Why do colleges hand out so many degrees?

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Babbles
I wonder how many of these posts are college students who yearn to whine about GPA. The simple matter of fact is that GPA is a benchmark of how well you know the material. I think it is fair to say that most college grades come from exams. Therefore if you are tested on the material in an exam and you bomb the exam, chances are you do not know the material. It's really that simple. People can whine and moan that being able to take a test is not 'learning' but I think that is a load of bull. Again, if somebody asks you a question (either on a test or on the job) and you can not give the correct answer than you don't know the material.

Absolute, total, and complete bullshit.

Grades aren't based on what you know, they're based on what you do...two entirely different things. Grades aren't based on tests, at least not in a LOT of classes. There's attendance, class participation, homework, papers, etc. Because of that you don't know what GPA really means, since you don't know what each class required.

Examples:

I had a .012 GPA after 5 years of high school, but I scored almost perfect on my SATs, and could outscore pretty much anyone on any test on any subject. It was two factors that creamed me: attendance and homework. I seldom went to class and already knew the material, so I saw no reason to bother with those two. In College I carry almost a 4.0 since attendance no longer matters, and I don't know all the material so I actually have to do the homework.

A friend took a class with me that was weighted heavily on class participation and projects. She has a nearly clinical fear of public speaking, and is more of a booksmart person than creative project person. Even though she aced the two tests we took, and did well on her papers, she BOMBED participation and the final project. She got a C- in a class where I scored an A-, even though she knows more about the topic and application than I do.

Grades are largely horseshit; they're a measure of your ability to get the grade, and that's it.

 

[blue703]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: Babbles
I wonder how many of these posts are college students who yearn to whine about GPA. The simple matter of fact is that GPA is a benchmark of how well you know the material. I think it is fair to say that most college grades come from exams. Therefore if you are tested on the material in an exam and you bomb the exam, chances are you do not know the material. It's really that simple. People can whine and moan that being able to take a test is not 'learning' but I think that is a load of bull. Again, if somebody asks you a question (either on a test or on the job) and you can not give the correct answer than you don't know the material.

Absolute, total, and complete bullshit.

Grades aren't based on what you know, they're based on what you do...two entirely different things. Grades aren't based on tests, at least not in a LOT of classes. There's attendance, class participation, homework, papers, etc. Because of that you don't know what GPA really means, since you don't know what each class required.

Examples:

I had a .012 GPA after 5 years of high school, but I scored almost perfect on my SATs, and could outscore pretty much anyone on any test on any subject. It was two factors that creamed me: attendance and homework. I seldom went to class and already knew the material, so I saw no reason to bother with those two. In College I carry almost a 4.0 since attendance no longer matters, and I don't know all the material so I actually have to do the homework.

A friend took a class with me that was weighted heavily on class participation and projects. She has a nearly clinical fear of public speaking, and is more of a booksmart person than creative project person. Even though she aced the two tests we took, and did well on her papers, she BOMBED participation and the final project. She got a C- in a class where I scored an A-, even though she knows more about the topic and application than I do.

Grades are largely horseshit; they're a measure of your ability to get the grade, and that's it.

really?

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Eeezee

Originally posted by: TecHNooB
Why do kids with 2.0 GPAs get degrees? Doesn't this hurt us in the long run? Why is the college curve so damn generous?

The 2.0 GPA isn't the problem. It's the ease with which one can get a 2.0 GPA that is the problem. That should be average. We should be putting a lot more students below the 2.0 GPA mark.

And yes, this does hurt us in the long run. And it is the reason that a Bachelor's degree today is worth no more than a high school diploma was worth 30 years ago.

For whatever reason, colleges make it very difficult to outright fail large numbers of students if they are unable to do the coursework. And high schools are even worse, where keeping a student for a 5th year is practically impossible.

YES.

This is about the most lucid post so far.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: blue703

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: Babbles
I wonder how many of these posts are college students who yearn to whine about GPA. The simple matter of fact is that GPA is a benchmark of how well you know the material. I think it is fair to say that most college grades come from exams. Therefore if you are tested on the material in an exam and you bomb the exam, chances are you do not know the material. It's really that simple. People can whine and moan that being able to take a test is not 'learning' but I think that is a load of bull. Again, if somebody asks you a question (either on a test or on the job) and you can not give the correct answer than you don't know the material.

Absolute, total, and complete bullshit.

Grades aren't based on what you know, they're based on what you do...two entirely different things. Grades aren't based on tests, at least not in a LOT of classes. There's attendance, class participation, homework, papers, etc. Because of that you don't know what GPA really means, since you don't know what each class required.

Examples:

I had a .012 GPA after 5 years of high school, but I scored almost perfect on my SATs, and could outscore pretty much anyone on any test on any subject. It was two factors that creamed me: attendance and homework. I seldom went to class and already knew the material, so I saw no reason to bother with those two. In College I carry almost a 4.0 since attendance no longer matters, and I don't know all the material so I actually have to do the homework.

A friend took a class with me that was weighted heavily on class participation and projects. She has a nearly clinical fear of public speaking, and is more of a booksmart person than creative project person. Even though she aced the two tests we took, and did well on her papers, she BOMBED participation and the final project. She got a C- in a class where I scored an A-, even though she knows more about the topic and application than I do.

Grades are largely horseshit; they're a measure of your ability to get the grade, and that's it.

really?

Yup. I passed one class in 5 years. Well, more like 4 1/2...I never finished the last year.

 

[Babbles]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: Babbles
I wonder how many of these posts are college students who yearn to whine about GPA. The simple matter of fact is that GPA is a benchmark of how well you know the material. I think it is fair to say that most college grades come from exams. Therefore if you are tested on the material in an exam and you bomb the exam, chances are you do not know the material. It's really that simple. People can whine and moan that being able to take a test is not 'learning' but I think that is a load of bull. Again, if somebody asks you a question (either on a test or on the job) and you can not give the correct answer than you don't know the material.

Absolute, total, and complete bullshit.

Grades aren't based on what you know, they're based on what you do...two entirely different things. Grades aren't based on tests, at least not in a LOT of classes. There's attendance, class participation, homework, papers, etc. Because of that you don't know what GPA really means, since you don't know what each class required.

Examples:

I had a .012 GPA after 5 years of high school, but I scored almost perfect on my SATs, and could outscore pretty much anyone on any test on any subject. It was two factors that creamed me: attendance and homework. I seldom went to class and already knew the material, so I saw no reason to bother with those two. In College I carry almost a 4.0 since attendance no longer matters, and I don't know all the material so I actually have to do the homework.

A friend took a class with me that was weighted heavily on class participation and projects. She has a nearly clinical fear of public speaking, and is more of a booksmart person than creative project person. Even though she aced the two tests we took, and did well on her papers, she BOMBED participation and the final project. She got a C- in a class where I scored an A-, even though she knows more about the topic and application than I do.

Grades are largely horseshit; they're a measure of your ability to get the grade, and that's it.

You seem to have confused your personal anecdotal experience with that of the vast majority of other people (guess you failed to learn that in college).

Your first mistake is the premise that "grades aren't based on what you know . . ." As you noted grades can be based on what you do - which *gasp* "doing" can be defined in terms of knowing. Interesting you actually support my premise in that since attendance does not matter in your situation, you do well when tested (either by exams or the homework you do). So how is this bullshit? You get tested on the material and as such you carry a 4.0 (allegedly). By doing the homework you are demonstrating that you either know the material or can otherwise find the answer via researching the question.

I would imagine your friend who took a class that required participation and projects may have likely been a class whose subject matter necessitates participation and projects. In other words in addition to just listening to lecture there is a practical teaching of the material through participation and projects. This is how a lot of subject matter is taught and learned.

Your final error is assuming that ability to get the grade is somehow a bad thing. Getting the grade - be it doing homework, projects, attendance, or exams - demonstrates that you can do what you need to do to achieve a goal.

Now certainly somebody's grades should not be used to judge the entire person, but they are indeed a facet of that person. Something which I think it would be reasonable to say that effectively all college, professional, and graduate school admission administrators realize.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Babbles

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: Babbles
I wonder how many of these posts are college students who yearn to whine about GPA. The simple matter of fact is that GPA is a benchmark of how well you know the material. I think it is fair to say that most college grades come from exams. Therefore if you are tested on the material in an exam and you bomb the exam, chances are you do not know the material. It's really that simple. People can whine and moan that being able to take a test is not 'learning' but I think that is a load of bull. Again, if somebody asks you a question (either on a test or on the job) and you can not give the correct answer than you don't know the material.

Absolute, total, and complete bullshit.

Grades aren't based on what you know, they're based on what you do...two entirely different things. Grades aren't based on tests, at least not in a LOT of classes. There's attendance, class participation, homework, papers, etc. Because of that you don't know what GPA really means, since you don't know what each class required.

Examples:

I had a .012 GPA after 5 years of high school, but I scored almost perfect on my SATs, and could outscore pretty much anyone on any test on any subject. It was two factors that creamed me: attendance and homework. I seldom went to class and already knew the material, so I saw no reason to bother with those two. In College I carry almost a 4.0 since attendance no longer matters, and I don't know all the material so I actually have to do the homework.

A friend took a class with me that was weighted heavily on class participation and projects. She has a nearly clinical fear of public speaking, and is more of a booksmart person than creative project person. Even though she aced the two tests we took, and did well on her papers, she BOMBED participation and the final project. She got a C- in a class where I scored an A-, even though she knows more about the topic and application than I do.

Grades are largely horseshit; they're a measure of your ability to get the grade, and that's it.

You seem to have confused your personal anecdotal experience with that of the vast majority of other people (guess you failed to learn that in college).

Your first mistake is the premise that "grades aren't based on what you know . . ." As you noted grades can be based on what you do - which *gasp* "doing" can be defined in terms of knowing. Interesting you actually support my premise in that since attendance does not matter in your situation, you do well when tested (either by exams or the homework you do). So how is this bullshit? You get tested on the material and as such you carry a 4.0 (allegedly). By doing the homework you are demonstrating that you either know the material or can otherwise find the answer via researching the question.

I would imagine your friend who took a class that required participation and projects may have likely been a class whose subject matter necessitates participation and projects. In other words in addition to just listening to lecture there is a practical teaching of the material through participation and projects. This is how a lot of subject matter is taught and learned.

Your final error is assuming that ability to get the grade is somehow a bad thing. Getting the grade - be it doing homework, projects, attendance, or exams - demonstrates that you can do what you need to do to achieve a goal.

Now certainly somebody's grades should not be used to judge the entire person, but they are indeed a facet of that person. Something which I think it would be reasonable to say that effectively all college, professional, and graduate school admission administrators realize.

I used it merely as example - it illustrates the weakness in the entire system if viewed to narrowly, and equating grades with knowledge is too narrow. IF you acknowledge that grades are instead a measure of MANY things, then it becomes an adequate indicator of generalities, though never specifics.

No, it was actually an anthropology class with subject matter that was largely factual memorization and extrapolation of conclusion from available data. It was taught the way it was because it was the professors preference, and because education is often based on inaccurate information - in this case, the idea that people learn better in groups, and enjoy creative outlets. In truth some people do, but not all. Learning styles and personalities vary broadly, and when you weight a class towards particular types the others must inherently suffer. It's just as bad when participators and creative types have to take classes that are purely memorization and formula, since then they're the ones who are disadvantaged.

I'm just pointing out that these factors DO affect grades without fully accounting for knowledge/ability. I mean, if I ask one class to explain the Pythagorean theorem in words, and one to do it through interpretive dance, there's no good way to compare the understanding of the subject from the final grades in the class. It's even worse with another level of separation, when you average all the grades together to achieve a final GPA. You're too far separated from individual test scores to actually know how much they know about a particular subject area.

Like I said, grades measure many things, not all of them accurate. Since we don't know what weight was assigned to what grade, we can't make accurate assumptions based on grade averages. The best we can do is make a generalized statement about an individual like - they're capable of average performance, and care enough to make an effort. But we can't get more specific than that. That may work fine in some circumstances, but personally I'd rather know how much someone actually knows about a given subject, and rather they possess intrinsic ability in the field.

 

[JJChicken]

Originally posted by: manlymatt83

Originally posted by: RaistlinZ
Work experience + general common sense > degree

oh, and this

QFT

 

[JJChicken]

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

Originally posted by: looker001

Originally posted by: Rockinacoustic
Yes colleges may "hand-out" degrees, but these days a Bachelors doesn't go as far as before. I think it's safe to say that if you went to Grad School and got at least your Masters, then your interested employer can rest assured you had a satisfactory GPA.

Masters is useless. I can MBA but i already have b.s. finance degree(getting it in about 2 weeks). What is the point of MBA, if i will learn exact same thing as i did during my 4 years in school.

You truly are an idiot. You'll learn a vast amount of additional information with a MBA(more advanced finance classes, strategic mgmt, entrepreneurial studies, ecommerce, etc). And most importantly is the networking/group work experience is invaluable. This is coming from a Finance major who later got his MBA.

You're graduating in 2 weeks. Do you already have a job?

He's got a point. The cost and time of an MBA doesn't really make up for the fact that half the stuff you've studied you have probably already studied in your undergraduate degree. It all depends on how well you did you undergrad degree - if you really studied and understood what was given then you pretty much know everything. MBA is a great career advancement opportunity, but hell if the same things couldn't be learned in the workforce by being attentive.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Originally posted by: Special K

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
2 types of people make money in this world.

1) entrepreneurs

2) people with deeply specialized advanced degrees

GPA isn't even in the equation everyone else falls into "average" at the end of the day.

#2 isn't even true in general. I would wager that theoretical physicists, and many science PhDs in general, are not among the wealthiest people in the world, despite having a deeply specialized advanced degree.

Heck #1 isn't even true in general. Don't something like 90% of all businesses fail within the first 10 years?

I dont care if you don't believe me I've talked to family and friends that are involved in personal finance. The wealthiest clients fall in category 1 or 2 90% of the time.

 

[Capt Caveman]

Originally posted by: Barack Obama

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

Originally posted by: looker001

Originally posted by: Rockinacoustic
Yes colleges may "hand-out" degrees, but these days a Bachelors doesn't go as far as before. I think it's safe to say that if you went to Grad School and got at least your Masters, then your interested employer can rest assured you had a satisfactory GPA.

Masters is useless. I can MBA but i already have b.s. finance degree(getting it in about 2 weeks). What is the point of MBA, if i will learn exact same thing as i did during my 4 years in school.

You truly are an idiot. You'll learn a vast amount of additional information with a MBA(more advanced finance classes, strategic mgmt, entrepreneurial studies, ecommerce, etc). And most importantly is the networking/group work experience is invaluable. This is coming from a Finance major who later got his MBA.

You're graduating in 2 weeks. Do you already have a job?

He's got a point. The cost and time of an MBA doesn't really make up for the fact that half the stuff you've studied you have probably already studied in your undergraduate degree. It all depends on how well you did you undergrad degree - if you really studied and understood what was given then you pretty much know everything. MBA is a great career advancement opportunity, but hell if the same things couldn't be learned in the workforce by being attentive.

Incorrect. You're talking about 1/4 of the classes which can be waived. And trust me when I say that you can tell the difference between folks with a MBA and those that do not in the work place.

 

[Pacemaker]

Originally posted by: blue703

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: Babbles
I wonder how many of these posts are college students who yearn to whine about GPA. The simple matter of fact is that GPA is a benchmark of how well you know the material. I think it is fair to say that most college grades come from exams. Therefore if you are tested on the material in an exam and you bomb the exam, chances are you do not know the material. It's really that simple. People can whine and moan that being able to take a test is not 'learning' but I think that is a load of bull. Again, if somebody asks you a question (either on a test or on the job) and you can not give the correct answer than you don't know the material.

Absolute, total, and complete bullshit.

Grades aren't based on what you know, they're based on what you do...two entirely different things. Grades aren't based on tests, at least not in a LOT of classes. There's attendance, class participation, homework, papers, etc. Because of that you don't know what GPA really means, since you don't know what each class required.

Examples:

I had a .012 GPA after 5 years of high school, but I scored almost perfect on my SATs, and could outscore pretty much anyone on any test on any subject. It was two factors that creamed me: attendance and homework. I seldom went to class and already knew the material, so I saw no reason to bother with those two. In College I carry almost a 4.0 since attendance no longer matters, and I don't know all the material so I actually have to do the homework.

A friend took a class with me that was weighted heavily on class participation and projects. She has a nearly clinical fear of public speaking, and is more of a booksmart person than creative project person. Even though she aced the two tests we took, and did well on her papers, she BOMBED participation and the final project. She got a C- in a class where I scored an A-, even though she knows more about the topic and application than I do.

Grades are largely horseshit; they're a measure of your ability to get the grade, and that's it.

really?

I've had similar things happen. Two years after having a class with someone (he got an A I got a C) I made a reference to the class material and he gave me a blank look. After spending a few seconds trying to explain the reference I gave up. You can get an A without truly learning the material if you know how to study. Also, getting a C doesn't mean you didn't learn the material.

 

[shortylickens]

Originally posted by: Jumpem

Originally posted by: spidey07
Because they are giving the Uni money and because GPA doesn't matter in the real world?

Think about it for a bit. Just think.

Absolutely wrong. Many companies won't een look at a resume without a minimum 3.0.

Thats only if you have a degree.
I got several fine jobs with no college, just experience.

The only things you absolutely, positively need college education for are medicine and law. Every other field you can find a way in if your work skills are good. And if you came out at the bottom of your class you still have the same chance to make a successful practice as everyone else.
And even with 8 years of college behind you, you'll still have to go under someones wing and actually learn how to do the job.
College doesnt normally teach you how to DO anything. You still have to learn it as the FNG. Some places have fancy names for FNG, like intern or junior associate. But they all mean the same thing. Until you prove you can actually do something you arent much good.

 

[LS21]

gpa does not correlate with competency

theyre only used for entry level because there is not much else with which to judge a candidate

no employer will care about grades of those who have 2+ years of experience

in my personal experience, grades are insignificant

when i recruit students, their conversation with me make a much stronger impact than what is on their resume

 

[Gibson486]

Originally posted by: Pacemaker

Originally posted by: blue703

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: Babbles
I wonder how many of these posts are college students who yearn to whine about GPA. The simple matter of fact is that GPA is a benchmark of how well you know the material. I think it is fair to say that most college grades come from exams. Therefore if you are tested on the material in an exam and you bomb the exam, chances are you do not know the material. It's really that simple. People can whine and moan that being able to take a test is not 'learning' but I think that is a load of bull. Again, if somebody asks you a question (either on a test or on the job) and you can not give the correct answer than you don't know the material.

Absolute, total, and complete bullshit.

Grades aren't based on what you know, they're based on what you do...two entirely different things. Grades aren't based on tests, at least not in a LOT of classes. There's attendance, class participation, homework, papers, etc. Because of that you don't know what GPA really means, since you don't know what each class required.

Examples:

I had a .012 GPA after 5 years of high school, but I scored almost perfect on my SATs, and could outscore pretty much anyone on any test on any subject. It was two factors that creamed me: attendance and homework. I seldom went to class and already knew the material, so I saw no reason to bother with those two. In College I carry almost a 4.0 since attendance no longer matters, and I don't know all the material so I actually have to do the homework.

A friend took a class with me that was weighted heavily on class participation and projects. She has a nearly clinical fear of public speaking, and is more of a booksmart person than creative project person. Even though she aced the two tests we took, and did well on her papers, she BOMBED participation and the final project. She got a C- in a class where I scored an A-, even though she knows more about the topic and application than I do.

Grades are largely horseshit; they're a measure of your ability to get the grade, and that's it.

really?

I've had similar things happen. Two years after having a class with someone (he got an A I got a C) I made a reference to the class material and he gave me a blank look. After spending a few seconds trying to explain the reference I gave up. You can get an A without truly learning the material if you know how to study. Also, getting a C doesn't mean you didn't learn the material.

very true. I got C's and D's in circuits and electronics....flash forward to grad time, I was one of the only people who still remembered stuff from those classes. School is full of people who get A's just for the sake of getting an A.They are more worried about the grade than actually learning.

 

[TecHNooB]

Originally posted by: Gibson486

Originally posted by: Pacemaker

Originally posted by: blue703

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: Babbles
I wonder how many of these posts are college students who yearn to whine about GPA. The simple matter of fact is that GPA is a benchmark of how well you know the material. I think it is fair to say that most college grades come from exams. Therefore if you are tested on the material in an exam and you bomb the exam, chances are you do not know the material. It's really that simple. People can whine and moan that being able to take a test is not 'learning' but I think that is a load of bull. Again, if somebody asks you a question (either on a test or on the job) and you can not give the correct answer than you don't know the material.

Absolute, total, and complete bullshit.

Grades aren't based on what you know, they're based on what you do...two entirely different things. Grades aren't based on tests, at least not in a LOT of classes. There's attendance, class participation, homework, papers, etc. Because of that you don't know what GPA really means, since you don't know what each class required.

Examples:

I had a .012 GPA after 5 years of high school, but I scored almost perfect on my SATs, and could outscore pretty much anyone on any test on any subject. It was two factors that creamed me: attendance and homework. I seldom went to class and already knew the material, so I saw no reason to bother with those two. In College I carry almost a 4.0 since attendance no longer matters, and I don't know all the material so I actually have to do the homework.

A friend took a class with me that was weighted heavily on class participation and projects. She has a nearly clinical fear of public speaking, and is more of a booksmart person than creative project person. Even though she aced the two tests we took, and did well on her papers, she BOMBED participation and the final project. She got a C- in a class where I scored an A-, even though she knows more about the topic and application than I do.

Grades are largely horseshit; they're a measure of your ability to get the grade, and that's it.

really?

I've had similar things happen. Two years after having a class with someone (he got an A I got a C) I made a reference to the class material and he gave me a blank look. After spending a few seconds trying to explain the reference I gave up. You can get an A without truly learning the material if you know how to study. Also, getting a C doesn't mean you didn't learn the material.

very true. I got C's and D's in circuits and electronics....flash forward to grad time, I was one of the only people who still remembered stuff from those classes. School is full of people who get A's just for the sake of getting an A.They are more worried about the grade than actually learning.

So how are they getting the A's when you're the one learning everything?

 

[LS21]

Originally posted by: TecHNooB




So how are they getting the A's when you're the one learning everything?

copy homework, study from test banks, etc etc. youve been through school havent you?

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: TecHNooB

Originally posted by: Gibson486

Originally posted by: Pacemaker

Originally posted by: blue703

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: Babbles
I wonder how many of these posts are college students who yearn to whine about GPA. The simple matter of fact is that GPA is a benchmark of how well you know the material. I think it is fair to say that most college grades come from exams. Therefore if you are tested on the material in an exam and you bomb the exam, chances are you do not know the material. It's really that simple. People can whine and moan that being able to take a test is not 'learning' but I think that is a load of bull. Again, if somebody asks you a question (either on a test or on the job) and you can not give the correct answer than you don't know the material.

Absolute, total, and complete bullshit.

Grades aren't based on what you know, they're based on what you do...two entirely different things. Grades aren't based on tests, at least not in a LOT of classes. There's attendance, class participation, homework, papers, etc. Because of that you don't know what GPA really means, since you don't know what each class required.

Examples:

I had a .012 GPA after 5 years of high school, but I scored almost perfect on my SATs, and could outscore pretty much anyone on any test on any subject. It was two factors that creamed me: attendance and homework. I seldom went to class and already knew the material, so I saw no reason to bother with those two. In College I carry almost a 4.0 since attendance no longer matters, and I don't know all the material so I actually have to do the homework.

A friend took a class with me that was weighted heavily on class participation and projects. She has a nearly clinical fear of public speaking, and is more of a booksmart person than creative project person. Even though she aced the two tests we took, and did well on her papers, she BOMBED participation and the final project. She got a C- in a class where I scored an A-, even though she knows more about the topic and application than I do.

Grades are largely horseshit; they're a measure of your ability to get the grade, and that's it.

really?

I've had similar things happen. Two years after having a class with someone (he got an A I got a C) I made a reference to the class material and he gave me a blank look. After spending a few seconds trying to explain the reference I gave up. You can get an A without truly learning the material if you know how to study. Also, getting a C doesn't mean you didn't learn the material.

very true. I got C's and D's in circuits and electronics....flash forward to grad time, I was one of the only people who still remembered stuff from those classes. School is full of people who get A's just for the sake of getting an A.They are more worried about the grade than actually learning.

So how are they getting the A's when you're the one learning everything?

They show up to class (if attendance is counted)
They participate in class (if participation is counted)
They do a greater percentage of homework (if homework is given/counted)
They have a 'better' attitude (if the teacher allows themselves to be swayed by that)
They do better on tests (less anxiety, better short term recall, luckier, etc)
Any number of other things that affect grades without actually involving what you know or how smart you are.

 

[AccruedExpenditure]

Originally posted by: fritolays
GPA is important

you don't need a 4.0 GPA, but you should graduate with at least a 3.0

Most entry level jobs that are somewhat selective have a GPA requirement. The entry level job you start at is important because it serves as a stepping stone into bigger and better options in the future.

Plus, if you intend to pursue selective graduate level studies or a professional program, 3.0 is the minimum

Again, let me reiterate, in the professional world GPA doesn't matter. Maybe you'll have to start a rung or two lower or at a different company, but you can pretty much enter any field you want with a four year degree, decently formatted resume, right experience and interview skills. (Super technical career fields e.g. engineering, med, aside)

And since I make the hiring decisions at my company I should know
-AE

 

[TecHNooB]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: TecHNooB

Originally posted by: Gibson486

Originally posted by: Pacemaker

Originally posted by: blue703

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: Babbles
I wonder how many of these posts are college students who yearn to whine about GPA. The simple matter of fact is that GPA is a benchmark of how well you know the material. I think it is fair to say that most college grades come from exams. Therefore if you are tested on the material in an exam and you bomb the exam, chances are you do not know the material. It's really that simple. People can whine and moan that being able to take a test is not 'learning' but I think that is a load of bull. Again, if somebody asks you a question (either on a test or on the job) and you can not give the correct answer than you don't know the material.

Absolute, total, and complete bullshit.

Grades aren't based on what you know, they're based on what you do...two entirely different things. Grades aren't based on tests, at least not in a LOT of classes. There's attendance, class participation, homework, papers, etc. Because of that you don't know what GPA really means, since you don't know what each class required.

Examples:

I had a .012 GPA after 5 years of high school, but I scored almost perfect on my SATs, and could outscore pretty much anyone on any test on any subject. It was two factors that creamed me: attendance and homework. I seldom went to class and already knew the material, so I saw no reason to bother with those two. In College I carry almost a 4.0 since attendance no longer matters, and I don't know all the material so I actually have to do the homework.

A friend took a class with me that was weighted heavily on class participation and projects. She has a nearly clinical fear of public speaking, and is more of a booksmart person than creative project person. Even though she aced the two tests we took, and did well on her papers, she BOMBED participation and the final project. She got a C- in a class where I scored an A-, even though she knows more about the topic and application than I do.

Grades are largely horseshit; they're a measure of your ability to get the grade, and that's it.

really?

I've had similar things happen. Two years after having a class with someone (he got an A I got a C) I made a reference to the class material and he gave me a blank look. After spending a few seconds trying to explain the reference I gave up. You can get an A without truly learning the material if you know how to study. Also, getting a C doesn't mean you didn't learn the material.

very true. I got C's and D's in circuits and electronics....flash forward to grad time, I was one of the only people who still remembered stuff from those classes. School is full of people who get A's just for the sake of getting an A.They are more worried about the grade than actually learning.

So how are they getting the A's when you're the one learning everything?

They show up to class (if attendance is counted)
They participate in class (if participation is counted)
They do a greater percentage of homework (if homework is given/counted)
They have a 'better' attitude (if the teacher allows themselves to be swayed by that)
They do better on tests (less anxiety, better short term recall, luckier, etc)
Any number of other things that affect grades without actually involving what you know or how smart you are.

How does that stop the guy learning everything from getting the A? Clearly you're not learning or reacting under pressure the way you should be.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: TecHNooB

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: TecHNooB

Originally posted by: Gibson486

Originally posted by: Pacemaker

Originally posted by: blue703

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: Babbles
I wonder how many of these posts are college students who yearn to whine about GPA. The simple matter of fact is that GPA is a benchmark of how well you know the material. I think it is fair to say that most college grades come from exams. Therefore if you are tested on the material in an exam and you bomb the exam, chances are you do not know the material. It's really that simple. People can whine and moan that being able to take a test is not 'learning' but I think that is a load of bull. Again, if somebody asks you a question (either on a test or on the job) and you can not give the correct answer than you don't know the material.

Absolute, total, and complete bullshit.

Grades aren't based on what you know, they're based on what you do...two entirely different things. Grades aren't based on tests, at least not in a LOT of classes. There's attendance, class participation, homework, papers, etc. Because of that you don't know what GPA really means, since you don't know what each class required.

Examples:

I had a .012 GPA after 5 years of high school, but I scored almost perfect on my SATs, and could outscore pretty much anyone on any test on any subject. It was two factors that creamed me: attendance and homework. I seldom went to class and already knew the material, so I saw no reason to bother with those two. In College I carry almost a 4.0 since attendance no longer matters, and I don't know all the material so I actually have to do the homework.

A friend took a class with me that was weighted heavily on class participation and projects. She has a nearly clinical fear of public speaking, and is more of a booksmart person than creative project person. Even though she aced the two tests we took, and did well on her papers, she BOMBED participation and the final project. She got a C- in a class where I scored an A-, even though she knows more about the topic and application than I do.

Grades are largely horseshit; they're a measure of your ability to get the grade, and that's it.

really?

I've had similar things happen. Two years after having a class with someone (he got an A I got a C) I made a reference to the class material and he gave me a blank look. After spending a few seconds trying to explain the reference I gave up. You can get an A without truly learning the material if you know how to study. Also, getting a C doesn't mean you didn't learn the material.

very true. I got C's and D's in circuits and electronics....flash forward to grad time, I was one of the only people who still remembered stuff from those classes. School is full of people who get A's just for the sake of getting an A.They are more worried about the grade than actually learning.

So how are they getting the A's when you're the one learning everything?

They show up to class (if attendance is counted)
They participate in class (if participation is counted)
They do a greater percentage of homework (if homework is given/counted)
They have a 'better' attitude (if the teacher allows themselves to be swayed by that)
They do better on tests (less anxiety, better short term recall, luckier, etc)
Any number of other things that affect grades without actually involving what you know or how smart you are.

How does that stop the guy learning everything from getting the A? Clearly you're not learning or reacting under pressure the way you should be.

That's not preventing him from getting an A, that's how the others can get one, even if they know less (unless, of course, it's graded on a curve, in which case those things would prevent someone from getting an A). However if he's doing the opposite of those things, then he wouldn't get an A even though he might actually know the material better.

Reacting under pressure has jack shit to do with what you know. The two are wholly unrelated.