My Issue with the college GPA system

[Rational Agnostic]

My biggest issue with the "grade point average" being the standard mechanism for measuring academic achievement is that it does not distinguish the differences in the difficulty levels of different academic fields. For instance, it takes far more effort to earn a C in an upper-level mathematics or physics course than it does to earn an A in the average general-education course in a subject like English or Geography. Yet, this is not reflected in an individual's GPA. As a result, a person who majors in an academic field where courses are much more difficult will be more likely to graduate with a lower grade point average than someone who majors in a less challenging academic field.

Now, this is a problem for a couple of reasons. For one thing, it means that GPA does not reflect academic effort, since difficult courses require much more effort to earn just passing grades than easy courses require to earn As. But, it also means that people who may be interested in pursuing STEM (science/technology/engineering/mathematics) degrees will decide against it, because they fear that they may have a lower grade point average if they pursued a STEM degree than if they pursued a liberal arts degree. As a result, they avoid pursuing their strongest interests and instead pursue an easier degree in order to keep their GPA high. In other words, the GPA system dis-incentivizes students from pursuing harder academic fields. My solution to this problem would be to calibrate all GPAs. For instance, earning an A in a course on basic geography could be worth the same number of points as earning a D in an upper-level STEM course. Further, earning an A in an upper-level STEM course would be treated the same as earning 5 As in, say, Geography, Sociology, or Political Science courses.

Thoughts?

 

[Revoltingest]

Those whose opinions matter will know that a 4.0 in physics
is fundamentally different from a 4.0 in post-modern feminist
victimization studies.

 

[Skwim]

To those whom GPAs matter, they're not interested in your struggle to get a good grade, but whether you get one or not. And they're well aware that not all courses are equally difficult, some being no-brainers and others being all-brainers. And when it comes to the easy-breezy filler courses---those not relevant to one's major---they don't care all that much. What they primarily focus on his how you did in courses relevant to your major. However, your GPA average is important in that it can show your commitment to your education: the job at hand.

Low grades in your major and a low GPA average: not bright or caring enough bother with.
Low grades in your major and a good GPA average: not worth bothering with.
Good grades in your major and a low GPA average: "We need to talk this over."
Good grades in your major and a good GPA average: Well worth consideration.

.



.

 

[Audie]

Those whose opinions matter will know that a 4.0 in physics
is fundamentally different from a 4.0 in post-modern feminist
victimization studies.

Yup

 

[Audie]

My biggest issue with the "grade point average" being the standard mechanism for measuring academic achievement is that it does not distinguish the differences in the difficulty levels of different academic fields. For instance, it takes far more effort to earn a C in an upper-level mathematics or physics course than it does to earn an A in the average general-education course in a subject like English or Geography. Yet, this is not reflected in an individual's GPA. As a result, a person who majors in an academic field where courses are much more difficult will be more likely to graduate with a lower grade point average than someone who majors in a less challenging academic field.

Now, this is a problem for a couple of reasons. For one thing, it means that GPA does not reflect academic effort, since difficult courses require much more effort to earn just passing grades than easy courses require to earn As. But, it also means that people who may be interested in pursuing STEM (science/technology/engineering/mathematics) degrees will decide against it, because they fear that they may have a lower grade point average if they pursued a STEM degree than if they pursued a liberal arts degree. As a result, they avoid pursuing their strongest interests and instead pursue an easier degree in order to keep their GPA high. In other words, the GPA system dis-incentivizes students from pursuing harder academic fields. My solution to this problem would be to calibrate all GPAs. For instance, earning an A in a course on basic geography could be worth the same number of points as earning a D in an upper-level STEM course. Further, earning an A in an upper-level STEM course would be treated the same as earning 5 As in, say, Geography, Sociology, or Political Science courses.

Thoughts?

Why does this matter to you?

 

[Mindmaster]

My biggest issue with the "grade point average" being the standard mechanism for measuring academic achievement is that it does not distinguish the differences in the difficulty levels of different academic fields. For instance, it takes far more effort to earn a C in an upper-level mathematics or physics course than it does to earn an A in the average general-education course in a subject like English or Geography. Yet, this is not reflected in an individual's GPA. As a result, a person who majors in an academic field where courses are much more difficult will be more likely to graduate with a lower grade point average than someone who majors in a less challenging academic field.

Now, this is a problem for a couple of reasons. For one thing, it means that GPA does not reflect academic effort, since difficult courses require much more effort to earn just passing grades than easy courses require to earn As. But, it also means that people who may be interested in pursuing STEM (science/technology/engineering/mathematics) degrees will decide against it, because they fear that they may have a lower grade point average if they pursued a STEM degree than if they pursued a liberal arts degree. As a result, they avoid pursuing their strongest interests and instead pursue an easier degree in order to keep their GPA high. In other words, the GPA system dis-incentivizes students from pursuing harder academic fields. My solution to this problem would be to calibrate all GPAs. For instance, earning an A in a course on basic geography could be worth the same number of points as earning a D in an upper-level STEM course. Further, earning an A in an upper-level STEM course would be treated the same as earning 5 As in, say, Geography, Sociology, or Political Science courses.

Thoughts?

I've never see where GPA was used to determine your fitness for a job, so I don't see where it matters. GPA matters on your first job, maybe, after that no one cares it's all about your experience.

For the rare places that do care about GPA they will distinguish B's and C's in difficult classes from A's in easy. They can tell just looking at your transcript -- basic classes will be like 100 or 101, advanced classes might be like 110 or 111. They do note the difference, as I would. I rather have someone in the 3.0 GPA range in advanced classes than someone in the 4.0 with easy courses.

GPA though will help you financially though (probably the biggest benefit). I was getting money thrown at me from every direction with 4.0, but I think if you are over 3.5 you certainly will gain access scholarships many would miss. So you can make choices -- easy classes, high GPA, free money OR hard classes, maybe lower GPA, less money, but more respect. Rocking 4.0 in advanced classes was consuming all of my free time, so I don't recommend it unless you're a glutton for punishment. (I remember those 16-20 hour days fondly, pfft.)

 

[Stevicus]

Those whose opinions matter will know that a 4.0 in physics
is fundamentally different from a 4.0 in post-modern feminist
victimization studies.

Underwater basket weaving is not as easy as it looks.

 

[Revoltingest]

Underwater basket weaving is not as easy as it looks.

It should be a requirement for becoming President.

 

[Brickjectivity]

My biggest issue with the "grade point average" being the standard mechanism for measuring academic achievement is that it does not distinguish the differences in the difficulty levels of different academic fields. For instance, it takes far more effort to earn a C in an upper-level mathematics or physics course than it does to earn an A in the average general-education course in a subject like English or Geography. Yet, this is not reflected in an individual's GPA. As a result, a person who majors in an academic field where courses are much more difficult will be more likely to graduate with a lower grade point average than someone who majors in a less challenging academic field.

Now, this is a problem for a couple of reasons. For one thing, it means that GPA does not reflect academic effort, since difficult courses require much more effort to earn just passing grades than easy courses require to earn As. But, it also means that people who may be interested in pursuing STEM (science/technology/engineering/mathematics) degrees will decide against it, because they fear that they may have a lower grade point average if they pursued a STEM degree than if they pursued a liberal arts degree. As a result, they avoid pursuing their strongest interests and instead pursue an easier degree in order to keep their GPA high. In other words, the GPA system dis-incentivizes students from pursuing harder academic fields. My solution to this problem would be to calibrate all GPAs. For instance, earning an A in a course on basic geography could be worth the same number of points as earning a D in an upper-level STEM course. Further, earning an A in an upper-level STEM course would be treated the same as earning 5 As in, say, Geography, Sociology, or Political Science courses.

Thoughts?

Something that might work is to add an extra scale. For example instead of getting an A you would get a Red A, Blue A, Yellow A etc., and your GPA would have an overall color. The colors would indicate the difficulty of your courses, and the letters would act as a weight for the colors. An 'A' in a green course will more strongly pull the GPA towards green than a 'B' will. At the end of a semester you would have a GPA plus a spectrum number that showed a color indicating the overall difficulty of the courses. You could then take that to an employer and say you had a "Purple 2.5" grade indicating difficult courses despite a lower GPA.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

when I graduated with my Bachelor of Science back when dinosaurs were young, in graduating class of 8,000 or so, I was...somewhere above the bottom. Not by much. I never asked, and the university didn't tell.

My GPA did not matter to my first employer, who looked at my skill set and experience and the fact I had a degree. Nor did it matter to any of my later employers. It did not matter seven years later when I entered my Masters program. My Masters GPA mattered when I entered my Doctoral program, but I also had to take the GRE...which has zero correspondence to performance in graduate school.

As university faculty, we had to assess entering students, advise students, and make retention and promotion decisions on students, based in part on GPA. High school GPA is only loosely connected to Bachelor's level performance. Bachelor's performance is only loosely connected to Master's performance (but a low GPA makes it more difficult to get into Master's programs). And GPA at any/all levels has only loose connection to performance in a job, especially after the first year of employment.

While I agree there are problems with such tools as GPA, there are many other problems with our education system that in practice are more troubling, at least to me. One of them is the insistence that all courses be 15 weeks long with usually three hours a week (often more like 2.5) in class (with a few "short courses" allowed, as well as a few "intense session" courses on a few weekends over a semester, but totaling the same number of class hours).

Some courses should have been maybe five or six weeks long, others should have been 20 or 30 weeks, a full academic year. We had very few courses that were aligned in series when they should have--otherwise, all courses needed to be fit into the semester format.

 

[sun rise]

I was never asked my GPA in any job interview or application form. When I was a hiring manager, the GPA was utterly not relevant to my hiring decisions.

I did have a boss once who asked an English major to diagram a sentence as part of the interview process but that was a different kettle of fish.

 

[Orbit]

GPA really only matters if you're going for a job in academia, but even then we understand a C in Calculus is a good thing.

 

[TurkeyOnRye]

My biggest issue with the "grade point average" being the standard mechanism for measuring academic achievement is that it does not distinguish the differences in the difficulty levels of different academic fields. For instance, it takes far more effort to earn a C in an upper-level mathematics or physics course than it does to earn an A in the average general-education course in a subject like English or Geography. Yet, this is not reflected in an individual's GPA. As a result, a person who majors in an academic field where courses are much more difficult will be more likely to graduate with a lower grade point average than someone who majors in a less challenging academic field.

Now, this is a problem for a couple of reasons. For one thing, it means that GPA does not reflect academic effort, since difficult courses require much more effort to earn just passing grades than easy courses require to earn As. But, it also means that people who may be interested in pursuing STEM (science/technology/engineering/mathematics) degrees will decide against it, because they fear that they may have a lower grade point average if they pursued a STEM degree than if they pursued a liberal arts degree. As a result, they avoid pursuing their strongest interests and instead pursue an easier degree in order to keep their GPA high. In other words, the GPA system dis-incentivizes students from pursuing harder academic fields. My solution to this problem would be to calibrate all GPAs. For instance, earning an A in a course on basic geography could be worth the same number of points as earning a D in an upper-level STEM course. Further, earning an A in an upper-level STEM course would be treated the same as earning 5 As in, say, Geography, Sociology, or Political Science courses.

Thoughts?

I suppose if one were to consider GPA as the only metric of evaluation, that would be rather silly. Good thing that rarely--if ever--happens, huh?

By the way, there already is a method of "calibration." I don't know what the system is like where you live, but here, classes are awarded credits. The more difficult and time-consuming the course, the more credits its worth, and hence bears more weight in calculating GPA. Example: Math 112 - 5 credits. Introduction to Western Civilization - 4 credits. Intermediate Watercolor - 3 credits. Introduction to Mastication - 1 credit.

 

[sayak83]

My biggest issue with the "grade point average" being the standard mechanism for measuring academic achievement is that it does not distinguish the differences in the difficulty levels of different academic fields. For instance, it takes far more effort to earn a C in an upper-level mathematics or physics course than it does to earn an A in the average general-education course in a subject like English or Geography. Yet, this is not reflected in an individual's GPA. As a result, a person who majors in an academic field where courses are much more difficult will be more likely to graduate with a lower grade point average than someone who majors in a less challenging academic field.

Now, this is a problem for a couple of reasons. For one thing, it means that GPA does not reflect academic effort, since difficult courses require much more effort to earn just passing grades than easy courses require to earn As. But, it also means that people who may be interested in pursuing STEM (science/technology/engineering/mathematics) degrees will decide against it, because they fear that they may have a lower grade point average if they pursued a STEM degree than if they pursued a liberal arts degree. As a result, they avoid pursuing their strongest interests and instead pursue an easier degree in order to keep their GPA high. In other words, the GPA system dis-incentivizes students from pursuing harder academic fields. My solution to this problem would be to calibrate all GPAs. For instance, earning an A in a course on basic geography could be worth the same number of points as earning a D in an upper-level STEM course. Further, earning an A in an upper-level STEM course would be treated the same as earning 5 As in, say, Geography, Sociology, or Political Science courses.

Thoughts?

This makes no sense. Different stream majors are specializing for different job markets. Not seeing how a history graduate is competing with a electrical engineering graduate. What kind of a job would not care which kind of a degree one has?

In my experience most folks are interested primarily in getting a well paying career (because of the cost of education, for financial stability etc.) and only secondarily concerned about what interests them personally. Also one becomes interested in what one finds herself to be good at. There are exceptions of course. My advice is to follow one's skills first and then diversify into your dreams.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I kind of like the GPA system just because for me it tracked a remarkable turn around bringing my community college GPA up from 1.222 to 3.52.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

GPA really only matters if you're going for a job in academia, but even then we understand a C in Calculus is a good thing.

Hmmm. Calc 1, 2, and 3 are arguably the easiest courses a mathematics or physics major will take, so not necessarily. Upper-level proof-based math courses are much more difficult, and therefore passing them with a B or C is more impressive than getting all A's in the calculus sequence.

 

[sayak83]

GPA really only matters if you're going for a job in academia, but even then we understand a C in Calculus is a good thing.

No its not if you want a good technical oriented job.