Also, a 3.0 and a 4.0 are miles apart, Duncanjp. At most state universities, a 3.0 in a liberal arts degree doesn't require hardly any effort. Maybe some 4.0's aren't "that" impressive, but a true 4.0 shows dedication. That said, a 3.6 and holding down a job is pretty dang impressive. A 3.0 and holding down a job shows you have the skills of a highly functioning primate, at least.
I wasn't belittling a 4.0, Jack . It's certainly impressive, regardless of the graduate's major. My point was that a person who has the luxury of going to college without having to hold down a job
ought to get good grades. Working at BK or wherever is time-consuming, and it drains the person both mentally and physically. The student who can get good grades in undergrad while holding down steady employment simply demonstrates discipline, character, and a clear work ethic, which are highly marketable traits to have. This doesn't mean that a person with a 4.0 might not also possess the same traits. But the student with a high GPA who doesn't have to work has only proven that he or she did what one should expect of them during college. Obviously, they're capable of learning. But it doesn't really demonstrate much about their work ethic when required to do something they don't want to do, or whether they'll take mental health days on a regular basis, or how well they're going to cope with angry clients, insensitive bosses, snide co-workers, and the weekly grind out in the real world. Incidentally, I used to work with somebody who, unbelievably, had a custom license plate that read 4.0 GPA. Even if pretentious, he was a very intelligent guy. But his interpersonal skills created a thick glass ceiling over his head, which kept him from ever getting anywhere close to a position in management. My point is that, standing alone, a GPA, like the LSAT, is an imperfect predictor of later success.
That's anecdotal, I realize. I think Cher is correct, though. A person who works her way through college and gets a 3.3 would almost certainly have gotten a much higher GPA if she had not had to work at all. But she's shown things that the 4.0 has not necessarily shown: (1) the ability to manage her time under a substantially harder schedule; (2) an ability to juggle multiple, diverse responsibilities; and (3) an ability to function successfully outside the ivory tower of academia. Furthermore, there is a good probability that the working student with the solid GPA is going to have a healthier, more cooperative ego, than the 4.0, who will be tempted to think he's above mopping a floor or making a pot of coffee. After several years in management, I've seen enough of both to know and can declare from experience that a good attitude has far more to do with success in business (maybe not government) than one's superior knowledge. The person who has to work through college knows that she's not entitled to anything, and nobody's going to hand her a dime. The student who never worked through college may or may not know that, but as an employer weighing candidates, it crosses your mind - especially if you had to work through college yourself.
All of that being said, 10 or 15 years out of college, the playing field levels. Nobody is going to be uber-impressed by your 4.0 or the fact that you worked your way through college. Your credentials and success will speak for themselves. If you're right out of school looking for work, you stress your 4.0 if you have one, or you stress your character + solid GPA if you worked. There's no shame in either. But there's
no excuse for getting a really low GPA, whether you worked or not. That person has shot himself in the foot big time. That person has shown that he cannot learn new things, cannot juggle responsibilities or manage time, and probably had no discipline in college at all. Would have been better waiting until he grew up a little before enrolling.
21 Replies
11822 Views