<p>Also, I’d advise not saying too much. There is no need. Say you’ll support his goal, let him face life and reality. Don’t let it it upset you tremendously. He passed his first semester. I saw a stat that over half of freshman boys get below 2.0 the freshman 1st sem. Unless you want to get in another argument that pulls you farther apart, say nothing at all.</p>
<p>If you’re paying a good bit of money for his college, I would require a minimum GPA no matter what his career intent is.</p>
<p>After all, even if he doesn’t have the stats for dental school, he needs the stats for something. Many employers will want to know/see his GPA so it is important.</p>
<p>As for that stat of “avg GPA” of frosh boys, that likely includes the gazillion boys at CCs. I wouldn’t use that as any sort of guideline. Parents who are paying for college are in a different situation than those who have kids messing around at a cheap CC.</p>
<p>
Really? How? Because they aren’t paying as much. Many of those students ‘messing around’ at those ‘cheap cc’s’ are very bright and capable students who financially had no other option but to start at cc’s and transfer to 4 year universities. I’d be careful of such broad generalizations. I don’t think you’d be too happy if full pay parents at private universities started to espouse the same sweeping discriminatory statements about the Bama parents who have kids taking advantage of scholarships…They aren’t in the same situation as they aren’t paying tuition you know…No, I don’t think that would go over very well with you at all.</p>
<p>Blue…</p>
<p>You’re taking my post out of context. Of course there are serious students at CCs.</p>
<p>I was responding to the post that 50% of frosh boys get below a 2.0. I said that I think that that stat includes kids attending a CC…which it likely does. While there are serious students at CCs, there are also a bunch of kids who are there just to pass the time.</p>
<p>Parents (like the OP) that are sacrificing and paying for their kids to attend a 4 year university have the right to expect a certain GPA. </p>
<p>And any parent who has a child with a merit scholarship attending ANY school (not just Bama) has the right to say, “Uh, you better get the required minimum GPA to keep the scholarship because I’m not paying if you lose it.” (And, besides, those Bama students on tuition or partial tuition scholarships still have parents paying out $10k-20k+ per year…not pittances. )</p>
<p>A cheap CC can be funded by the student or Pell (if low income), not necessarily the parents. If the parents are paying, then certainly they can withold funds, too, if the student is just messing around on their dime.</p>
<p>Going to dental school seems like an odd choice for a kid that doesn’t like school.</p>
<p>Yeah, I don’t really think it’s the “kid” who wants to go to dental school. ;)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Disagree. Doing what you suggest would just reinforce the idea that getting a 2.0 GPA is acceptable in the student’s mind. </p>
<p>Not good for going to Dental School…or even getting an entry-level job if the interviewer is grade conscious at all. Especially in this economy. </p>
<p>Most employers and HR colleagues I worked/chatted with have confirmed an older cousin’s admonition to “Never allow your undergrad GPA to fall below a 3.0…” by saying below 3.0 GPAs cause them to be concerned whether the given college student/graduate is lacking intellectually, work ethic, or both. </p>
<p>That same older cousin found those were probably the concerns those who abruptly ended the interview back in the late '80s once they found his GPA was ten-thousandth of a point under 3.0 had despite the fact he was an engineering major once he started participating in the hiring of college grads for entry-level jobs at his employer, a computer technology company.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree with this. First semester is a little early to be the voice of doom.</p>
<p>You never know what will happen in the long run. Kids mature. Interests change. Certainly, a 2.0 is not great, and improving it will improve the student’s long term options. I agree that planting the idea that a 2.0 is acceptable is not good. But not everyone responds well to threats. (“I’ll cut you off if you don’t have a 3.5 …”) It should be possible to be both realistic and supportive at the same time.</p>