Talk:Valedictorian

	Education portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of education and education-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EducationWikipedia:WikiProject EducationTemplate:WikiProject Educationeducation
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Famous valedictorians

I'd like to suggest completely dropping the list of famous valedictorians. It's difficult to verify, incomplete, and highly vulnerable to people sliding their own names in. I don't think it adds much to the page. TomTheHand 16:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I'd also like to point out that the term "Famous" could be highly subjective. --Polkapunk 16:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm removing the list. If anyone has a problem with it, let's discuss it here. TomTheHand 21:37, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have inserted a list of "famous valedictorians" into the article. I think it's acceptable, as long as the information comes through reliable sources (as with anything else on Wikipedia). I actually think it adds a lot to this article. As far as people sliding in their own names ... that's simply garden-variety Wikipedia vandalism ... and ought to be treated as such. Furthermore, the highly subjective nature of "famous" can be easily interpreted as "notable" ... that is, an individual who has a Wikipedia article ... and, so, problem solved! Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Co-valedictorians

I added some extra cases in which co-valedictorians are appointed. I've never heard of it being done for any affirmative action reasons or any such thing, but don't doubt that it happens. Can anyone back this up? 70.162.244.38 02:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC) (this was me Herr Lip 00:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Wrong definition of valedictorian

I have to disagree with the basic definition of the word as presented here. The valedictorian, first and foremost, is the person delivering the valediction speech. This honor is USUALLY awarded to the person with the highest GPA, etc., but the person with the high GPA is not necessarily the valedictorian. Because of the GPA tradition, most people think the GPA defines the title, but this is not historically the case. In practice, they end up being one and the same, however, and are usually recognised as such in school policies. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 159.83.252.234 (talk) 23:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I am sure that different schools take different approaches to this subject. However, I believe that the Class Valedictorian is the student with the highest class rank (as defined by the highest grade-point-average), regardless of whether or not he delivers the graduation's valedictory address. If another student does not have the highest class rank/GPA and delivers the graduation address, he is referred to as the Graduation Speaker and not the Class Valedictorian. (JosephASpadaro 04:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

No. I was referring to the fact that the Valedictorian is BY DEFINITION the person delivering the valediction speech. At least according to every major dictionary I consulted. Common usage regarding the GPA has taken over these days, so a strong case can be made for a NEW meaning, which is the one you're explaining. But the GPA version is derived from the name of the speech and the person delivering it, not the other way around. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.104.159.16 (talk)

I definitely agree with you. I am simply saying that, nowadays, the word "valedictorian" simply means whatever the School District says that it means. And, each school district / college defines it differently. But, yes -- you are correct. In the classic sense, the term refers to the individual selected to bid the class farewell in the valedictory speech (regardless of how or why he is selected). (JosephASpadaro 06:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

The current popular usage refers to the person with the highest GPA, which is generally how the valedictorian is chosen in the United States. Of course, if you have a school with 16 people with 4.0 GPAs, that results in 16 co-valedictorians, which can just be rather silly. However, I think the article is fine, since it mentions that the valedictorian is traditionally the one to give the valedictory oration during commencement. --clpo13 07:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the historical definition is adequately noted, but the modern definition must supersede it. The title "Valedictorian" is now something that schools assign based on whatever system they choose. I was one of a number of "Valedictorians" in my graduating class, and none of us gave a valedictory address. --Micah Hainline 06:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SAT and ACT scores

I don't think universities use the SAT or ACT scores when considering Valedictorian status. Those are used for admissions purposes, as well as in determination of financial aid, but they are entrance tests, not exit tests. Why would they be used in this? I'd like a source if the assertion that SAT and ACT scores are considered is correct. --Micah Hainline 07:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Prior to reading this article, I had never heard of a high school or college utilizing the SAT/ACT tests to determine the recipient of the title "class valedictorian." (JosephASpadaro 17:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Suggested merge with Valedictorian

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The result was no consensus to merge. -- IrishGuy ^talk 00:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that the articles Valediction and Valedictorian be merged on the grounds that the Valedictorian article is so short and could easily be inserted as a subsection in the Valediction article. The words valediction and valedictorian share a common derivation. A valedictorian is, in essence, one who delivers a valediction, therefore to have two separate articles for them seems to be unnecessary.Neelix 18:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Opposition - I would strongly oppose a proposed merger of the two articles, valedictorian and valediction. There is no argument that these two terms share a common derivation. However, the two terms have very, very different meanings and -- through both time and usage -- the first word has essentially nothing to do with the second word. Yes, in the "old days", a valedictorian was the student who delivered a valediction to the class (typically at graduation). Nowadays, however, the word "valedictorian" means anything and everything that a school defines it to mean (e.g., usually the top ranked academic student) ... whether or not such student actually delivers a valediction to the class at graduation. There has, in fact, been some discussion and debate about this at the Talk Page for Valedictorian. I think that, over time and through usage, the two words have a divergent enough meaning that they merit separate articles. The common linguistic derivation, while interesting, is too tenuous to support a merger. Nowadays, the term "valedictorian" means anything and everything but "the student who delivers the valedictory address." Its historical meaning has become lost and replaced with the common usage of "highest ranked student." While historically linked, the two terms have little -- if any -- connection today. If indeed a school utilizes its highest ranked student (the valedictorian) to deliver a valediction, that is only by coincidence or by policy -- accentuating the fact that the two terms have diverged in meaning and currently bear little relationship to each other. A merger here would be tantamount to, say, merging the articles on "astronaut" and "astronomy" simply because they share a common derivation ("astron" = star). Yes, the article on valedictorian is short (but accurate) ... so be it. Other than tenuous historical rooting, it really has nothing to do with valediction at all. Strong opposition to this proposed merger. (Joseph A. Spadaro 02:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Strongly oppose. I could say why, or I could say "Joseph above just said it perfectly." No reason to reinvent the wheel with my reasoning -- Joseph is clearly correct. - Revolving Bugbear (formerly Che Nuevara) 23:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly oppose as well, with the same reasoning. Etymology isn't enough to lump two divergent meanings into one article. Ig8887 (talk) 00:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - They're really not related. --ubiquity (talk) 02:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.