How credible are GPA's? Here's an interesting thought!

Discussion in 'General Distance Learning Discussions' started by LJinPA, Feb 5, 2005.

Loading...
  1. LJinPA

    LJinPA New Member

    A lot of people put heavy stock in their GPA's as well as employers and graduate schools, here's a thought however:

    One extreme example...At one of the "big 3", where I go for example only pass/fail credit is given for exams. For Liberal Studies and a few other flexible majors you can test out of pretty much all of your courses. (Failed attempts at exams will not harm your GPA.) Lets say one goes to the local community college and takes the easiest elective they can find(with the easiest professor), makes sure they get an A in it, and then uses exams to complete the rest of their degree. Would you then be able to say you have a 4.0??? I doubt that many people do that anyway, I know most of my credits were earned traditionally (As well as the case with most "big 3" students probably). This is just hypothetical!!! (and maybe partly why Excelsior grades most exams, but even then at least you can't get a D or F from them)

    I'm not bashing credit-by-examination (which I happily utilized myself) either I think it's overall the greatest thing since sliced bread. I'm just making an example. On a good note at least one knows that exam crefits were EARNED since they're standardized, there are no curbs, and not easy to cheat on.

    Is their 4.0 of more value than one who transferred in some really hard electives from Yale?

    Although the "big 3" are unique, some B&M schools allow up to 60+ credits and many only record transfer credit as pass/fail. Now in this case you will have to take a few courses from them and maybe a few upper level. But you can always take at least some of your hardest courses somewhere else and transfer them in. Put a few challenge exams in the mix and have an easy Cum Laude.
    Some schools let you elect to take some classes pass/fail...

    The point I'm trying to make is that in many colleges, a GPA can be altered by many variables or by working the system. I know most graduate schools would look at many variables. Some would grade only your last 60 attempted credits. Then again you could always try to take most of your hardest courses early.

    Some High Schools weigh courses according to difficulty in order to calculate honors. Some don't, and I knew of students who were of decent intelligence who took courses borderlining on special ed. They's get a high class rank and high honors while a College Prep student with a lower GPA didn't.

    It kinda makes me think when I see employment applications asking for a GPA. It's also a reminder of how not-so black-and-white things are.;)
     
  2. me again

    me again Well-Known Member

    Frankly, nobody cares what your GPA is, unless you are attempting to enter Graduate School. I have seen a couple of Federal jobs that indicated that they would look at an applicant's GPA, but that is rare. Either you have a degree -- or you don't. Most jobs simply require that you have a degree.
     
  3. Arch23

    Arch23 New Member

    Yes, anyone who's desperate for a high GPA can definitely work the system (e.g., enroll in a school that gives away As, take easy-A courses, or sign up with grade-generous professors). Which is why grad schools require other "reliable" measures, such as the GRE, GMAT, or MAT (as if taking a culturally-biased exam that should be completed in two or three hours can provide the most accurate measure of your aptitude or verbal and quantitative skills), letters of recommendation (which you can get from practically anyone who's willing to say nice things about you), or a personal essay (which can be written by any non-verbally-challenged friend who knows what schools expect, or by any professional writing consultant who, for the right $$$ amount, can make it appear that you've led the most meaningful life or that you're the greatest person to have ever walked on earth)...
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 5, 2005
  4. Rivers

    Rivers New Member

    There is a huge debate on the correlation particularly on the GMAT and Miller Anthologies and GRE to rate of success and GPA on admission. Very often in the Top Tier schools these tests are actually used to keep people out (e.g. The Average GMAT score in Harvard is 707 and the selectivity is 10-13 %( Business Week online)). Often times other second tier schools use them because they are needed for accreditation purposes (e.g. AACSB, APA). OF course I’m not saying that if someone scores 300 on the GMAT that they will do well in and MBA program, I am saying that they are not necessarily the best measure for success.
     
  5. Arch23

    Arch23 New Member

    <<OF course I’m not saying that if someone scores 300 on the GMAT that they will do well in and MBA program, I am saying that they are not necessarily the best measure for success.>>

    Yeah, but obviously, this is not what the top tier schools believe in as the scores are incredibly important to them. Personally, I have yet to see scientific evidence that establishes a direct, positive relationship between admission requirements and success in the program (but then again, those applicants who are not in the top group and don't get accepted never get the chance to contribute to that "proof")...
     
  6. Kit

    Kit New Member

    Possibly, but they will be only short-changing themselves in the long run. They may think they are "working the system" by taking only the easiest courses in order to get a high class rank and honors but they will have a much harder time on the SAT and college entrance exams than those students who chose tougher classes. Also, if they get into college at all they will likely find that they don't have the prerequisites from high school that are needed for certain required college courses. So they will end up having to start college by taking (and paying for) non-credit remedial courses before being allowed to take credit courses. No one should feel sorry them especially if they attended public school. They should have taken those courses while they were still free.

    Not to mention that any high school that does NOT base rankings and honors on level of classes taken as well as GPA has a problem with their district's administration and school board. Wise parents, teachers, and students should protest such policies.

    Kit
     
  7. Fortunato

    Fortunato Member

    Very interesting topic, and one that's very relevant to me right now, as I'm in the process of applying to several top-tier business schools. When I got to college in 1993, I was 17 years old and had never been away from my family for longer than a week at a time before. The excess I managed to cram into three years left me with 81 credit hours, and a very sub-2.0 GPA. The 81 credit hours are even less impressive when you realize I transferred 27 hours in through AP credit and summer enrichment classes.

    I was very appreciative then, obviously, of the fact that although your credits follow you to a new college, your GPA doesn't. "Starting over", as it were, helped me motivate myself in my new program. I was able to work hard, keep my grades up, and graduate with a 3.9+ GPA, good enough to have the words "Magna Cum Laude" printed on my diploma, and to be invited to join an honor society.

    So, I present a problem to your average b-school admissions officer. Obviously, since I was able to maintain a near-perfect GPA in a business curriculum, and I have a 750 GMAT, I can handle the courseload. (at least *I* think I can!) But my abysmal performance at my first attempt at college drags down my overall GPA to right around 2.5. Do you let someone like me in, or do you go with the guy who has a 680 GMAT and graduated in 4 years with a 3.5? I suppose I'll find out in March!

    :)
     
  8. qvatlanta

    qvatlanta New Member

    I think test scores are about as good a predictor of success in grad schools as GPA. In other words, somewhat predictive, somewhat flawed. If very selective colleges based admissions on only ONE of those two factors their admissions would not be any fairer. Luckily, they generally consider not only GPA and test scores but other life achievements as part of the total package. This gives an applicant who is deficient in one respect a chance to make it up in another. If you have a 2.75 GPA, a very selective grad school just might ignore their cut-off point to accept you; it's just going to cost you a lot more effort, time and test prep.

    Another huge factor in grad school admission is discipline. It doesn't matter if you're a genius who could whiz through the material if you're just going to get bored and quit halfway through! Pretty much any achievement that shows strong self-discipline over a multi-year period is always going to be a positive factor. The best defense for a low GPA is, "I lacked discipline when I was younger, but I have it now, and my record proves it". Good luck!
     
  9. Howard

    Howard New Member

    Another factor in the GPA is the grading scale. At UAB the grading scale for an A is 90-100; at Liberty the grading scale for an A is 94-100. It seems to me a better alternative to letter grades would be the posting of the average numeric grade for each course taken. .02 from my perspective.
     
  10. ybfjax

    ybfjax New Member

    The mope competitive a program is, the more they look at that stuff....

    I know for a fact that your GPA is one of the things that all officer commisioning boards (any branch) look at. Of course, there are other things, like prt scores, community service, job experienae, letters of recommendation, etc. i.e. the 'whole person' concept. Although in recent times the programs (particularly the Navy and Air Force) have become increasingly more competitive, mostly due to the economy. Some of the final selects look like they do walk on water.

    As far as non-gov't jobs looking at a GPA, this may be relative to the profession. Some may look at it as a potential indicator of the applicant's ability to move forward with formal education (i.e. graduate school or additional credentials)


    This is definetely true. A high GPA doesn't necessarily mean anything, and I'm sure this is applicable at all schools: You could have students who just so happened to take all easy classes. Some students learn to kiss as*/ back stab others to get ahead. Others work it out so that they have 'certain professors'. Some outright plagarized 90% of their assignments. And this continues all the way into the real world. It's no different than the evals that you get at your job. No system is perfect. But I believe the main thing is quantification: Documented proof of success or results. You gotta start somewhere.

    The whole "get the high GPA thing" is more of a foot-in-the-door technique. Like I said earlier, you can make someone literally look like they walk on water on paper. Although I can say that most selection boards can look past general LORs vs LORs that make specific recommendations on what an applicant has done and how it could contribute to the job.

    This could NOT be done because you need a minimum of 30 graded credits to acheive the latin honors (cum laude, et. al.). Also, if you transferred in all credits and they were recorded as 'pass', that is considered meeting the minimum requirements for a 2.0 for an undergrad degree. You can verify this by looking in the Excelsior College Business Catalog under 'Selected Policies and Procedures'.

    It is not so much that others with lower GPAs would NOT be successful at the program, but their program is in such high demand, they need an objective way to cut off/screen applicants at the door.

    The same is true with any program. The more competitive the admissions is, the higher the cut-off will be.

    One good example of this is the white house fellows program http://www.whitehouse.gov/fellows . The minimum requirements is career minded individuals that have completed a bachelor's degree, are US citizens, and can qualify for a top secret clearance. You can argue that still makes for a lot of qualifying applicants....

    Now take a look at the actual people that are being selected (look in the alumni section): practically all of them were prior CEOs of companies. Their stats make them look like perfect citizens.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 6, 2005
  11. BinkWile

    BinkWile New Member

    GPA's can also be unfair and deceiving. Most schools use a grading format of A, B, C, D, F. Some incorporate grades of each, A, A-, B+, B, B-, C+, C, C- D+, D, D-, F. This is somewhat unfair.

    My wife earned her Masters degree from Old Dominion University (ODU), which uses a minus/plus scale of each grade. She got 1 A-, which meant she got a 90 - 93 average in the course. She then graduated with a 3.99 GPA. This is ridiculous, because if someone went to another school, say George Mason University, which uses the other system (A, B, C, etc.) and got a 90 average in the same course, then he or she would receive an A, and a 4.0 GPA.

    I know its somewhat trite, but there should be a universal grading system.

    In any case, that’s just my 2cents.
     
  12. simon

    simon New Member

     
  13. ybfjax

    ybfjax New Member

    How were special circumstances handled?

    Simon or all,

    So how were special circumstances handled? i.e. medical leave of absence or a death in the family? Were you given a chance to do make-up work?

    While I do admit that the current system is more flexible than the one you described, it also takes into account that there is no one-size-fits-all solution to learning (formal education). There will always be those that "milk the system" or find a way to scam their way though. Making the rules more strict/structured would make it more fair for those that follow them to the tee. But you also cut out other potentially qualified people that just have less than perfect circumstances.
     
  14. simon

    simon New Member

    Re: How were special circumstances handled?

     
  15. ybfjax

    ybfjax New Member

    Re: Re: How were special circumstances handled?

    I agree. I got a 1160 on my SATs in high school, and when I was trying to do STA-21 (enlisted to officer commissioning path) I got a 1300. I graduated high school with a 3.1 (and I failed a few classes that I made up in summer school). I moved on to GSU.edu, only to drop out to work full time. I then joined the Navy and here I am.....finished with my AAS and BS from Excelsior College and now enrolled in a masters in mgmt.

    A lot of politics involved in enforcing the rules. And it seems that looking good (perception) has a much greater emphasis than actually just doing good. Some people are more of careerists than 'do the job rightest'. Particularly if they 'need' that income (i.e. for their or their children's livelihood). And to make it worse, if you do try to point it out to someone, they get offended and accuse you of trying to be 'better than them.' I see it in the Navy all the time....and it's a lot worse on a military level because of the much larger degree of control a supervisor has over your overall quality of life and decisions that you can make.

    Guess that's just how the system works. Funny what money does to people :(
     
  16. Andy Borchers

    Andy Borchers New Member

    If you are interested in the validity of the GMAT, take a look at:

    http://www.gmac.com/gmac/ResearchandTrends/AssessmentResearch/ValidityStudyService_related/UnderstandingValidity.htm

    The bottom line as I see it is this - the GMAT is a statistically valid, yet imperfect measure of one's ability to complete a graduate business degree. GMAT along with GPA may explain 20% or so of the variation in grades at the MBA level.

    If you were the admissions director at the Harvard business school and you had thousands of applicants for hundreds of spots, you'd probably find tests like the GMAT are one vehicle to "reduce the field" down to a smaller pool.

    Regards - Andy

     

Share This Page