This is a talk I'd like to have with some of you

[Kazan' Tiger 1]

I can't agree with you there. A 4.0 does not mean you have a stronger work ethic. And it goes beyond people skills. I know plenty of 2.0s that work as hard or harder in the field than their book smart counterpart. I'd rather have a steady-handed surgeon that knows just where and how to cut than the one that can name every human disease backwards and forwards.

I'm with you, GPAs are highly overrated. There is book smarts and practical smarts. I remember back in college a girl that never got less than a 4.0. However, when you put here in a real world situation, she could not function. She lacked people skills and the ability to work hands on. That 4.0 was because she could memorize text books and lectures and fill in little bubbles. A high GPA, IMHO, only proves you can pass examinations. It does not guarantee you can do the job any better than the 2.0 student.

Sure, a good GPA doesn't say how well you work with people, but a 4.0 at least shows that you have a good work ethic. The 2.0 student obviously didn't take pride in his work or feel it necessary to try hard. Because of his low GPA, he probably also couldn't have gotten good internships, student jobs or study abroad opportunities so will come to the job less well rounded and probably less prepared.

Edited February 15, 2008 by Kazan' Tiger

[Jenn! 918]

I can't agree with you there. A 4.0 does not mean you have a stronger work ethic. And it goes beyond people skills. I know plenty of 2.0s that work as hard or harder in the field than their book smart counterpart. I'd rather have a steady-handed surgeon that knows just where and how to cut than the one that can name every human disease backwards and forwards.

I'm with you, GPAs are highly overrated. There is book smarts and practical smarts. I remember back in college a girl that never got less than a 4.0. However, when you put here in a real world situation, she could not function. She lacked people skills and the ability to work hands on. That 4.0 was because she could memorize text books and lectures and fill in little bubbles. A high GPA, IMHO, only proves you can pass examinations. It does not guarantee you can do the job any better than the 2.0 student.

Sure, a good GPA doesn't say how well you work with people, but a 4.0 at least shows that you have a good work ethic. The 2.0 student obviously didn't take pride in his work or feel it necessary to try hard. Because of his low GPA, he probably also couldn't have gotten good internships, student jobs or study abroad opportunities so will come to the job less well rounded and probably less prepared.

I think in general people who did not have high GPA's speak to how GPA's mean nothing in the real world. People who did have high GPA's speak to how it means something.

Just an observation...

[Alex+R 0]

Kazan -- not to split hairs here, but you're never going to see a surgeon who got a 2.0 in college. You're creating a false dichotomy of book smarts vs. real-life smarts. But my friends in medical school spend a lot of time cutting stuff up, getting hands on training in a hospital, etc. etc. It's not like they spend time poring over books.

But anyway, I was thinking of taking Rey up to Boston next weekend to show him this:

[Jenn! 918]

But anyway, I was thinking of taking Rey up to Boston next weekend to show him this:

Awww, I love that book!

[DeadPoolX 9]

I can't agree with you there. A 4.0 does not mean you have a stronger work ethic. And it goes beyond people skills. I know plenty of 2.0s that work as hard or harder in the field than their book smart counterpart. I'd rather have a steady-handed surgeon that knows just where and how to cut than the one that can name every human disease backwards and forwards.

I think you're looking at two very different components of "being smart." As far as I'm concerned, there's intelligence and then there's wisdom (please, no AD&D jokes).

Intelligence is how smart someone can be or rather, their potential for being smart; as in IQ, it's their capacity for learning. Wisdom is someone's accumulation of knowledge, usually through experience. Both are important and both can be very useful in many different fields.

However, some professions prize certain aspects more than others. If you're going into a "hard science" field versus a "the arts" one, there's a good chance your future graduate school and/or workplace will want to rely heavily on GPA, test scores and reseach experience. Likewise, if you went into "the arts," any future education or work would be more interested in overall experience and examples of your work, usually in the form of a portfolio or demo reel.

So you really can't say "GPA doesn't matter" because it does, or at least, it does a lot more to some professions than sme others. If you happen to dislike the idea of a heavy emphasis on a GPA, then perhaps a field that places less importance on it would be to you liking.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

For what it's worth my college only had P (pass) and NP (no pass). GPA's are so overrated, especially when it comes to working in the real world.

That's silly, Steven. Of course GPA matters. None of the desirable firms will even look at a fresh grad if they don't have their GPA listed.

I agree it means less with experience.

The concept is simple - if the type of work you will be doing requires a certain level of proficiency, you either achieve that level or you don't.

[kaydee457 13]

For what it's worth my college only had P (pass) and NP (no pass). GPA's are so overrated, especially when it comes to working in the real world.

That's silly, Steven. Of course GPA matters. None of the desirable firms will even look at a fresh grad if they don't have their GPA listed.

I agree it means less with experience.

The concept is simple - if the type of work you will be doing requires a certain level of proficiency, you either achieve that level or you don't.

There's no way for an employer to gauge the level of a students proficiency at a certain skill other than to look at GPA's, and any recommendations.

Acquired skills in a profession come with experience and those acquired skills become more important later in ones career.

Edited February 15, 2008 by kaydee457

[CBR 0]

I can't agree with you there. A 4.0 does not mean you have a stronger work ethic. And it goes beyond people skills. I know plenty of 2.0s that work as hard or harder in the field than their book smart counterpart. I'd rather have a steady-handed surgeon that knows just where and how to cut than the one that can name every human disease backwards and forwards.

I'm with you, GPAs are highly overrated. There is book smarts and practical smarts. I remember back in college a girl that never got less than a 4.0. However, when you put here in a real world situation, she could not function. She lacked people skills and the ability to work hands on. That 4.0 was because she could memorize text books and lectures and fill in little bubbles. A high GPA, IMHO, only proves you can pass examinations. It does not guarantee you can do the job any better than the 2.0 student.

Sure, a good GPA doesn't say how well you work with people, but a 4.0 at least shows that you have a good work ethic. The 2.0 student obviously didn't take pride in his work or feel it necessary to try hard. Because of his low GPA, he probably also couldn't have gotten good internships, student jobs or study abroad opportunities so will come to the job less well rounded and probably less prepared.

I think in general people who did not have high GPA's speak to how GPA's mean nothing in the real world. People who did have high GPA's speak to how it means something.

Just an observation...

LOL, I think you're onto something .

I agree with Kazan's Tiger, I've seen that situation many times too.

However, I do stand behind what I said before. A higher GPA is going to open more doors. So in that way it does matter. Unfortunately employers can't possibly know which 2.0's have the skills and which 4.0's don't. They can only go by what's on paper.

[Kazan' Tiger 1]

Well, I had a high GPA and I can say it proves nothing. I've seen people with less do their jobs better than me and people with higher do far worse. I just don't see a GPA as anything other than proof you can pass an examination

I think in general people who did not have high GPA's speak to how GPA's mean nothing in the real world. People who did have high GPA's speak to how it means something.

Just an observation...

I wasn't saying the 2.0 applied to the surgeon. I'm saying I don't judge people by numbers. I judge them by their actions. To me SATs, GPAs, IQs, and even Credit Scores, mean nothing in all reality. I don't care for any of these methods of judging people, their intentions and abilities to succeed. Wasn't it Einstein that did rather mediocre in school?

Kazan -- not to split hairs here, but you're never going to see a surgeon who got a 2.0 in college. You're creating a false dichotomy of book smarts vs. real-life smarts. But my friends in medical school spend a lot of time cutting stuff up, getting hands on training in a hospital, etc. etc. It's not like they spend time poring over books.

But anyway, I was thinking of taking Rey up to Boston next weekend to show him this:

[one...two...tree 2,762]

For what it's worth my college only had P (pass) and NP (no pass). GPA's are so overrated, especially when it comes to working in the real world.

That's silly, Steven. Of course GPA matters. None of the desirable firms will even look at a fresh grad if they don't have their GPA listed.

I agree it means less with experience.

The concept is simple - if the type of work you will be doing requires a certain level of proficiency, you either achieve that level or you don't.

There's no way for an employer to gauge the level of a students proficiency at a certain skill other than to look at GPA's, and any recommendations.

Acquired skills in a profession come with experience and those acquired skills become more important later in ones career.

Are you sure about that? What are the requirements for many professions - like practicing medicine or law? Show me a medical doctor who's license to practice was handed to him/her because of his GPA.

[kaydee457 13]

For what it's worth my college only had P (pass) and NP (no pass). GPA's are so overrated, especially when it comes to working in the real world.

That's silly, Steven. Of course GPA matters. None of the desirable firms will even look at a fresh grad if they don't have their GPA listed.

I agree it means less with experience.

The concept is simple - if the type of work you will be doing requires a certain level of proficiency, you either achieve that level or you don't.

There's no way for an employer to gauge the level of a students proficiency at a certain skill other than to look at GPA's, and any recommendations.

Acquired skills in a profession come with experience and those acquired skills become more important later in ones career.

Are you sure about that? What are the requirements for many professions - like practicing medicine or law? Show me a medical doctor who's license to practice was handed to him/her because of his GPA.

Doctors don't recieve their license to practice immediately after graduation from medical school......Their internship, and resdiency follows and the criteria for landing an internship at a most sought after, or prestigious hospital, would require good grades and high GPA.

[Alex+R 0]

But anyway, I was thinking of taking Rey up to Boston next weekend to show him this:

Awww, I love that book!

Me too! My mom has a picture of me sitting on one of those ducks at like 10 years old, pretending to not be totally excited (because of course I was way too cool).

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Doctors don't recieve their license to practice immediately after graduation from medical school......Their internship, and resdiency follows and the criteria for landing an internship at a most sought after, or prestigious hospital, would require good grades and high GPA.

Like I said, GPA's are overrated. I didn't mean they're useless. They serve a purpose - that is to give an indication of excellence when it comes to learning, however, that doesn't necessarily mean much.

Here's from a student doctor:

I am a 4.0 student, yet I recognize that including GPA in the medical school application process is detrimental to both the breadth and depth of your undergraduate education.

I reluctantly play the GPA game so that I can get into medical school. I take fewer credits each semester. I take the easier teachers. I study towards the test and not to truly understand the material. I'd love to take more Italian classes until I'm fluent, but won't because I might not get A's. I'd also love to take classes from some of the world-renowned professors that my institution has, but won't because their classes are difficult. Perhaps I am just an idealist, but I believe that undergraduates should be encouraged to take classes with the best teachers (which are not necessarily the easiest or the hardest), and take classes that are of most interest to them, irregardless of ease. For those of us trying to get into medical school, the system creates huge incentives for us not to pursue these ideals. Anything below a B and you have alot of explaining to do. Likewise with a GPA below a 3.5. I even find myself thinking of this when I write my english papers: "How can I approach this topic in a way that will get me an 'A'," rather than, "How can I approach this topic in a way that will most accurately reflect my beliefs."

For adcomms not to include the difficulty of your classes or the number of your credit hours each semester in their analysis of your application makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Wait, yes it does: medical schools are whores to the medical school ranking lists, and they want to beef up there average GPAs at the cost of the quality of the undergraduate experience. But, I suppose you could say that I am just a ####### to the medical school admissions commitee by taking light courseloads and choosing easier professors, and thats fine--I want to get into medical school and I follow the incentives that are created for me.

Thats it, now discuss.

EDIT: I'm not saying that GPA should not matter at all, just that it should be a much smaller part of your application. Getting F's or having alot of W's should disqualify you if you don't have valid excuses.

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread...549#post5854691

Edited February 15, 2008 by Mister Fancypants

[kaydee457 13]

Doctors don't recieve their license to practice immediately after graduation from medical school......Their internship, and resdiency follows and the criteria for landing an internship at a most sought after, or prestigious hospital, would require good grades and high GPA.

Like I said, GPA's are overrated. I didn't mean they're useless. They serve a purpose - that is to give an indication of excellence when it comes to learning, however, that doesn't necessarily mean much.

Here's from a student doctor:

I am a 4.0 student, yet I recognize that including GPA in the medical school application process is detrimental to both the breadth and depth of your undergraduate education.

I reluctantly play the GPA game so that I can get into medical school. I take fewer credits each semester. I take the easier teachers. I study towards the test and not to truly understand the material. I'd love to take more Italian classes until I'm fluent, but won't because I might not get A's. I'd also love to take classes from some of the world-renowned professors that my institution has, but won't because their classes are difficult. Perhaps I am just an idealist, but I believe that undergraduates should be encouraged to take classes with the best teachers (which are not necessarily the easiest or the hardest), and take classes that are of most interest to them, irregardless of ease. For those of us trying to get into medical school, the system creates huge incentives for us not to pursue these ideals. Anything below a B and you have alot of explaining to do. Likewise with a GPA below a 3.5. I even find myself thinking of this when I write my english papers: "How can I approach this topic in a way that will get me an 'A'," rather than, "How can I approach this topic in a way that will most accurately reflect my beliefs."

For adcomms not to include the difficulty of your classes or the number of your credit hours each semester in their analysis of your application makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Wait, yes it does: medical schools are whores to the medical school ranking lists, and they want to beef up there average GPAs at the cost of the quality of the undergraduate experience. But, I suppose you could say that I am just a ####### to the medical school admissions commitee by taking light courseloads and choosing easier professors, and thats fine--I want to get into medical school and I follow the incentives that are created for me.

Thats it, now discuss.

EDIT: I'm not saying that GPA should not matter at all, just that it should be a much smaller part of your application. Getting F's or having alot of W's should disqualify you if you don't have valid excuses.

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread...549#post5854691

This guy's an undergrad on his way (hopefully for him) to Med School. He thinks that the system, as it is now, is easily manipulated by a fellow such as himself. Perhaps, but this is a single observation and this only reinforces what most of us have said, that is that higher GPA's are a prerequisite to acquiring higher education in sought after schools, or in acquiring that first job at a top firm.

Once you’ve gotten past that first job, then GPA’s are simply ignored and job experience becomes the determining factor in employment.

Edited February 15, 2008 by kaydee457

[Jenn! 918]

Yeah, I think people are arguing two different things here - whether GPA's *do* matter vs. whether they *should* matter.

In certain professions they certainly do matter. In my limited experience, I would also say that they should matter, as long as the quality of the school, course, etc. are taken into account.