<p>This kinda gives me hope.</p>
<p>I agree that grades are simply a measure of a students ability to conform to the rat race of life. Grades will never be able to measure potential and intelligence.</p>
<p>
Apparently, your definition of success is money. How do you value the sacrifices that you made for your family? How about if your kid becomes the President of the United States? I think that the final verdict is not in yet for you.</p>
<p>
Then what will?</p>
<p>To a certain extend yes , I think a grade can predict a success. But then “what is success” ?
Money?
I think the biggest success is to do for a living what you like to do. What you love to do.
Having a good grade can make it easier for you to try different things in your life.
But slaving for a grade migh lead you to medical school …so be ware :)</p>
<p>Professor101, your point is valid. My posting did equate salary with success. In reality, I don’t equate salary with success at all; however, in the context of this discussion I think salary was an empirical way to measure “success.” If one is comparing GPA to “success” I assumed that “success” was being defined as professional success, which usually to relates to salary (at least within a given field).</p>
<p>One point I think may have been unclear in my posting was that my husband’s salary was already twice mine when our first child was born. This was only 5 years after college, when I was still working full-time. We were both in the financial services industry, so clearly my higher GPA didn’t translate into higher earnings.</p>
<p>Obviously I consider child-rearing to be an important and valuable way to spend one’s time, since that’s how I’ve spent most of my adult life. And my husband will freely admit that he could not have had the success he’s had in his career if I had not assumed primary responsibility for child care. DH never had to curtail a business trip or come home early (or on time) from work because of child-care issues. He never had to take a day off to stay with a sick child. If a crisis arose at work or he was in the midst of a big project, he could stay at the office as long as he needed to finish it. All of this because he knew I was home caring for the kids, so he didn’t have to worry about them. This gave him better evaluations from his superiors, which lead to promotions and bigger raises, etc. In a very real sense, we both share in his success. </p>
<p>But I think my point was that looking purely at our GPA’s, you’d have expected me to be the bigger “earner” in the house. Especially since we both worked in the same field (financial services). That didn’t happen in the long run because I chose to stay home and raise kids. In the first 5 years after college, I think my husband was more “successful” than me because his personality is probably more conducive to business success than mine (he’s more outgoing and less confrontational than I am). Also I changed fields during the first 5 years, from mortgage lending to pension accounting, because I felt that real estate was much too cyclical/unstable. DH started and stayed working in pensions & group benefits. </p>
<p>So GPA may get you your first job, but work ethic, choices and personality have a lot more to do with your success after that!</p>
<p>^Is it even remotely possible that there may be some sexism involved in men making more money than women? Just putting it out there. I know it is OT for this thread.</p>
<p>^^^ In general that may be true, but I don’t think it played a part in DH and my case. It had more to do with our personal choices and personalities.</p>
<p>“I felt that real estate was much too cyclical/unstable.”</p>
<p>Ha! Lafalum84, you called that right.</p>
<p>I would take issue with your accounting that your husband is more successful than you. First of all, since you are presumably sharing everything, you have the same standard of living. So by that measure you are equally successful.</p>
<p>Then you point out that your taking on family jobs, especially family management means that he can earn more money. You may have a higher joint income under this cooperative arrangement, than if you were both working without this division of labor. So your choices may have made you both more successful than you would have been under the arrangement of dual careers.</p>
<p>Thirdly, the money you earn is almost certainly translated into a higher standard of living with you as a working as a full time parent.</p>
<p>Lafalum, on an individual basis, of course, it is not going to hold. Even if the data was overwhelmingly on the side of those with good grades, there would be many examples where those who did not do well in college, or even flunked out became successful. The fact of the matter is that statisically, those who graduate with honors are more successful than those who are not doing well. The studies I reviewed many years ago were very exacting in terms of defining what was “good grades” and what was not. The lines were supposed to have been drawn before doing the research.</p>
<p>Good grades, within a field/industry, is likely a much lower correlation than most would believe. </p>
<p>However, certain industries rely on grades (medicine/law) to do most of the sorting so I’m quite sure than there is a positive correlation between on a total society level.</p>
<p>I think success in life also has to do with choices one makes and the level of risks one is willing to take. I don’t think those traits has much to do with grades. That’s the conclusion I came upon by observing a self-made billionaire I know. Watched him from penniless student without the resources to go to a good college to where he is now. Besides being driven he also took risks and was considered a pioneer in his field.</p>
<p>
As cptofthehouse in #19 mentioned, you have to look at this from a statistic point of view, not individual cases. I can present two much stronger indiviual cases to counter your point: Bill Gates and Warren Buffet. Those two gentlemen are mother of all successes based on your criteria and both had good grades.</p>
<p>In a workshop many years ago, the lecturer, a professor at a local university, told us that his work showed the following:</p>
<p>1) Students’ performance in high school is mainly a function of intelligence.
2) Students’ performance in college is mostly a function of discipline and organization.
3) Students’ performance in their careers is actually a proxy for their social and communication skills.</p>
<p>Another story I read is that of an executive, when asked by the media, said he was not interested in the students getting straight As in class, but the one who is running a side business selling drugs in the school washrooms.</p>
<p>I used to be surprised by comments such as this but no more. Paulsen’s bailout of his Wall Street friends with public money is just the last sorry chapter in this sordid tale. It takes one to appreciate one, I guess.</p>
<p>Naturally, the gentleman did not want to be named. I don’t blame him.</p>
<p>“1) Students’ performance in high school is mainly a function of intelligence.
2) Students’ performance in college is mostly a function of discipline and organization.
3) Students’ performance in their careers is actually a proxy for their social and communication skills.”</p>
<p>Sounds about right to me. Except that I think work ethic needs to be thrown in to # 3.</p>
<p>As a man worth over $400,000,000 told me yesterday, “The B’s work for the C’s and the A’s teach.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>so people who make good grades are more likely to succeed (make more money, don’t fool yourself) but it doesn’t predict it, just correlation. Which doesn’t mean anything. People who are more driven make more money, ok that’s informing.</p>
<p>even so,</p>
<p>
That’s really another topic. But even so, if you want to do something that makes you happy (your definition of success) not all of those require great grades.
I would say drive and motivation to do what you want to do most. (this is with your definition of success again)</p>
<p>and geomom your post was almost completely unnecessary, had to say it.</p>
<p>^^^That’s ok, geomom, I appreciated your post. :-)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Drive and motivation predict intelligence? I am not sure about the logic there. Anyway, sometimes, people just argue for arguing’s sake. If that is the case, I’ll stop arguing. The only thing I’d like to say before leaving this thread is that I’ll only tell students who don’t have good grades that “grades are not necessarily a good predictor of success”.</p>
<p>No, they don’t predict intelligence. Anyways, some people like to say “Before leaving I’ll just say <insert counter=”" argument=“” here=“”>" and it sort of gets on my nerves.</insert></p>
<p>But anyways, before I leave this thread, the last thing I’d say that it’s funny how someone goes against an argument and then supports it.</p>
<p>I don’t remember the parameters set in the studies I read some years ago. But they did define success in a measurable way and they also defined good students and poor students. The parameters and definition for success were a series of questions, and income was only one of the factors. Health, disruptive factors (divorce, disorders, accidents), happiness, stature in community, in field of work were all factors. Good students did reap benefits in those areas.</p>