Oct 15, 2006
Phillips Exeter Doesn’t Report Rank… 95% of the time
My school, Phillips Exeter Academy, doesn’t report rank. I think this is a great thing–rank is an evil construct which only serves US News & World Report. Rank does not tell the true story of a person. It also leads to protracted legal battles over decimal points.
Yet there is an exception–one disgusting exception. PEA doles out “Early Cum Laude” status to the top 5% of the class this time each year. The letters were sent out earlier this week for the class of 2007. The cut-off this year was–if I recall correctly, as ascertained from anecdotal evidence–around 10.36 GPA or so, out of a maximum 11 (A). It may have been as low as 10.31; I don’t recall exactly. The letters read “On the basis of your academic achievements, you have been selected to become an early member of the Cum Laude Society.” Sixteen seniors this year. Their names: Andrew Brown, Ryan Caro, Ed Casserly, Jessica Flakne, Megan Gilbert, Sherry Gong, Kelly Hoffer, Keone Hon, Ellie Hong, Ki Hoon Kim, Kevin Liao, Yashrash Narang, Evan Rose, Yuna Sakuma, Bram Stochlic and Cindy Teng. These are the sixteen people with the highest cumulative GPAs.
What is wrong with this picture, you might ask? Why do I object to this practice?
First off, a large portion of this years list–and lists other years–is made up only of two and sometimes three year seniors. With fewer years here at Exeter, there are fewer chances to mess up. Two years sometimes appear to really dominate this chart, which tends to upset diligent four-years who slave away only to find themselves outdone by newcomers who lack some blemish that turned up 9th grade winter.
Next, and most importantly: why do we report ONLY the top 5%? I said to my friend Ryan Caro after someone else congratulated him, “Ryan, I congratulate you on your academic achievements but not the Early Cum Laude.” This is because reporting the very top of the class is hypocritical to the philosophy supposedly espoused by withholding generalized rank.
What’s to be done?
edit 10/15/06: As Ryan Caro mentions in the comments, Exeter DOES report the top 20% of rank at graduation via Cum Laude designation. I am referring to rank as any meaningful indication of rank during the college admissions process–sorry for the confusion.
An aside: I took the SAT I again today, and will do no more testing, regardless of my scores. I think I will do quite well with these scores–the only other time I took the SAT I was my 10th grade Spring, the second time the new test was ever administered. I did all 3 of my SAT IIs in one sitting last spring. I wouldn’t mind getting a very nice score on this sitting of the Reasoning, but I’m confident that at the least I’ll improve my score a good deal now that I’ve gained some more patience for the test. We’ll find out soon enough.
Hey Sam,
I’m famous! Thanks for the congratulations.
Some interesting notes:
Look at the ECL kids and the National Merit Finalists, both of which are aimed at finding the brightest kids at Exeter, with varying degrees of success. It’s interesting to see that there is a good deal of overlap, but there are quite a few four-year seniors who are finalists but not ECL. (I expected some of these students to make ECL, but, alas, they didn’t.)
Second, Cum Laude is actually the top 20% of the class, but the top 5% of the class is inducted early because they are practically guaranteed to be in the top 20% at the regular induction ceremony in June. So Exeter does report rank 20% of the time, although by then it’s too late to make any difference in the college process.
I counted six four-years, seven three-years, and three two-year seniors. I really don’t have a problem with two- and especially three-years making ECL because I think that they have it just as hard as we do. They may have less time to screw up, but if they do screw up they have less time to fix it. Four-years usually get a break lower year because they’ve already adjusted, while three-years have non-stop work lower and upper years. I also know that many students get their best grades prep year (I did, until SYA), so two-and three-years don’t have that advantage either. And (this is just a guess, but may be plausible – we can check with the admissions office) I think the applicant pool for two- and three-years might be more competitive, yeilding a higher rate of top students.
One more interesting fact of no value: Four of the six ECL four-years were in the same Junior Studies class. Mr. Herney would be proud!
Well, I meant reporting rank in the sense of it having any meaning for the admissions process–which seems to be half the point with ECL. My question is why it is necessary to report it early. To recognize their achievements, or to give them an additional edge in the process?
It’s true that they have less time to fix it, which is why lots of two and three years aren’t in ECL. Remember, I’m a 3 year myself–I don’t really object to that fact, but it’s something which I think makes ECL less worthy as a title. 10 of 16 is a reasonably interesting percent given the makeup of the class. It’s not exactly statistically meaningful with just one year of data, but it begs questioning. Some chi-squared would tell us what’s up.
Speaking of grades, would people please stop searching “My GPA” trying to find my cumulative? It’s obnoxious. Of course, it is online.
Re : “Who are you and who are you writing for? I appreciate the fact that you’re trying to help out, just…”
I’m a father and I write for anyone who cares to read, but mainly for my daughters.
You realize though that colleges can still find out your rank, right?
They use your school’s profile to get a rough estimate of it….
Yes, stephen, I realize–but it isn’t the same thing, to me. A different philosophy stands behind ranking than does simply releasing a genearl profile. Just made a post with a link to this year’s profile on it, if you’d like to see it; it’s quite rough in terms of its presentation of rank, but still informative.
Mr. Jackson, I’m concerned about a few things in this post. To me, the whole piece came off as cathartic and bitter, full of vague and misguided resentment but lacking any true substance. The comment that you supposedly made to your friend after his early induction reeks of loathing and scorn, a quip that characterizes you as a sad and resentful adolescent and portrays you as anything but a New England prep school student. On top of this, you’ve gone so far as to list the names of your classmates who received early Cum Laude status in a public forum, an act which belies a complete lack of class and respect for your peers.
Worst of all, I fail to see a cogent argument in your rant. Cum Laude, in truth, does not serve as a ranking system. Induction into the Cum Laude Society, whether early or regular, is LARGELY based on academic achievement (other factors, such as character and prior behavior, are at least marginally considered), but despite this fact no prep school in New England or independent body stipulates specific guidelines for induction. Moreover, a student’s GPA, at the end of the day, does not rise or fall based on Cum Laude status; thus, Cum Laude status has no effect on how colleges interpret individual students’ GPAs. Early induction into the Cum Laude Society is merely a way of recognizing and honoring those students (NOT necessarily the top 5%, as you’ve erroneously stated, since the Cum Laude Society’s guidelines state that as many as 10% of the class may be inducted early) who have academically distinguished themselves from the rest of their class.
I’m sure you’d love to write my comments off as uninformed, but I’m sorry to report that a few years back, at one of Exeter’s foremost rival schools (I’m sure you could figure it out), I benefited from this “disgusting exception” and was admitted early into my school’s chapter of the Cum Laude Society. Did my status in this organization enable me to be admitted to an Ivy League college the following fall? No, Sam, it didn’t; my grades, which my early Cum Laude status simply connoted, were the largest factor in my Ivy League acceptance. I wasn’t admitted to college on the basis of “rank”; my academic record, in combination with various other factors, far superseded any vague numerical ranking that my college could have ascertained.
Exeter is one of the most renowned and well-respected schools in the world. Every major university, within the United States and abroad, is more than familiar with the rigor of the school’s curriculum and the fact that it, like every other prep school worth its salt, does not report class rank through an internal ranking system. I’m willing to chalk up your frankly disturbing post to pre-college decision jitters and just a twinge of overly aggressive academic jealousy. Instead of celebrating the academic achievements of your classmates, what you’ve done here is turned your own perceived loss into an object of contention.
Our schools, Sam, were founded centuries ago to nurture the minds, bodies and spirits of their pupils. I can only hope that, over the years, you become mature enough to learn that the success of your peers does not necessarily indicate your own personal failure. In the meantime, please do us all a favor and try to avoid the conceited, pathetically self-aggrandizing tone that permeates your writings.
Regards,
A Concerned Colleague
Thanks for reading, but I have to correct you on a few points:
First, EARLY cum laude, at exeter, is based singularly upon GPA. Top 5% are inducted. As simple as that. Ryan Caro, in the first comment here, says as much, and he was named early cum laude; as good a source as any. So it does seem that despite your background you are a little misinformed about Exeter.
Secondly, I would not and do not publish names or lists of people if they have not already been made public in another forum. This list was printed in the Exonian first.
Finally, it is not for any ‘real’ boost that I object to this practice; it is rather the symbolism of it since it contradicts the ‘no ranking’ philosophy that Exeter has if a certain group of people have their approximate rank–top 5%–published. I know that colleges can more or less figure out where a student stands without that figure, but when the school provides it that goes against the ‘no ranking’ policy held by the CCO. I don’t think the CCO is in charge of early cum laude, so I’m not blaming them, I’m just noting.
Your experience at Choate does not necessarily make you an expert on Exeter.