
With more students boasting flashy GPAs, academic honors lose their luster - ss2003
https://www.wsj.com/articles/you-graduated-cum-laude-so-did-everyone-else-1530523801
======
FlyingSideKick
My grandfather was CEO of an NYSE listed company and he preferred to hire
people out of college whom had lower GPAs around 3.0 then perfect students
because he thought these folks made for better team members and well rounded
employees. Simply put he wanted to hire people who perused side passions and
had a social life.

Personally after having been in entrepreneurial circles for years it seems the
most financially successful people I know had mediocre college grades if they
went at all. One friend who’s net worth is over $100m dropped out of high
school to became a carpenter and is now a major real estate developer.Too many
people spend way to much of thier youth focused on grades. What’s important is
finding what you love, learning a bit and just doing enough to get your
diploma. If you want to get a masters then focus on just getting in. It’s like
passing the levels in a video game. No reading to get a perfect score if you
don’t need to.

When you are 40 years old your college grades will likely have no bearing on
your career prospects. Your social network will.

~~~
wenc
There's a significant tendency on HN to unduly discount good grades. I think
this is a mistaken tendency due to univariate, linear thinking. Grades are not
everything, but they are not nothing.

The fact is, determining a good hire requires multivariate, nonlinear
thinking.

Good grades can be a proxy for metaskills like discipline, cognitive ability,
etc. They don't always measure these things perfectly, but the correlation is
not negligible.

Doesn't mean say, a 2.5 GPA isn't a good hire -- but in multivariate thinking,
there has be other factors that compensate for the low GPA. Otherwise you'd be
hiring a 2.5 GPA who is truly mediocre, and my experience is that the majority
of 2.5 GPAs are that. Not everyone with a low GPA is pursuing other interests
or passions. Also, doesn't mean that everyone with a high GPA isn't (at
competitive schools, the best students tend to be active in many extra
curricular activities unrelated to their majors)

In the engineering/academic world, grades do matter and are highly predictive
of ability. People with poorer grades often struggle a lot, and the amount of
time spent on remedial training may not always pay off. We have this ideal of
a genius hacker who blew off school but is a 10x coder in real life... but in
reality those people are comparatively rare.

~~~
joeax
> In the engineering/academic world, grades do matter and are highly
> predictive of ability.

Can you cite some research studies that conclusively show this to be the case?

I'd like to counter by saying that companies like Google have largely ignored
GPA as a measure of aptitude. From the article (link below):

 _" Google doesn't even ask for GPA or test scores from candidates anymore,
unless someone's a year or two out of school, because they don't correlate at
all with success at the company. Even for new grads, the correlation is
slight, the company has found."_

[http://www.businessinsider.com/how-google-hires-
people-2013-...](http://www.businessinsider.com/how-google-hires-
people-2013-6)

~~~
sheepmullet
> I'd like to counter by saying that companies like Google have largely
> ignored GPA as a measure of aptitude.

I think you have misinterpreted the situation.

What it's actually showing is once you have restricted the pool of applicants
to the top 10% of the field GPA does not matter within the restricted subset.

I can't think of anyone I know that could do well in the Google interview
process but could not get good grades.

~~~
lsc
>I can't think of anyone I know that could do well in the Google interview
process but could not get good grades.

To get good grades, you must be able to do rote work on time. I did really
poorly in high school, because if you don't do one thing, and you do
brilliantly on the next thing? That averages to a failure. Doesn't matter how
brilliant that next thing was. For me? This means I barely cleared 2.0 in high
school, and didn't seriously pursue college. But in industry, I seem to do
pretty okay. My experience is that if I finish between 2/3 and 3/4 of what I
start? I get a positive performance review and a raise. They even talk about
it; like "if you are accomplishing all of your goals, you probably aren't
being ambitious enough when setting those goals."

(I mean, I've been in industry since 1997, and my impression is that breaking
in was a lot easier then than it is now... and it did take me a long time to
work up to the point where I could get a job at a top-tier tech company, and
even now, I'm a SysAdmin and not a SWE, (I have worked SWE type jobs at less
prestigious companies... but here? I'm a SysAdmin.) I would be a better
employee, with better job prospects if I had the personality and follow
through to get a degree, no question.)

My experience with those interviews (at least for a more senior position) is
that they test knowledge of whatever specialty you are dealing with and to a
lesser extent, intelligence and problem solving ability. The former, of
course, can (and should be) studied for; the latter, less so.

I'm sure intelligence and problem solving ability also help (and to some
extent, are required) in academia, but if you aren't the sort of person who
does 'good enough' work every time on time, you aren't going to get good
grades, as far as I can tell, even if you are brilliant. That sort of plodding
follow-through is not tested at all in interviews, and while it's a positive
attribute to have as an employee, from experience, it won't kill your career
if you are lacking it.

------
zach
> "Academic researchers say that uptick is a sign of grade inflation, not of
> smarter students."

I don't think this is right. There is good evidence that the highest
percentiles of students (the ones populating the competitive colleges
mentioned) are indeed smarter, because they have standardized test scores to
match.

First off, the bar for a PSAT score that gets National Merit recognition has
risen significantly for most students in recent years. More graphically
though, the number of students who get a 36 on the ACT goes back a while and
is a good representation of the upper score band:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACT_(test)#Highest_score](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACT_\(test\)#Highest_score)

And indeed at the graduate level, GMAT scores at the top business schools are
rising steadily:

[https://www.usnews.com/education/best-graduate-
schools/top-b...](https://www.usnews.com/education/best-graduate-schools/top-
business-schools/articles/2017-10-03/test-scores-gpas-are-rising-at-top-mba-
programs)

So instead of the positive, hopeful story "our best students are becoming even
more capable, year after year," we get a story like this shaming colleges and
universities for "grade inflation" instead. Disappointing.

~~~
alexbeloi
IQ scores are also increasing[0].

Are we actually smarter than our grandparents? Or has the education system
trained us to be better test takers (one of the suggested contributing
factors).

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect)

~~~
Jach
No they're not[0].

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect#Possible_end_of_p...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect#Possible_end_of_progression)

~~~
vilmosi
I guess it depends on the country and timescale you're looking at. But they
are increasing.

------
noobiemcfoob
There is much weight to the argument that the requirements to be a successful
student have gone down, I'm inclined to believe that the requirements have
skyrocketed. Students today are faced with an ever ballooning bulk of
knowledge with which they are supposed to find the boundaries and gain control
of enough interconnected parts to become a useful contributor to society.
There's a lot of noise in the system, but the system is growing larger and
larger. There's more footwork that _could_ be done.

Is it so hard to believe that more students are performing at a _close enough_
level to their forbears to deserve the honor?

~~~
krapht
Yeah, it is. Grade inflation is a well known, documented phenomena.
Unfortunately I have no time to link the papers on this subject, but if you
search, they are there.

~~~
matte_black
Have school grades ever deflated? Or undergone some sort of correction? No
citation needed, anecdotes are fine.

~~~
rxhernandez
One of the Cal Polys has an engineering program which curves the average grade
to a C+ which automatically disqualifies the average from many engineering
jobs.

~~~
a_c_s
A curve distorts grades: they tell you how the person performed relative to
their peers not relative to their mastery of the material.

~~~
dwaltrip
This really depends on how difficult the tests in the course are.

I don't think it is uncommon for tests to be written such that with a student
a strong command of the material will _not_ score 100%.

------
sudosteph
I spent so much time and energy stressing over my very mediocre GPA. I had
undiagnosed adhd at the time and struggled immensely with turning things in on
time. I usually did above average on tests, but when there are only a few
homework assignments in a semester and no-late work policy, one zero really
hurts. I was able to work it back up from a 2.2 in sophomore year to a 3.0 by
graduation, but that was only because they very generously allowed me to sign
a matriculation contract to stay in my major despite the lousy GPA. Also my
300 and 400 level CS courses were far more interesting and engaging, with
fewer tiny assignments to miss.

I was kinda depressed because I knew the likes of Google would have no
interest in me with that GPA, but my part time intern experience turned out to
be worth so much more. I got a great entry level job from it, and from there
got my foot in the door at Amazon where I thrived (who didn't ask about grades
once) and ever since then, Google and everyone else has been reaching out to
me. So while I have nothing against people with good GPAs, I'm never going to
hire based on them.

~~~
mos_basik
This is encouraging to read. Right now I'm at what feels like the nadir of a
similar situation, and am trying to figure out the right steps forward.

I attended Caltech for CS, struggled with chronic late submissions, cratering
self worth and other issues over about three years, took several short leaves
ending with a medical leave and was diagnosed with ADHD. Got on medication,
got a development job for about a year at UT Southwestern and enjoyed it
immensely. Decided to come back and try again, but coming back to junior and
senior level classes after a break was very hard, and even being back in the
environment that I associated with such failure was hugely draining. I decided
to withdraw indefinitely.

I'd already finished all but one or two of my CS requirements, most of the
rest were going to be maybe 4-5 non-CS math/engineering/science classes,
several humanities and a biology. About a year and a trimester's worth. As far
as GPA, I left with about a 2.7.

I'm still not sure if that was the right decision. Part of me says I'm living
in LA and I have a year of work on my resume, a bunch of knowledge from the
tech CS program, a couple of mildly interesting personal projects on my
GitHub, and I should be ok; I just need to put myself out there.

Another part of me says I'm a piece of shit that can't complete the only thing
worth completing related to my career, I'm going to have to explain why I
don't have a degree to everyone I ever interview with, and why would anyone
ever pick me over a graduate.

All this made more painful by the fact that if I _had_ graduated, the Caltech
degree would have been an amazing asset - and if I had gone _anywhere else_
(well, anywhere a bit less high powered) I believe I would have at least
graduated, if not done very well. Source: the two sophomore CS classes I took
at UT Arlington in half a summer and got A+s in both.

This thread is hard to read. Thanks for your story; I need to remember people
like you exist while I'm job hunting.

~~~
jiaweihli
Hey, I'm a fellow non-college-grad with a ~1.7 GPA who's worked at 2 of FANG
and got an offer from a third.

The best actionable advice I can give you is: put Caltech on your resume with
your years of attendance, leave off your GPA entirely, and indicate in text
under that that it's incomplete. You'll need a compelling narrative around why
it's incomplete (which is admittedly difficult and usually circumstance-
specific) or why it doesn't matter too much given that you've done X. X is
something impressive, uncommon, and shows intelligence and initiative. As an
example, my Xs were getting press in lifehacker for a side project and doing
well in a FANG hackathon while in school.

For jobs, I think a common myth is that your credentials/resume is hugely
important. From what I've seen, this is both true and false. The _specifics_
of your resume don't really matter 99% of the time, only that they're
interesting. Also, keep in mind most resumes are screened by a real, live
human - being authentic and passionate can help out as a break from the BS a
recruiter sees day-to-day (but do think about what a recruiter would be
looking for at a glance). After you clear the resume filter, you're on a
similar playing field vs. every other candidate. And then it's up to you and
your ability to pass interviews - that's a whole other topic which I won't
cover here =P

If it helps, feel free to reach out through linkedin or email in my profile.
Stay focused and keep your chin up!

------
hitekker
For college students, I absolutely recommend transferring up if your GPA is
above 3.8 and you're attending a lower-tier school.

Your alma mater will resonate throughout your career. Your GPA will disappear
after your first or second job.

Better to get a C at MIT than an A at RPI.

~~~
latencyloser
As someone who went to a "lower-tier" school. I hate how true this feels
sometimes. My colleagues who went to big name schools all seem to be in some
sort of "club" together. At least, they have shared experiences that I have no
such ability to relate to. They've been "elite" tech people since before they
were in the job force.

That being said, the only time I feel this is in social settings and it's
usually minor. People ask where I went to school and then I usually get an
"oh?" back, as they've never heard of it. But it's never really impacted my
professional life to my knowledge. Maybe I didn't get the same opportunities
as these people as quickly, but I've worked at and enjoyed success at a few of
the big names and am enjoying my time at a well known "start up" now.

Kids, go to school where you can afford. Bust your ass, make connections, move
on and move up. School doesn't matter once you're out of it.

~~~
andrewmcwatters
> They've been "elite" tech people since before they were in the job force.

By what standard? What does that life look like? It seems so foreign to me. It
seems like a lot of HN is comprised of this sort of folk or people who know
them.

I don't work in the Bay Area, I work in Phoenix. I imagine it's a different
world out there: instead of saving 90% of my income and living in a van, I own
a home and save 75%. Instead of talking to people who work at Apple and went
to MIT, I talk to people who were self-taught, or attended some other
institution I'm not familiar with.

Even the people that I do know who went off to work at Amazon, Apple, or
Google aren't even that great of engineers. In fact, they're probably worse
engineers than the ones I know at Fortune 500s which aren't even tech
companies.

I've seen people who had 25+ years of experience lose a job position to
someone who didn't know what `setInterval` was.

To me, an "elite" tech person would be someone who wrote software that people
actually cared about and had a strong amount of domain knowledge in a
particular area, or prototyped hardware and sold a product that people bought.
Even then, these people are flawed just like everyone else. Not too long ago,
the author of Redis posted an article about shortcomings of Lua here on HN,
and a deep inspection of his post simply yielded the finding that he wrote a
Lua binding with a glaring exploit in it, and his entire article revolved
around trying to justify his own flaws.

To me having parents that have money doesn't make you elite; it's just
something to think is rather nice and want to work toward as well.

It seems to me that there exists a demographic of people in tech that seem
impressive to others, but haven't actually contributed anything significant or
tangible to the industry. They probably exist in senior positions of companies
that I've never heard of that serve a niche that I'm not a part of. I don't
know, but they aren't "elite" to me.

Kids, do and make things people care about. School doesn't matter at all.
Learning matters. Spending a small fortune to maybe associate with people who
will get you a job is trying to play the lottery, but with a far more
expensive ticket.

When you're denied a job at a startup after receiving multiple degrees ask
yourself if it was worth it. It takes 30 minutes to invalidate 4-8 years of
your hard work. People want people who can do the job.

~~~
sadamznintern
>By what standard? What does that life look like? It seems so foreign to me.
It seems like a lot of HN is comprised of this sort of folk or people who know
them.

That life looks like living in Seattle or the Bay or New York, making
somewhere between $180-$230k a year first year out of undergrad, being able to
travel for concerts and live in luxe Airbnbs with your similarly elite and
pedigreed friends.

>Even the people that I do know who went off to work at Amazon, Apple, or
Google aren't even that great of engineers. In fact, they're probably worse
engineers than the ones I know at Fortune 500s which aren't even tech
companies.

I think this is a reasonable viewpoint if you believe society (or even
_people_ ) cares about how skilled you are in your craft. Unfortunately,
society doesn't, and rather only cares about how much you make.

As such, society will always consider a jet-setting Facebook or Google new
grad making $250k her first year because of a signing bonus or negotiation
skills superior to someone who graduated from ASU working at
Amazon/Cisco/HP/etc companies making $150k or god forbid, even less. There's a
lifestyle difference that I'll never be able to match.

~~~
andrewmcwatters
Thanks for sharing. Still curious how sustainable the lifestyle is if you're
married, or if it's possible at all. Any thoughts? The folks in Phoenix out
here can't make that type of money unless they're a Principle Software
Engineer/Architect/VP or higher if they can manage to negotiate it otherwise
it's reserved to management. Anecdotally, I've seen the CEO of Recruiting.com
underpay his seniors heavily.

~~~
sadamznintern
Most people don't get married in their early/mid 20's anymore. At least if
they work at FB/Google and are native-born Americans. And if they do, their
partner makes about as much at a similar company.

> The folks in Phoenix out here can't make that type of money unless they're a
> Principle Software Engineer/Architect/VP or higher

If they work at Amazon they can as an L6 or above.

------
taneq
" _Everyone_ can be super! And when everyone's super...

[laughs maniacally]

... _no one_ will be." \- Syndrome, _The Incredibles_

~~~
noonespecial
Except that Syndrome's plan was to use technology to _actually make everyone
better_ , which in a way is admirable.

What we have here is that we leave everyone mediocre but _tell them all_ that
they are super. Now we are left with no way to measure the people who really
have put in the work to become better.

~~~
taneq
Yeah, this is more like "when nobody's super, everyone is."

------
bhouston
I do a lot of interviews and I am pretty sure that quite a few students are
cheating to get high grades.

There is no way that I get a student who has a A average in computer science
and then I ask them to do some simple coding and they outright fail.

The some people cheap right in the interview, I step out of the office and
then quick come back and I see they have their cell phone out to copy from.

I am sure cheating is partially responsible for grade inflation.

~~~
tracer4201
As someone who has interviewed and been rejected several times, I don't think
cheating is why someone with good grades would do poorly at a coding
interview.

Some people are good test takers on paper. Ask me to whiteboard some code, and
I genuinely get stuck on trivial problems because whiteboarding coding
questions is not what I am great at.

I've worked at Amazon and now I am at Google - after alot if stress, anxiety,
and prep, I was able to get through and get hired. Microsoft outright rejected
me.

One other thing - CS degrees don't teach people to code. They reach computer
science. It just so happens that labs and assignments may require coding, but
spending half a day or a day to do a project and getting an A has very little
relationship with being forced to quickly hash out code in a 45 min interview.

IMO, at both companies I have been at, the majority of new hires are fresh
grads. The barrier to entry whose been out of school is extremely high... but
I digress.

~~~
commandlinefan
> whiteboarding coding questions

Ah, you haven't figured out the trick. When somebody asks you to whiteboard
something, write down all the nouns they said, draw boxes around each noun,
and draw lines randomly between the boxes. Keep talking and pointing at the
boxes and the lines, and then draw circles around some of the boxes (but keep
talking - this is important). Point emphatically at some of the boxes,
underline some of the words, and redraw some of the lines - bonus points if
you can use different colored markers. As long as you keep talking, the
interviewer will get bored, assume you drew something smart, and offer you a
six figure salary.

~~~
tastyface
You jest, but this is exactly the feeling I got when I was reading up on how
to do better at system design questions:
[https://github.com/donnemartin/system-design-
primer](https://github.com/donnemartin/system-design-primer)

~~~
commandlinefan
Wow, that's an amazing resource - thank you!

------
cperciva
Not all universities! Simon Fraser University uses a 4.33 point scale (A =
4.00, A+ = 4.33) and its average GPA in 2017 (2.83) is only slightly above the
average GPA in 1992 (2.80). Over that 25 year period, the university-wide
average grade awarded has varied between a low of 2.77 and a high of 2.85.

Students complain. They complain a lot. We know that we're losing pre-med
students to UBC -- which awards much higher grades on average -- because when
we ask them why they decided to not accept SFU's admission offer, they reply
"I'm planning on becoming a doctor and UBC will give me the higher grades I
need". This also happens to a lesser extent with pre-law students. Over the
past few years we've started displaying course average grades on transcripts
and sending letters to graduate schools saying "so, there's something you
should know about SFU's grades...".

I don't know how long SFU will be able to hold the line against grade
inflation, but we're trying. It's not fair to students who worked hard to get
a GPA of 3.7 (currently around 2% of students manage this) if next year's
students can get that just by showing up.

In the mean time, if you see a student with a 4.00 GPA from Simon Fraser
University... believe it.

EDIT: Out of curiosity, I pulled some statistics from the class graduating
from SFU at the end of the 2017/18 year:

    
    
       First Class Honours with Distinction (Honours program, 4.00+ GPA) 6
       Honours with Distinction (Honours program, 3.50+ GPA)            61
       Honours                                                          61
       First Class with Distinction (Major program, 4.00+ GPA)          24
       With Distinction (Major program, 3.50+ GPA)                     265
       Bachelors                                                      1769
    

Across the university, 1.37% of students graduate with a 4.00+ GPA and 16.29%
graduate with a 3.50+ GPA.

~~~
anoncoward111
Yikes, that is really depressing that admissions committees aren't able to
distinguish between what is effectively the "DOGEcoin is more valuable than x
because everyone gets billions of coins!"

Ultimately I think everyone should be judged on merit, like an audition, or
based on a portfolio. But many businesses with deep pockets still award these
types of positions based on nepotism and personal connections

~~~
cperciva
I think part of the problem that SFU undergraduate students have with graduate
admissions is that most of the students in question will be applying to
medical or law programs at UBC. It's one thing for admissions committees to
recognize that some universities have inflated grades; it's quite another for
them to recognize that an "A" _from their own institution_ is worth less than
an "A" from another.

------
skuhl
Reporting the GPA of Medians (GPAM) alongside GPA would make GPAs more
meaningful. The Washington Post recently reported on this idea:
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-
point/wp/2018/06/1...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-
point/wp/2018/06/15/gpas-dont-really-show-what-students-learned-heres-
why/?utm_term=.6fc6533c8b08)

------
randcraw
It's time to do away with grades entirely. Do what many Indian schools do --
report your score as a class percentile. At end of term, you don't get a
grade, only a percentile. No curve. No score inflation. No bias.

What's more, each school should report your score _only_ relative to those of
your peers. You should be compared only to other engineers, to other history
majors, to other biology majors, etc. Because performance in physics is
incomparable to english, education, or art, it's absurd to contrive a relative
metric of comparison (AKA grades) to conflate them when none can possibly be
meaningful or fair. Grades do an injustice to everyone.

As for comparing students from one school to the next, entrenched standardized
tests like GREs have become a nightmare. Especially in terms of STEM
curricula, schools often differ radically in how much they challenge the
students and how far their skills develop by graduation. There simply is no
way a three hour multiple choice test like a GRE can accurately reveal the
difference between someone who attended Columbia vs Lehigh, for example. But a
big difference there is. (I know since I attended both.) To pretend that some
quick A/B/C/D/E test, which explores none of the practical skills learned in
labs or projects, can accurately AND reliably reveal a meaningful difference
among 'peers' \-- this does a disservice to everyone.

Finally, there's no better illustration of disparity in the academic ranks
than the rise of for-profit degree mills during the past couple of decades.
The pretense that millions are _not_ being cheated by these 'schools' is
simply an abomination. I blame unchecked grade inflation and academic elitism
for the tolerance for slap dash scholarship assessment that the sorry state of
these 'schools' has revealed. As long as we avoid a precise and accurate
accounting of the scholarly performance of the individual and the academic
product of the university, we will continue to confuse student merit and
invite charlatan schools to victimize their customers.

Somehow all these forms of false credentialism must end, and soon, or
'college' really will become the stinking albatross that Mark Cuban and others
claim they are.

~~~
chillacy
One of the smartest guys I knew from high school went to a top college for CS
and went from being an valedictorian A student to getting Bs and Cs for the
first time in his life. It greatly affected his perception of himself and he
dropped out of the industry after getting his degree in CS. But he's actually
a more capable programmer than lots of top graduates, so I agree that there
should be some way of comparing students from one school to the next.

------
ryeguy_24
Poisonously, kids have become commoditized and all that distinguishes them are
'Schools and Grades'. 'Schools and Grades' are really the product here. Kids
are the sellers. Companies are the buyers.

Until companies stop valuing kids solely by their 'School and Grade', this
cycle will continue.

To make this an interesting conversation, how DO companies hire great people
without relying on their 'School and Grades'? Are 'Schools and Grades' really
the best indicator for worker performance?

~~~
anoncoward111
In essence what is happening here is that rich parents/kids (or just very
heavily indebted ones) are buying their degrees now, which have basically
become shitcoins.

X% of employers are still believing the high worth of these shitcoin degrees,
and for some reason, the bubble has yet to explode.

It's like, there's no difference in skill between buying bitcoin early vs a
valueless coin. But, there is a massive difference in perceived wealth.

~~~
ryeguy_24
Agree. However, the difference is, once these 'shitcoins' get "bought"
initially by the Goldman Sachs, Googles, and Mckinseys, the college grads then
become truly valuable. So, now, we have this reinforcement problem, where the
college grads get to work at the top firms for a few years because of their
degree, and now, they are hot on the job market. And then, we further
propagate the correlation between good degrees and good jobs.

~~~
anoncoward111
I totally have seen this happen first hand as well. I would say there is a
proportion of "shitcoin degree-holders who turn out to be valuable workers"
and "shitcoin degree-holders who turn out to be costly but we keep them around
anyway".

I think the real problem here is that investment capital (i.e money) is still
so centralized in the hands of the fortune 500 and some investment banks. Most
"run-of-the-mill" startups won't be differentiated by uniqueness of idea or
ability to execute-- they'll just be differentiated by how much money they're
given and how many rich dudes are in their network.

I really dream of the day that 10 high school graduates from Detroit can form
a company and bootstrap their way to 100,000 users with a net profit of
$1,000,000 a year.

I'm not sure such an example exists.

------
recharged93
Do grades even matter anymore?

Unless you're applying to a gov't job, you're connections, friends, professors
that like you, github accounts, art or MBA portfolio are the tools that move
you "up" in the world. And in that order.

Online education dilutes GPA too. As well as more tech skill degrees (devops
certs), aka those were called trade/vocational schools in my day.

I've never seen a GPA on an intern application/resume in the last 3yrs. Unless
and (unfortunately) its from a visa student. Hmmm.

~~~
cirgue
GPA, in my experience, seems to map _exactly_ onto your ability to wrangle a
good GPA. That set of skills is largely orthogonal to solving hard problems or
making useful contributions to a team.

~~~
mrguyorama
To me, that just sounds like your teachers and professors were piss poor at
their job and had no idea how to grade properly.

~~~
cirgue
I was referring to my experiences with hiring engineers. Throwing shade about
people's education isn't cool.

------
ChrisRR
Relevant Mitchell and Webb sketch, Everyone gets an A
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGA11A340Ck](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGA11A340Ck)

------
nashashmi
I don't like these comparisons of statistics to justify that academic honors
have lost their luster.

The students who go to these schools tend to be overachievers. Achieve honors
at all costs kind of mentality. So just because too many students are actually
achieving, do you try to bring them down? Or make coursework unreasonably
hard?

I once talked to a professor from my university long after graduation, and I
told him that I as I saw the students become better at the coursework (I was
helping them so) the exams became harder and harder, to the point where the
only way you could truly get the questions right and on time is by having a
year of so experience doing those problems. He responded with the bell curve.
That a few students should get A's, some should get B's, and majority should
get C's.

Seriously? There are careers at stake here!

------
kevinthew
Lots of people trying to justify their college experience in here. Reality is,
none of it matters. What matters is how you were raised 20 years earlier and
how you choose to live your life every day. Is every day a new puzzle to
solve? Are you motivated to learn and solve challenges placed in front of you
regardless of banality or difficulty? Guess what, you're the elusive employee
everyone wants. Rarely are jobs too difficult for grades/degrees to matter in
hiring process -- the job itself is the screener. Yeah,sure, some jobs are
incredibly difficult and require elite skill and knowledge but we aren't
talking about those jobs, we are generalizing. And guess what, attitude and
outlook on life are all that matter.

------
diiaann
“A 4.0 does signal something significant, that that student is good,” said
Stuart Rojstaczer, a former Duke University professor who has studied grade
inflation for years. “ A 3.7, however, doesn’t. That’s just a run-of-the-mill
student at any of these schools.”

I disagree with this statement, at Carnegie Melllon I noticed that a lot of
4.0's were engineered. Students avoid taking hard classes, avoid difficult
requirement classes by taking at an easier university, avoid challenging
themselves outside of their major.

~~~
anoncoward111
I can attest to this. I deliberately chose the easiest classes and even
studied abroad twice because I knew specific professors leading the program
abroad were giving out free As.

Fortunately for me, I got my degree without too much torture that many others
go through. Unfortunately for me, nobody looks at my nice 3.7 GPA!!!

------
sololipsist
I've got to say, I think this is parallel to the issue that faaaaaaar too many
people are getting bachelor's degrees. Generic sales jobs require them at this
point, which is _nuts_. One should absolutely be able to get a sales job with
a 6-digit income potential with mere experience in lower-powered positions,
but for some reason we're forcing these people to study humanities for four
years before we let them sell a CRM tool.

Shit, there's no reason most low-level programming positions need a CS
bachelors. We really, really need good associates degrees that teach
functional coding (logic structures, two common languages, git, agile). There
is _no_ reason to expect someone to be in school for four years to be able to
code.

Grades must be inflated to accommodate the horde passing through universities.
The masters degree is the new bachelors degree.

------
JTbane
It seems there is a moral hazard involved here- administrators pressuring
professors to pass more students, which leads to grade inflation. All this to
retain students and keep the tuition money flowing.

I'd love to hear from front-line profs about this issue- does grade inflation
need to be addressed?

~~~
phlyingpenguin
I teach. I can say that I have never had direct pressure to pass students or
raise grades, but there are two issues that I run into related to grades.

First is the ever-growing methods of academic dishonesty. I do not have enough
hours in my life to create and design new homework that prevents cheating.
It's possible for some assignments, but not all. I don't give up on cheating
detection, but this leaves tests and participation (be it simply turning in
work or in-person) as the primary grade-changing events for many students.

Second is the issue of student "litigation". It is not unusual to find a
student that will fight to get their 4.0 by attrition, and that requires very
good record keeping on the professor's part, taking away from time for other
tasks.

My situation is at an extension of a very large university. We focus on
teaching and student connection, not research. I know that these experiences
change drastically when professors have graders and a research program taking
their time away from teaching duties.

~~~
ryandrake
Can you explain more about this “litigation”? Your students actually sue over
their grades?? That’s nuts!

~~~
phlyingpenguin
No, that's why I put it in quotes. They will often keep in incessant contact
and try to escalate matters within the department or school. This is still
somewhat rare, but happens often enough to complain about.

------
paulie_a
I occasionally interview people and review resumes. There are two things I
don't even bother looking at: where you went to school and what your GPA was.

~~~
make3
then you're one of the only ones

~~~
sodafountan
I couldn't care less about your GPA or what school you went to, some of the
best people I know never attended school at all.

~~~
commandlinefan
Well, unless you're leaving something out, you just said that the less
education a person has, the more capable they are - so, reductio ad absurdum,
the most capable people in the world are middle-school drop-outs. But I
suspect you're trying to suggest that education and competence are completely
uncorrelated (which is a claim that would be hard to back up, incidentally)
and that "something else" is an indicator of
competence/intelligence/capability, but you're not specifying what you think
that is.

------
mlthoughts2018
If something like the Flynn Effect[0] is real and persistent, it could make
sense that grade inflation is natural, and that fewer truly qualified students
would be able to get university placements, scholarships, and so on, just
because there are far greater numbers of deserving, materially higher-
achieving students now, but the number of available “prestigious” outcomes has
not grown as fast.

[0]: <
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect)
>

~~~
joeax
I read about some years ago, that due to grade inflation, kids in high school
are pressured to distinguish themselves further through more extracurriculars,
volunteer work, even internships.

And you are right, the population is growing, but the number of prestigious
universities has not, furthering the competitiveness. There aren't opening new
Harvards.

------
TangoTrotFox
I think there's a very simple explanation for this.

In past times universities were very elite educational institutions that few
attended. Today college is seen as basically high school 2.0. There's a lot of
numbers in this [1] report from the census. [1] Today 33% of Americans have a
bachelor's or higher degree, and 12% have a masters or doctorate. Those
numbers also continue to skyrocket. In 1970 only about 10% of people had any
degree and advanced degrees were a rare sight indeed. In other words we have
more people with masters or better than had any degree in the 70s.

The explosive normalization of post-secondary school education has turned into
a massive industry. College is now a half a trillion dollar industry per year,
and rapidly growing. This has shifted students from being trialing and
exceptional aspirants to... customers. And there is immense pressure to keep
these customers happy. For instance many universities rely on student
evaluations to measure teachers, yet those evaluations often work as a strong
proxy to difficulty which works as a strong proxy to grades. You can see this
connection in crystal clear fashion on any of the countless 'rate my
professor' type sites.

[1] -
[https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publicatio...](https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2016/demo/p20-578.pdf)

------
scarface74
Especially since in some graduate schools, you can’t graduate with less than a
3.0.....

------
chatmasta
The question seems to be, in which cases could a high GPA be a negative
signal?

The answer depends on the qualities the employer is optimizing for in its
employees. It’s easy to imagine how a high GPA could be a positive signal or a
low GPA could be a negative signal. However, it’s also possible to imagine
some circumstances where a high GPA may be a negative signal and a low GPA a
high signal.

For example, perhaps a high GPA at a hard school implies a tendency for
isolation, a preference for conformity over risk, and quality of work that
depends solely on the specificity of instructions given. Depending on the
stage of the company hiring, and/or the role it’s hiring for, these traits may
be undesirable and therefore useful as a negative hiring signal.

That said, the question of GPA as a signal is too focused in scope. Any such
consideration of a signal metric like GPA should be balanced with its inverse:
the likelihood of a low metric (e.g., GPA) being a negative signal.

A holistic approach would include creating a matrix of (x) traits the company
wants to select or filter, and (y) input signals like GPA. That is, a mapping
of signals to traits.

For each signal and trait the company should strive to estimate the
probability function of the following cases:

\- High metric (GPA) is a negative signal for trait

\- High metric (GPA) is a positive signal for trait

\- Low metric (GPA) is a positive signal for trait

\- Low metric (GPA) is a negative signal for trait

The company should consider the importance of the trait(s) it is selecting
for, and the relative risks (downsides) of misinterpreting any signal used as
an input for selecting those traits. Only then does it have the information
necessary to create a useful hiring strategy and rubric for candidates.

------
wernercd
When showing up and saying "I'm here" results in a 4.0?

When everyone is special. No one is special.

------
dqpb
A single grade serves at least three purposes:

\- To give students feedback about their progress

\- To competitively rank students knowledge

\- To competitively rank students organizational/bureaucratic hoop jumping
skills

To conflate these three things is incompetence to the highest degree. Whoever
invented this system, and everyone who has ever gone along with it should be
deeply ashamed.

Of course, this is an oversimplification - there are many more confounding
variables packed into a single stupid grade than just these three. I really
can't overstate how stupid this system is. It's not even a system.

------
mike00632
To any young person worrying about the importance of their grades for
eventually getting a good job, don't. Most everyone starts out with an entry
level job and then other factors are immediately more important. Hiring
considerations are more like: relevant job experience > total experience >
references > whether they went to school > whether they finished school > what
they went to school for > where they went to school > ... > GPA.

------
foobaw
A major benefit of attending elite schools is the increased opportunity to
network. Google used to filter candidates by GPA but "quickly" learned this
was a mistake.

Some companies do still look at GPAs. Others specifically indicate they're
looking for people from "top-tier" schools. Out of context, this means you'll
have more opportunities if you have a higher GPA and if you attended a top-
tier school.

------
abvdasker
I've found that GPA is completely irrelevant in the private sector but the
school you attended still makes a big difference, particularly if it's in the
very top tier.

Some companies will not even consider engineering candidates who did not come
from a narrow list of schools (Ivies and similarly prestigious institutions).
I know for a fact that Oracle has such a list along with several major finance
companies.

------
dom96
I just graduated with a "First Class Honours" degree (70%+) from a UK
university. I'm really curious how companies in the UK view these grades (and
how US companies convert these grades to a GPA, assuming that they do perform
such a conversion), can anyone share their experiences?

------
bmarkovic
GPA is a totally useless metric, if for no other reason, then because it's a
well documented fact that while some schools give out high grades for just
showing up and applying some minute effort, others require an ass-busting
amount of work just to register around average grades.

------
bytematic
Since it is much harder to get into the top universities and most classes
scale their grades based on the history of the class, perhaps that
relationship is the issue

------
hashkb
Grade Inflation has been an issue for decades. I think we all know to look up
how rigorous a school or program actually is and adjust. Also, um, students
cheat a lot.

------
tfigment
Still only matters for first job and then if you have nothing else to show. As
a hiring manager, its a minus for me to see unless its for intern. But
surprising how often i see on cvs. (Speaking as former top of ChE class and
frequent outlier to be removed on grading curves.)

~~~
MaxBarraclough
How can good grades ever be a minus?

~~~
protonimitate
I think he's saying that if you are applying to a job and have more than 0
experience, you shouldn't be relying on your GPA as a selling point.

And I agree - GPA is pretty irrelevant to anything in the business world. All
it proves is that you can play by the rules in the school system - not a real
indication of your experience, skills, or relevant knowledge.

~~~
vkou
Success in much of the business world requires you to play by the rules of the
business system, which may be as capricious, arbitrary, pointless, stupid, and
orthogonal to relevant knowledge [1], as success in the school system.

For every hiring manager who takes the approach that anyone putting their GPA
on their resume is an asshole or an idiot, there's three others who think that
there's something wrong with a junior applicant who doesn't put their GPA on
their resume.

Unless you tell the applicant what you want to see, they have no idea which of
these two hiring managers you might be. Instead of downmarking people for
having the audacity to present this information to you, perhaps you could just
ignore it?

[1] Which the hiring manager in this thread has unironically demonstrated.

~~~
pythonaut_16
Without any evidence to back up your claim I could just as easily claim that
for every hiring manager who cares about seeing a GPA on a resume there are
three others who think there's something wrong with an applicant with any
experience who does put their GPA on their resume.

------
criddell
I haven't read the whole article (paywalled), but I wonder if the honors
losing their luster is more about a low correlation between high GPA and
professional success (at least in STEM careers). I've been involved in hiring
and for recent grads we will look at transcripts, but GPA as a factor isn't
weighted very highly. I'm much more interested in hearing a candidate talk
about their senior project or personal projects and other areas of interest.

Does anybody even look at transcripts or care about GPA beyond your first job?

~~~
icedchai
You're lucky if they even look at GPA or transcripts for your first job.

College is the new high school.

~~~
stcredzero
I've taught in college. Freshmen and sophomores aren't that distinguishable
from high schoolers by knowledge, ability, and maturity.

------
syntaxing
(Paywalled so I can't read the whole article) This is mainly due to society's
(I'm in the US) mentality that if a kid get's low grade, s/he are lazy and a
failure. We really need a reform to gauge aptitude better and accept the fact
that some people are better at blue collar jobs than white collar jobs (and
vice versa). Our current standardized test system does not reflect this.

------
mabey
article without paywall:
[https://outline.com/HeY8AN](https://outline.com/HeY8AN)

------
globuous
Oooooh, these distinctions are given by absolute GPA and not by class ranking
? That's a shame...

~~~
pc86
Giving out academic distinction based on class ranking is no different than
giving out professional distinctions based on stack ranking.

------
matachuan
Welcome to Purdue then

------
poster123
For each course on a transcript, the average grade earned should be shown, so
that the reader can adjust grades earned for easy or harsh grading. It would
be nice to see the average SAT or ACT score in the class too, to see if the
"harsh" or "easy" grading is just a reflection of the quality of the students.
Put this data in a csv file that employers could download, and I think smart
employers would use it.

------
jadedhacker
Capitalism has resulted in such fierce competition that now even its feeder
system for employees is being compromised. There are few marks of distinction
that matter anymore, resulting in ever greater precarity for even the middle
classes that thought they were immune.

