Of course you can. Nobody is saying the GPA doesn't measure something, the question is whether or not it measures something relevant to the hiring decisions of your shop. From what I've seen, there is actually a negative correlation between grade and employability.
Sigh. I could try to convince you that your personal observations are not representative, and you could probably tell me the same thing, and we would end up yelling past one another. We could both scream for data, and probably disregard the data that doesn't back our viewpoint and continue yelling past one another.
The problem is that we both have a vested interest in believing what we do. You've already admitted that you have a GPA that probably would not satisfy most hard-line GPA targets. I'll admit up-front that my GPA likely would satisfy most company's targets; this means I already lose a gold star.
This is a shame. I have not drawn any conclusions just from your self-confessed low GPA, but you have already prepared to consider me irredeemable. I'd probably ask some probing questions, realize that you've been bloody busy outside of classwork, and not think too much of it. This strategy could work both ways, for what it is worth.
I could just decide that if I were rejected at a company where you were vetting me, I am perhaps better off not being there. If I were hired, I'd have to deal with the chip on your shoulder about how I have already shown I can't hack because of some single arbitrary metric. But that would be out of the spirit of this site, and would assume things that probably aren't true about the users. So, instead, I'm going to try to provide a counter-argument.
Here's what I can say in my defense: I got that GPA without really giving a damn about my GPA. I found the topics I was working on fascinating enough without the motivation of grades, and got good enough at them that I was able to perform well on tests and assignments anyway. I guess I could've gone farther and just not done the assignments and skipped the tests, but requiring that much disinterest seems petty.
I wasn't trying to prove myself to anyone. And I still found time to play with things and hack on things of my own outside of the classroom. The only big strike against me, perhaps, is that I didn't get involved at all in open source until later on; I never published most of the things I was tinkering with in college. It doesn't mean I wasn't tinkering though, just that I wasn't public about it.
On top of that, I had an entire network of machines in my dorm room that the administration would've thrown a fit about had they known; I can only imagine what the power bill looked like. Having this taught me a bunch of things a networking theory class never would.
On the other hand, my networking theory class allowed me to make connections from experience to theory that made a whole lot of other things become obvious almost as soon as I was exposed to them. I drag this quote out from Deming all the time, because I think it is the best argument for not just focusing on the immediately practical: "Experience by itself teaches nothing... Without theory, experience has no meaning. Without theory, one has no questions to ask. Hence, without theory, there is no learning." FWIW, I haven't stopped learning just because I left college; to be honest, I think I would go stir-crazy if I did.
Hopefully, what I've written above makes some sense. Unfortunately, I've been shot by your generalization, and would not have been able to explain any of this had you said this in a group where you also controlled admissions. I think hard grade cutoffs in both directions suck, because they make a universal predictor from a weak indicator of arbitrary performance through unknown motivations.
Please, for me, and those like me who arrived where we are without the motivation of sucking up to our superiors and fitting the mold, don't be so hasty at nailing us to the wall. You'll just end up cultivating bitterness, and groups of people who don't want to work with one another based on something completely arbitrary.
Sigh. I could try to convince you that your personal observations are not representative, and you could probably tell me the same thing, and we would end up yelling past one another. We could both scream for data, and probably disregard the data that doesn't back our viewpoint and continue yelling past one another.
The problem is that we both have a vested interest in believing what we do. You've already admitted that you have a GPA that probably would not satisfy most hard-line GPA targets. I'll admit up-front that my GPA likely would satisfy most company's targets; this means I already lose a gold star.
This is a shame. I have not drawn any conclusions just from your self-confessed low GPA, but you have already prepared to consider me irredeemable. I'd probably ask some probing questions, realize that you've been bloody busy outside of classwork, and not think too much of it. This strategy could work both ways, for what it is worth.
I could just decide that if I were rejected at a company where you were vetting me, I am perhaps better off not being there. If I were hired, I'd have to deal with the chip on your shoulder about how I have already shown I can't hack because of some single arbitrary metric. But that would be out of the spirit of this site, and would assume things that probably aren't true about the users. So, instead, I'm going to try to provide a counter-argument.
Here's what I can say in my defense: I got that GPA without really giving a damn about my GPA. I found the topics I was working on fascinating enough without the motivation of grades, and got good enough at them that I was able to perform well on tests and assignments anyway. I guess I could've gone farther and just not done the assignments and skipped the tests, but requiring that much disinterest seems petty.
I wasn't trying to prove myself to anyone. And I still found time to play with things and hack on things of my own outside of the classroom. The only big strike against me, perhaps, is that I didn't get involved at all in open source until later on; I never published most of the things I was tinkering with in college. It doesn't mean I wasn't tinkering though, just that I wasn't public about it.
On top of that, I had an entire network of machines in my dorm room that the administration would've thrown a fit about had they known; I can only imagine what the power bill looked like. Having this taught me a bunch of things a networking theory class never would.
On the other hand, my networking theory class allowed me to make connections from experience to theory that made a whole lot of other things become obvious almost as soon as I was exposed to them. I drag this quote out from Deming all the time, because I think it is the best argument for not just focusing on the immediately practical: "Experience by itself teaches nothing... Without theory, experience has no meaning. Without theory, one has no questions to ask. Hence, without theory, there is no learning." FWIW, I haven't stopped learning just because I left college; to be honest, I think I would go stir-crazy if I did.
Hopefully, what I've written above makes some sense. Unfortunately, I've been shot by your generalization, and would not have been able to explain any of this had you said this in a group where you also controlled admissions. I think hard grade cutoffs in both directions suck, because they make a universal predictor from a weak indicator of arbitrary performance through unknown motivations.
Please, for me, and those like me who arrived where we are without the motivation of sucking up to our superiors and fitting the mold, don't be so hasty at nailing us to the wall. You'll just end up cultivating bitterness, and groups of people who don't want to work with one another based on something completely arbitrary.