.

But, she added, Paredes is open to feedback from school officials and parents over the next month during the official public comment period.

I'm sure if someone were able to come up with a standardized and specific curricula for those classes, Paredes would be in support of adding back the extra credits to them.

And they're clearly not abandoning the idea of harder classes being worth more:

Quote:The proposed rules also would give more weight to college-level Advanced Placement, International Baccalaureate and dual-credit courses.

Also, I think you've misread the "priceless" line; the person interviewed was specifically referring to her own son (she may or may not be a teacher; the article doesn't say either way but the way she referred to her son as "my student" would lead me to believe that she probably is). And the point being made was that she'd want him in the more-advanced class even if it didn't offer the extra points, despite the enormous GPA competition.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I think that's a sentiment most Rice grads would agree with. At the very least, I know I do -- I don't have children, but thinking back to my own high school days in Florida I took the "gifted" classes even though the "honors" classes (theoretically a step down in difficulty) offered the same GPA bump. I would counsel my hypothetical children to do the same.

JOwl Wrote:I think my takeaways from this are more positive than yours. It sounds like the goal is simply to make GPAs more comparable across students from different schools. The proposal isn't to strip all extra points from classes, but to make sure there's some rigor around which classes offer extra points:

That is probably a good goal. The described proposal, however, does nothing toward it. As long as schools have different curricula, it's going to be hard to compare GPAs regardless of AP bonuses.

I'd also like some explanation as to why art and theater would count but band and orchestra would not.

Gravy Owl Wrote:

JOwl Wrote:I think my takeaways from this are more positive than yours. It sounds like the goal is simply to make GPAs more comparable across students from different schools. The proposal isn't to strip all extra points from classes, but to make sure there's some rigor around which classes offer extra points:

That is probably a good goal. The described proposal, however, does nothing toward it. As long as schools have different curricula, it's going to be hard to compare GPAs regardless of AP bonuses.

I'd also like some explanation as to why art and theater would count but band and orchestra would not.

I'd have to disagree that it does nothing toward the goal. Probably not enough, though. The unspoken claim appears to be that abuses are already taking place under the current system, and this would be a step toward curtailing the worst of them.

And while schools do have different curricula, but certain classes such as AP have standardized curricula.

And I'm unclear on that whole art/theater/orchestra/band thing myself. Are there no advanced level or AP orchestra classes? (As a non-musical person, I really have no idea). I would assume the distinction is based on how much standardized testing is done in the class.

JOwl Wrote:I'd have to disagree that it does nothing toward the goal. Probably not enough, though. The unspoken claim appears to be that abuses are already taking place under the current system, and this would be a step toward curtailing the worst of them.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding something. It seems like the goal is to get a better comparison of students' performance across schools. The current situation gives an advantage to students in honors classes at schools that provide a bonus for those courses but make them relatively easy. The proposed solution gives an advantage to students in non-honors classes at schools that make those courses relatively easy. It doesn't eliminate or reduce the advantage, it just moves it to a different group, and it has the side-effect of eliminating one incentive for challenge.

Something that got lost is that college admissions tend to be based on class rank, not GPA directly. So now I'm reconsidering my earlier position that the goal is good.

Note added to draft: Gravy Owl made my key points in the time it took me to write this...I'll post it, anyway:

I missing part of the logic behind this. Yes, it would be nice if GPAs could be directly compared across districts or schools, but selective schools already know that that can't be done. That's why they look at class rank - which takes account of school-to-school variation - and try to have some familiarity with the schools. And that's why the Texas 10% rule is based only on class rank.

So if one school is teaching easier pre-AP classes than another, but giving the same credit, is that a big problem? I say no. Class ranking is entirely intra-school. Some consistency is fine, but I don't see the case here for removing the extra credit from pre-AP classes.

Full disclosure: my kids (public school) take lots of these classes, and I don't want to see them lose out. From all I can see, they are doing substantially more work than the non-AP-track students.

As for band, I'm also selfish in that I know my son is going to get straight A's in that. And he may be taking two music classes some years. Under this proposal, that means his GPA would be based more on a "hard" core of classes than someone taking the same core but fluffy electives that count on their GPA.

The problem I have is when you have a student like my daughter who played varsity soccer, basketball and track as a freshman and sophomore, but then dropped all three as a junior and senior in favor of higher level french and spanish classes because it was going to hurt her GPA to be a varsity athlete instead of taking these AP classes. Why punish the kids for excelling, regardless of what it is they are excelling at? Why should athletes have to make that choice any more than band or choir members (both band and choir DID get higher GPA opportunities for excelling in those)? I don't mind rewarding high achievers for taking on higher level classes, but lets be consistent!

In my high schools I went through (yes, plural - moved for my senior year), band/music and other such classes offered no added bonus for the GPA. So, if anything, it pulled me down, because my classwork was otherwise completely honors and beyond in the core subjects.

I think someone above made the point I was going to make - the schools often know what schools have inflated GPAs that may bring students who are not as capable of being successful at the school. Although, I'm assuming this is the case if enough folks from a given school/district apply on a yearly basis. For me, it may not have been quite as obvious, as I was the only one from either of my High Schools to apply to Rice. Very few from my school district in VA ever applied on a yearly basis (not so true any more), and almost no one had ever applied to Rice from where I went in PA. Comparisons may not be as easy there.

In general, I disagree with the proposal. I think you have to reward the folks in the tougher curriculum, even if it isn't an AP/IB course. If anything, this proposal isn't helping the high schools or teachers. It's helping the higher education institutions (particularly the state schools) automate their ability to determine who to weed out in initial scans of applications. And it's going to put a student at a potential for a disadvantage if they want to go out of state, as the GPA will be comparably weaker (just by being sub-4.0 in general) in other comparisons, especially if schools (such as in the northeast) aren't as familiar with the local grading standards.

Yes Doc, and I support that, as you know...

The 10% rule normalizes things... unless we're arguing that ap classes at one school are easier than non-ap classes at the SAME school. I think its still a screwy rule... but this isn't the solution. All this does is remove the incentive to take hard classes.

Band, Art, Athletics are all non-core subjects. I'd support equalizing them and removing them from class rank for the 10% issue. I believe that Universities that excel in the arts and athletics will still accept exceptional artists, musicians and athletes without requiring a top 10% GPA.

If that doesn't work, then let's change the scale completely.

IB - 10 points for an A
AP - 8
Honors Athletics/Band/Art - 8
GT - 6
Regular - 4

Make honors courses purely elective... meaning if you want in, you can be in... but if you fail, you fail... You'll be allowed to take the "regular" final or something if you fail the advanced class... and if you get a B, then you get 3 points.

I don't claim that this is completely fair... i haven't really thought about it for more than 5 minutes... but i think we could come up with something that makes sense.

My problem with the proposal is that it says (and I'm paraphrasing for effect)

In order for more people to afford college, we should penalize smarter (or harder working) kids.

From what I read in the story, it looks like "physical education" classes won't be counted on GPA.

OK, so how are we going to recruit "stud" varsity football/basketball/baseball players that have been playing sports for 4 years? Their GPA's will be out of whack.

Or will Rice have to go to their own formula for jocks?

Hambone10 Wrote:IB - 10 points for an A
AP - 8

Hey now, that's not fair. I went to an IB school and choose to do AP. The AP tests translate into college credit much easier than IB tests and you seem to learn just as much in the preparatory classes. Why would we want to force kids into poor class choices?

What about school districts that cannot offer as many (if any) AP, etc. courses as other school districts? My high school did not offer AP or IB courses when I was there. (They offer AP classes now, but I'm sure they don't offer the full range of AP classes.) My only option was honors classes, so it would have been impossible for me to have a GPA competitive with other college applicants if I did not get "extra credit" for honors coursework. As it is, I am sure Rice admissions staff had to consider what was available at my school given how many of my peers entered Rice with AP credits (which is what all universities should do anyway, whether extra credit is offered or not).

Caelligh... you would already suffer from that. I've seen GPA numbers from a 4.0 scale to an 8.0 scale (though 8.0 was impossible because you couldn't take honors everything) You also have the issue of being the smartest kid in a backwoods town, or the "dumbest" kid in the best private school in town. At one school, you're an a+ student who blows the curve... at the other, you're a C student. My daughter recently took a standardized test where she was in the 98th percentile of all students her age... and only the 60-70th percentile in students her age in private schools.

The only way GPA is important is relative to your peers. The issue at hand is that in Texas, the top 10% of every school is guaranteed admission to state schools (there are some nuances, but that's close enough)... so under the NEW plan, a kid who presses himself and takes honors classes and gets one B is penalized versus a kid who takes all basic classes and gets all A's... His GPA is lower, though he took a harder courseload, which actually causes the problem you described... AND because of the top 10% rule, he may not get accepted into state schools.

This is a real issue... I know some kids who went to private schools or IB schools and were "decent" students, and then transferred their senior year to an HISD school that was struggling academically in order to be in the top 10%. Believe me... HISD didn't mind.

And now I've read about the worst part of this plan: it will apply to current seniors. For three and a half years, families have made decisions about pre-AP courses in the context of the GPA rules. Those decisions sometimes involved a risk calculation. That these rules could change now, figuratively at the last minute, is clearly unfair. If you make a change, start with next year's freshman.

For those who want to make their opinions known, here's the plan as now noticed in the Texas Register:

http://www.sos.state.tx.us/texreg/sos/PR...ON.html#57

Here's a fact sheet that appears to be out of date with respect to some aspects. There is supposed to be a newer version of this, but it's not available:

http://www.thecb.state.tx.us/reports/PDF/1558.PDF

S.A. Owl Wrote:And now I've read about the worst part of this plan: it will apply to current seniors. For three and a half years, families have made decisions about pre-AP courses in the context of the GPA rules. Those decisions sometimes involved a risk calculation. That these rules could change now, figuratively at the last minute, is clearly unfair. If you make a change, start with next year's freshman.

Actually, I've got to raise this question about about risk calculations as they apply to GPAs (and partially to RiceDoc's daughter) - since when did this ever matter? When I went through HS only 20 years ago, this was never a consideration. We took the courses we were ready to take (or at least we thought we could handle) at the appropriate level and learned what we could (or wanted to). Some were probably pushed too far, but I was never involved in nor ever aware of a conversation where people are calculating the impact on a GPA. Yes, maybe as a set-up to be prepared for certain types of courses in college (like taking calculus), but not trying to impact a GPA like that. Are our priorities really that backward that we're dumbing down the system to just a simple number and taking everything else that makes the applicant a human being out of the equation for figuring who is the RIGHT fit for a given university?

gsloth Wrote:

S.A. Owl Wrote:And now I've read about the worst part of this plan: it will apply to current seniors. For three and a half years, families have made decisions about pre-AP courses in the context of the GPA rules. Those decisions sometimes involved a risk calculation. That these rules could change now, figuratively at the last minute, is clearly unfair. If you make a change, start with next year's freshman.

Actually, I've got to raise this question about about risk calculations as they apply to GPAs (and partially to RiceDoc's daughter) - since when did this ever matter? When I went through HS only 20 years ago, this was never a consideration. We took the courses we were ready to take (or at least we thought we could handle) at the appropriate level and learned what we could (or wanted to). Some were probably pushed too far, but I was never involved in nor ever aware of a conversation where people are calculating the impact on a GPA. Yes, maybe as a set-up to be prepared for certain types of courses in college (like taking calculus), but not trying to impact a GPA like that. Are our priorities really that backward that we're dumbing down the system to just a simple number and taking everything else that makes the applicant a human being out of the equation for figuring who is the RIGHT fit for a given university?

I agree entirely with the spirit of your post, but realism gets in the way.

The "calculation" is not literal, but we have at times carefully considered how well a kid will do in an honors class before enrolling them. My son, at the tender age of 14, is absolutely convinced that he must go to UT-Austin (I'm trying, believe me...I'm trying...). So, yes, class rank (i.e., GPA) is everything. In fact, we've sort of done the opposite of RiceDoc, though to a much smaller degree. Last year, my son's 8th-grade English teacher would not recommend him for pre-AP English because she knew he would be in marching band at high school...she said the work load is too much. We eventually agreed (considering the high school adjustment that all kids face, etc.), though he's taking other pre-APs. So, yeah, we considered whether the pre-AP points bonus would be enough to compensate for his potentially lower grade.

And, yeah, it's a screwy system.

As for non-top-10% schools, you're probably more on the mark. Colleges like to see a student try as many honors/AP courses as possible. Of course, they still look at GPA and rank. No matter what, it still doesn't seem right to change the rules midstream. My daughter's college search has, by necessity, included consideration of what her class rank is. Now, it may change.

This kind of attention to GPAs is nothing compared to the machinations some parents go through to position their kids. If you want some idea of this, go to collegeconfidential.com. Actually, don't go there - it's too depressing.

By the way, I agree that athletics and the arts should be treated the same.

I was going to say that about athletics and arts being the same, as I was an athlete, and my wife and kids are artists... however... you can actually get a degree in music or art, but not in athletics. Of course, the requirements for a degree in art or music go way beyond performing.

Now, obviously, you can get a degree in kinesiology or whatever... but that doesn't really have anything to do with athletic participation. IOW... while I don't support an honors grade for being in band and playing an extra solo piece, I might support it for doing something significant... In sports... it'd be taking tests/classes in training or kinesiology or something... but band and athletics or art class should be the same on their own... you should have to do somthing significantly different in order to get honors bump.

Obviously that just makes for a system to be manipulated... but its not as if it isn't being manipulated or manipulating people already

The 10% rule is the problem... I think the answer is to change it to top 10% of core classes only... if you don't simply drop it altogether... Great athletes and artists will get admitted to schools that concentrate in those areas almost without regard to how many AP physics courses you took.

Some thoughts from a former Texas high school teacher, most of them already posted in some form:

I like Hambone's idea to make the top 10% class ranking calculation for automatic admission to public universities based on core classes only. I think this would decrease some of the unfairness associated with the grades students receive for band, choir, athletics, etc.

Any attempt to improve the comparison of GPA's across schools is horribly misguided. Without significant knowledge of the grading culture of two schools, it is almost impossible to make individual comparisons across schools with any meaningful precision.

Because of the top 10% automatic admission rule, class rank, and therefore bonus points, is critical. The difference between being the person just above the 9th decile and the person just below can be life changing.

The proposed rule would, as Gravy Owl said, eliminate one incentive for challenge. I know that for some of the students I recruited to take Pre-Calculus, AP Calc, and AP Stats one consideration that helped convince them was that they would get bonus points. In my opinion, what unfairness exists within a school's class ranking system is outweighed by the benefit of getting more students to take on more challenging classes.

I don't have a solution for the choice that students like RiceDoc's daughter face.