Hiddochi wolf
wolf_with_a_dragon
Hiddochi wolf
Okay, but so the half-assed summary of my original would-be rant is basically as follows:
I'm sick of this better-than-worse-than culture. I'm sick of arbitrary numbers like GPA determining who gets opportunities and who doesn't. I've known some really stupid people with 4.0's and some insanely intelligent 2.5's. Just because someone has a higher grade than I do doesn't make them any better than me in any capability except mindless memorization and conformity. All that GPA measures is your capacity to obey, and in a society that so highly prizes leadership, I find it ironic that they base their preference around obedience. Leadership is hardly ever a matter of obedience; it's about taking charge, and challenging the current systems and situations. It's the opposite of obedience. And for these companies that claim they want innovative new minds, they're almost shooting themselves in the feet looking for these people who have demonstrated a high conformity rating, because their minds are literally trained to just recite the things they've already seen before. It's what they're good at. And that's not to say these people aren't just as valuable, but they have a different purpose than what these companies truly want. If they wanted innovators, they would seek out those who don't fit the norm, those who aren't so successful in the educational system. Half of these highly profitable companies were even FOUNDED by people who dropped out of school, or who got subpar grades. It's just not fair to not even give someone a chance based on a number, and so superficial of a number, nonetheless. I refuse to let them tell me I'm any less qualified, any less intelligent and capable because of a number. I am SO much more than what paper can tell you about me, and it grinds my gears that they won't even give me the chance to show them. Not even to TALK to them. Their evaluation procedures are all automated now; if you don't meet the 3.0/3.5 criterion, your application gets auto-rejected. Where the ******** did humanity go?
I'm sick of this better-than-worse-than culture. I'm sick of arbitrary numbers like GPA determining who gets opportunities and who doesn't. I've known some really stupid people with 4.0's and some insanely intelligent 2.5's. Just because someone has a higher grade than I do doesn't make them any better than me in any capability except mindless memorization and conformity. All that GPA measures is your capacity to obey, and in a society that so highly prizes leadership, I find it ironic that they base their preference around obedience. Leadership is hardly ever a matter of obedience; it's about taking charge, and challenging the current systems and situations. It's the opposite of obedience. And for these companies that claim they want innovative new minds, they're almost shooting themselves in the feet looking for these people who have demonstrated a high conformity rating, because their minds are literally trained to just recite the things they've already seen before. It's what they're good at. And that's not to say these people aren't just as valuable, but they have a different purpose than what these companies truly want. If they wanted innovators, they would seek out those who don't fit the norm, those who aren't so successful in the educational system. Half of these highly profitable companies were even FOUNDED by people who dropped out of school, or who got subpar grades. It's just not fair to not even give someone a chance based on a number, and so superficial of a number, nonetheless. I refuse to let them tell me I'm any less qualified, any less intelligent and capable because of a number. I am SO much more than what paper can tell you about me, and it grinds my gears that they won't even give me the chance to show them. Not even to TALK to them. Their evaluation procedures are all automated now; if you don't meet the 3.0/3.5 criterion, your application gets auto-rejected. Where the ******** did humanity go?
Well, I'm going to argue the other side of this. Those numbers help people see what knowledge those other people have or how hard working they could be. I was smart as hell in high school, but refused to do homework and my grades suffered for it in all but one class. I'm not saying this mears it should be how people are evaluated, but it gives some evidence as to the persons capabilities, however flawed it is.
Let's take away GPA and assume that a kid straight out of high school or college is looking for his first real job. How will the employer gauge the abilities of this potential employee? Interviews are just as flawed, if not more so, as aneeded arbitrary number as a gpa. Some people can speak a good game but suck in the work place, while others suck at talking. Put him on the workforce for a limited time? That costs money, both for his wages and training. And what if you have a large number of applicants?
You could try issuing tests, but those tests are hard. Some of them are made with the intention of trying to make people fail. This generally means that, unless you're a really good test taker, you're being set up to fail. It won't matter how much you know of how hard you work or how quickly you can learn if you don't know how to take a test.
You brought up a problem, and a damned good one at that. The real question is how do we fix it? How do we find a way to evaluate a person fairly to find exactly who you need? You're an engineer, you should know that finding out a problem is pointless if you can't come up with a solution.
It's such an embedded problem, and I truly believe that it all originates from the structure of the educational system itself, not necessarily the hiring process. The way education is built right now, it expects everyone to fit into a square hole, when there are some round minds, some triangular minds, some dodecahedral minds, etc. It's pass or fail; operate like a square or be thrown on your a** into minimum wage labor for the rest of your waking life. That's not a fair way to evaluate all of those other shapes. What needs to be done is to establish different "schools" or sub-schools where the curriculum is taught in different methodologies. Students would start out all going to one standardized lower school where their aptitudes in different areas would be assessed through various projects (such as something relating to verbal communication, something written, something hands-on, and something research-based), and based on their performance in each category, they could then be recommended toward which "upper" school type they should consider attending. At those upper schools, all of the same core educational subjects would still be taught (math, science, english, history, and technical electives), but the way they're taught at each would vary. The hands-on upper school would focus on teaching concepts primarily through interactive projects, while the research upper school might lean more towards lectures and reading assignments. That's not to say each school type would strictly teach in only one way, but rather, that methodology would be the main tactic for that type. This way, the system could capitalize on each student's own inherent skills and learning preferences, and the earned grades would accurately reflect the student's genuine capability. It's basically how montessori schools operate. It's how I was taught by my parents up until I entered public high school and was suddenly thrown into the cookie cutter.
And I'm not saying GPA is absolutely irrelevant in determining a candidate's feasibility, but what I AM trying to say is that it should never be an automatic disqualification. They shouldn't throw away someone's application because they have a 2.97 and the requirement is a 3.0 and never even give them a chance or a second look. Perhaps a more effective assessment method would be to require applicants to compile a portfolio of his/her achievements, extracurricular activities, community projects, and professional skills instead of a cover letter and resume. I think this would give the employer a much more accurate picture of the applicant. I'm one of those people with a not-so-amazing GPA because I don't fit the square hole and I refuse to try to change my shape to accommodate it, but I do so much more outside of school that reflects who I really am and what I'm truly capable of. And there's another thing that really bugs me about the educational system and the reliance on GPA -- the educational system determines your GPA on tests, and those tests are given with the expectation that you will have no resources, you will have no reference outside of what you can miraculously recall in an ocean of information previously given to you. But that's not how the workforce operates. In the workforce, you'll have access to reference material. You'll have access to the internet. All they care about is that you get it done and you get it done right. But with testing, you don't have anything but your memory, which is already fogged by 5 or more other classes' subject matter at the same time, and they usually want it solved in only one specific way.
It's just not fair. Especially not when every internship out there has insane GPA requirements, and you know damn well that once you have the degree in hand, that GPA won't mean s**t anymore. But in order to get a job, you need internship experience first. It's all built against people like me. And it's so frustrating because everyone tells me "Oh, you're in engineering? You'll be swimming in opportunities!" Yeah? Well where are those opportunities? Because I've applied to dozens and have yet to land a single interview, or even to receive anything that isn't a rejection letter, all because I'm 0.026 points below a 3.0. And THAT is inexcusable.
I like the idea ofor different schools using different teaching methods. Only problem I see with that idea is funding said schools and finding enough faculty to staff them all. As it is we have a teacher shortage and budgets are being cut for education, which pisses me off. We would need to find the money and the bodies to be able to fund and staff each school first before implementing it. Then there's also the question of how we would do it for smaller communities. How would a town of mostly research learners handle the couple of hands-on learners it has?
Honestly, the idea of NEEDING an internship pisses me off more than the gpa requirement. I mean, they're basically telling you to do the work of a paid employee for free for the CHANCE TO get a job there. You're not even guaranteed a job! How is that even legal?! If you're theready doing labor, you should be getting paid for it. How do they expect people to balance school, work, and that internship, much less any kind of social life? Internships are something that need to be done away with in my opinion. Though, yes, I do agree that having a gpa requirement to get into a JOB is just plain stupid. If the job I'm applying for has nothing to do with history, what should ithe matter that my bad history grade is bringing my GPA down? It's not going to affect how well I do on the job!
