Valedictorian designation outdated
.
November 7, 2008 • Weston Koyama
Filed under Opinion
A now mounting issue in education policy concerns whether or not naming a single valedictorian based on highest GPA is still an acceptable practice, given the present atmosphere of intense peer competition, weighted AP classes, and personal student efforts.
As it became patent throughout the class dialogue, naming a single valedictorian transcends the simple labels of “right” and “wrong”; the valedictorian naming process has become ethically imperiled and should be either abolished or thoroughly overhauled.
The process of naming a valedictorian advances racial stereotypes and labeling. Teachers I don’t even have classes with often ask, “Aren’t you going to be valedictorian?” Though no teacher would confess it, I am labeled for my Asian ethnicity.
This is nothing new; talk about my potential as “valedictorian” has circulated since I was in kindergarten. And yet I seldom received over a “B” in math and my GPA has never been higher than 3.8 (currently at 3.7).
But how do you suppose I feel when all and sundry asks me if I’m going to be valedictorian? It’s as though I am flawed if I concede to the fact that I simply cannot.
Suppose we eliminated the title of valedictorian. People would not hold these flippant labels against me. It will not expunge the Asian stereotype of high IQ and overachievement, but it will erase a racially charged label used against the so-called model minorities.
The emotional investment that students pour into receiving the title of valedictorian generates a strong incentive to cheat on tests and homework assignments. Each year rumors that the named valedictorian did not earn the title run rampant. Though we cannot confirm these rumors definitively, it proves apparent that unpunished cheating is commonplace at our school.
I acquiesce that students make a choice to cheat or not to cheat, but the emotional toll of parental estrangement and “peer-shock” of not being “the one” strongly influences this choice. If people define your character by the valedictorian label you’re shooting for, your failure to get said title encompasses a failure of character. Nobody should ever be defined by a label— not Asians, not smart people, not even special education people.
Inequality burnishes brilliantly on the valedictorian badge. Though a conservative would love to think that anyone could become valedictorian “if they really try hard and want it,” I know that this simply is not true.
Some people have poorer IQs than other people. Some people have emotional tumult in their lives. Some people have learning disorders. And yet, the title of valedictorian is still seen by so many people as the “best student award.”
GPA, test scores and grades in general are the worst measures of what defines a “good student.” Yet we still celebrate the person with the highest GPA. Why should I care about who has the highest GPA?
That person might not be the smartest, the most creative, or the person who has put forth the most effort. By chance, the smartest kid might simply be gifted in humanities and not math.
The kid who truly put forth the most effort may have had a death in the family that precise year. The next Einstein could have an acute learning disorder.
How much gratitude do we bestow upon students who are rightly talented in a particular passion? Why do we continue to commemorate conventionality with such insincere labels as “valedictorian?”
This racially prejudiced, counterproductive and undignified title does naught to augment students’ academic upbringing at this school. The title of valedictorian must either be overhauled to allow students from different subject areas and capacity levels to be recognized for his or her achievements, or it must be completely eliminated.
We should not celebrate a title that enhances stereotypes, incites cheating and creates blatant unfairness. We must find a different, dignified resolution.
Loading ...
I agree with your statement in Paragraphs 9 and 10 that not everyone can be a valedictorian, however, aren’t you undermining the basic “anti-labeling” thesis of your argument by doing just that by using the term “conservative”? Was it necessary to classify people who would better be described as hopeless optimists with a political label?