Isn't GPA overrated?

victoriaheidi
Fri, 06 Aug 2010 02:57:40 +0000

I see both sides of the coin.

On the one hand, the GPA one achieves indicates four years of work. [Rare cases aside, of course], someone with a 3.8 can indicate that s/he has worked hard and done well across four years. Someone with a 2.73 probably can’t say the same. Work ethic is EVERYTHING in life; someone who makes a commitment to hard work in high school has set him- or herself up for future success (in the sense that s/he understands the importance of hard work).

On the flip side, there are so many little variable factors where GPA is concerned. At some schools, an 89.5 is still a B; some teachers don’t round up or down when grades are borderline (and don’t even get me started on dropping tests); you all know the drill. Two teachers can teach the exact same subject, and two students can perform at comparable levels, but differing policies are one of those impossible-to-combat annoyances.

Also, this is minor, but in terms of minor differences between GPAs, the issue may not be one of work ethic. I know plenty of people who work very hard, but have GPAs that could be higher (ie they don’t perform as well on tests or some other ridiculous factor is working against that person). In this case, I’m talking more like 3.65 vs. 3.8, not the example I used a few paragraphs ago.

SATs are a trickier situation. Ask any 10 people what the SAT really measures and you’ll probably get 10 different answers (ranging from intelligence/intellectual capability to success in college to who knows what). The SAT is a test of one’s ability to perform under uniform conditions on a test which compares that person’s skills to those of other students worldwide. The SAT may prove something about college readiness, but it doesn’t prove many other things about one’s college readiness: work ethic, special skills (not so much that a GPA can show a special skill, but it can show an aptitude which may not be apparent on a standardized test), etc.

College readiness is more than numbers. It’s GPA, test scores, ECs, special talents, an interview, etc. Not like everyone on CC doesn’t already know that, but the point I’m trying to make is that neither number is ANYTHING without the other. Each score puts the other in context, but only to a certain degree. I mean, someone with a 3.9 and a 2300 has reasonably proven that he earned his 3.9 and that he didn’t just slack off. On the flip side, someone with an 1820 and a GPA of 3.9 may lead to speculation of GPA inflation.

So, to answer the original question: no, I do not believe that GPA is overrated. It’s the most important piece of the puzzle because it answers the most important question any college should be asking: “how is this person as a student?”