College students should be required to maintain a 3.5 GPA.

How do you feel about this statement? I'm working on a debate, and i'd appreciate your opinion, especially in favor of the argument. That's the side i'll be debating on, but it can't hurt to find rebuttal arguments to refute.

Do we really want mediocre people who trudge through school becoming our future doctors, lawyers, nurses, teachers, and psychologists? There are mixed classes, of people working very hard to earn their education, and those whose parents pay for their tuition so they have no motivation....etc.

THANKS!

I'm all for it.

What's wrong with the systems that most colleges use now?  I don't know of any that don't require a minimum GPA, but 3.5?  Why so high?  Don't most universities still use a curve?  If so, after three or four years there would be no students left.

well, as a student, i WAS forced to maintain a 3.5 to keep my academic grants and stay in school, so i think they should be!

i mean, i know grades don't necessarily reflect someones intelligence or abilities but i'd much rather have a doctor who got straight A's in school than one who skated by with C's.

To be fair, she didn't say on what scale a 3.5 GPA would be required.  Some schools do use a five-point scale. :D

What about schools like Hampshire College or Evergreen State that don't grade at all?

The question is irrelevant because it is not like there's some overseeing authority over all colleges/universities that could actually make every single one of them adopt this standard. :D

What a waste of time. :D

i completely disagree.  grades are rarely a true reflection of either intelligence or ability.  i know plenty of people who have 4.0 GPAs and can barely function outside of an academic setting, and i know just as many who have 2.5s and are wise, compassionate, and skilled.

and for what it's worth, mine is a hair over 4.0.

Hmm, frankly I think it would be very fraught with problems: to start, I think students would try to take the easiest classes rather than c hallenging themselves. It would probably dissuade students from doing extracurriculars and internships for fear of falling below the minimum GPA. And colleges might inflate grades to keep their enrolments up...and also, there's lots of disparity in terms of difficulty between different colleges, between different departments at any given college, within departments, etc. I do think it's interesting in theory but could bring on a host of problems in practice. That's just opinion -- sorry it's not really on the 'pro' side! :0

Original Post by pgeorgian:

i completely disagree.  grades are rarely a true reflection of either intelligence or ability.  i know plenty of people who have 4.0 GPAs and can barely function outside of an academic setting, and i know just as many who have 2.5s and are wise, compassionate, and skilled.

and for what it's worth, mine is a hair over 4.0.

 You proved your point.

you trying to get on the wall again?

Original Post by trhawley:

Original Post by pgeorgian:

i completely disagree.  grades are rarely a true reflection of either intelligence or ability.  i know plenty of people who have 4.0 GPAs and can barely function outside of an academic setting, and i know just as many who have 2.5s and are wise, compassionate, and skilled.

and for what it's worth, mine is a hair over 4.0.

 You proved your point.

 LOL.  Well-played.

Well, off hand I'm against it if for no other reason than I personally did not maintain a 3.5 GPA in school.  Yet here I am, a relatively successful engineer, making a good living, supporting my family, being a responsible citizen and taxpayer, and not putting the general public in danger despite not meeting a calculated number that says nothing about my post graduate experience, training, or skills.

That being said, I do think it's important to maintain an educational standard, but defining it in terms of a number is the problem.  What happens if the student does not make a 3.5?  If 3.5 is the hard and fast requirement, then why have any kind of scale at all?  Why not just have a nice dichotomy and say "acceptable" or "unacceptable"?  What if the one class that causes that GPA to go below 3.5 is an elective and has nothing to do with their field of study?

Anyway, some things to think about.

I disagree with it.  Seems to me it would just give way to MORE grade inflation than there already is.  Students would all demand A's so they could stay in school.

Seems stupid to me.

People with high GPA's already reap the rewards, there is no reason to cut off learning for those who are just getting by.

My husband's company pays his tuition as long as he keeps a 3.5 or above, if not, we get the bill, he keeps a 4.0.

Argument for:  It would force a student to never slack off.  Some students would just find more inventive ways to cheat and/or get by, but most would step up their efforts and ultimately learn more.  Earning a degree would mean a lot more than it currently does.  Everyone who graduated would receive a **** Laude of some sort.

Argument against:  See pgeorgian's argument.  Some people are B students and yet are in the work environment will out-perform everyone else.  Ultimately, less people would even attempt going to college resulting in a less educated population.  Colleges would lose money and many would be forced to downsize or shut down.

For what it's worth, my university requires a 2.0 GPA.  However, my major requires 3.0 to stay in it and the jobs that I am applying for require atleast a 3.5 just to be considered.

Original Post by yountsmonster:

For what it's worth, my university requires a 2.0 GPA.  However, my major requires 3.0 to stay in it and the jobs that I am applying for require atleast a 3.5 just to be considered. 

Yeah, from what I recall anything below 2.0 you went on academic probation, and 3.0 was required in my major.  And when I went through the recruiting cycle, really you have to have something EXTRA SUPER SPECIAL to even be considered if you GPA was below 3.5.

Original Post by yountsmonster:

Everyone who graduated would receive a **** Laude of some sort.

If everyone is a -----laude, the designation kind of loses it's distinction, doesn't it?

I would be against it (I didnt maintain that high a GPA) unless the university can assure the students didnt have to work to survive. If they were granted free tuition that required the high GPA I would say yes. Graduate schools have higher GPA requirements which I have no problem with. My college was 2.5 for undergrad and 3.0 for graduate (generally). A few grad schools within the college had a 3.5 requirement. An undergrad only shows that you can be taught, your advanced grad schools get into the meat of your profession.

It would end up that the grading system would be entirely corrupt. Universities would lose WAY too much money in the first semester a freshman was enrolled. Hence the freshman would leave school with all the tuition money. The university would go under. So pressure would be put on professors to give easy work, and then our educational system would be even further behind every other country. It's all about the MONEY.

also, think of all the top-notch students who go through some kind of crisis (family, health, financial, emotional, etc) while in school.  i have friends who've lost parents, had babies, gone through divorces, gone bankrupt, been homeless, etc. while in school.  should they be kicked out because they can't maintain a 3.5 for a semester or two?

wow, thanks for all the responses, guys! in all honesty, i'm against the resolution. I agree with the points made, but i was assigned the topic for my course and i wanted to get some feedback. i am not allowed to choose which side im on, i'm assigned to agree with that statement.

i just got home from the course, and it seems i was misinformed about the resolution. It was 2.5 instead of 3.5, but i suppose the information provided is still similar. thanks for everyones input!

In all honesty, you're hosed.

It's horribly stacked against you, and this is coming from a guy that debated (and won) that smoking was a social good and should be subsidized with taxpayer dollars.

I can't find one approach that has a more positive impact than a negative impact.

Good luck and sorry I couldn't help.