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 think that it would lead to a nation where many wouldn't be able to attend college.  I go to school full-time, but I also have to work 40 hours a week to, well, survive.  Leaving the house at 7am and not getting home until 10pm every single week night and THEN having to study on top of that is not an easy task.  It's not an excuse....I'm just saying.  It would lead to a situation where only those that are privileged and have their parents pay for college so that they can devote all of their time and energy into achieving a 3.5 were able to go to school.  I'm not saying that it is not possible to maintain a GPA of 3.5 while working full-time or possibly even caring for a family.  I'm just saying it makes it more difficult.  I believe that system would deny a college education to many.  Another point is that a certain GPA is required to get into grad school.  I believe that most require a minimum of 3.0 and that doesn't even take into consideration the competition with other students.  Doctors and lawyers and such do attend grad school and would be held to these more rigorous standards.  They won't get there with a C average.  Since higher standards are already required of the most prominent professions, why make the rest suffer and be denied an education beyond high school?

I'm glad to see it was 2.5.  I found the 3.5 requirement a bit offensive and unreasonable.    I don't see why an increase to 2.5 would be a big deal.

oh 2.5 is much easier, approach it from the aspect of the less interested/intelligent students holding back the progress of the class thereby diluting the quality of the service for which these more interested/apt students had paid.

you could also approach it from the aspect of the sub 2.5's taking seats from more interested/apt students and thereby not only cutting off access to the class, but also lowering the overall quality of the classroom learning environment.

Hey, I wouldn't mind the idea if I wasn't one of the students working full time while going to school full time and also commuting an hour and a half each way just to save some $$$.  With this economy, I think you will be seeing more and more students working full time while studying full time therefore finding it harder to keep up a 3.5 GPA.  Also, it depends on your program, I mean if you are an undergrad its a lot easier for most people to keep up a good GPA with a major in social sciences than a major in chemistry.  I realize that most people who major in Chem also LOVE it but STILL.  You can stare at at page in a psych book all day and understand it fully and then stare at a page in a chem book all day and understand nothing.  PLUS, those students in pre med won't even get a shot at med school unless they have an almost perfect GPA plus community service PLUS a whole lotta other junk on the side.  SO I wouldn't be too worried about our doctors just getting by in school!

By the looks of it, a lot of other replies are students working full time!

Also consider the adjustment period from high school to college. My GPA was about .6 points lower in my first year of undergrad as I adjusted to college life. That's part of why many grad schools recalculate your GPA based on the last 3 years of undergrad when making admissions decisions.  

my undergrad GPA sucked, but i definitely fell into the uninterested-unmotivated-slacker category.  i think a 2.5 average is pretty generous.

i'd still advocate for a probationary period, though; if you drop below that cut-off for a semester, you should have an opportunity to do what you have to do to redeem yourself (whether that means work a little harder, cut back on classes or work, or get a tutor).

Original Post by ericajess:

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

Grade inflation is already a very real problem that few want to do anything about, even if they knew what to do

Some people are straight book knowledge smarts and don't know applications of a process.  I would rather a person have mediocre grades and be able to think on their feet to come up with the solution.

Book smart people don't have that ability,  they only know forumulas and some viewpoints and don't delve enough into the problem as they should. *(that has been my experience).

For example, my son is a chem major and on the line of a B and a C average.  I might add, this is a young man who struggled through school with a learning disability and he is able to be right there with those who are more fortunate than him in their learning process.  So for me his high C average as a CHEM Major is Superior to any requirement that a scholarship might award him.  In all reality his C average should he have chosen to use the government American with Disabililties Act would have most likely awarded him a low A.  But his choice was to work in the mainstream and be like those other students who struggeled to get their "EARNED" grades. 

You have to admire a person for that!  I know I do.  That high C average is what may keep him from his scholarship but in turn, all his classmates want him on their labs because he is able to think through a process and come up with the solution.  Time constrains may be the downfall in some instances for grading but his classmates are willing to take a reduced grade if necessary to have the right answer.  It may take longer but at least it is right.  Its like having Santa he is checking his LIST TWICE!

Tale care all and God Bless.

3.5 is kinda of high.  I'd have to put effort into this crap to get that.  I'd rather slack off and get a 3.0GPA. 
Don't try to shatter my dreams.
In conclusion, I disagree.

Well, since the revised gpa is 2.5, then I guess you could use grade inflation as part of your argument.  The raised minimum gpa would counteract the grade inflation.  Of course, it'd work better if you could show some statistics of grade inflation that would make this seem like a reasonable move to stop it.

Thank goodness you don't have to argue for 3.5 gpa - I had nervous break downs EVERY semester trying to keep mine for the scholarship that allowed me to go to school.  Sometimes twice a semester from all the stress.  If I had it to do over again I would have taken loans and saved myself the severe stress it caused.  I'd rather be in debt and have my health/sanity than be debt free and depressed.

As someone mentioned, what about schools that don't give grades? I believe education should be migrating AWAY from placing emphasis on very simple grade scales, not TOWARDS it. A 3.5 grade average says NOTHING about a person..I mean, just how much can it say? That they are a hard worker? That they are skilled at taking tests? That he/she is good at sucking up to teachers? It says squat about the details of a person's ability...details that will make or break someone's chances of making it in any one field.

I attend Hampshire College. they do not give point based grades-- instead, the teacher writes you a detailed evaluation for each class that you take. Hand a stack of THOSE to a potential employer and then it really says something about you! And they will know just what they are getting. Can you imagine hiring a 4.0 GPA and then finding out he/she can't even conduct any independent work, because all he/she was good at was taking tests.

altogether my peers make up one of the most intelligent and hard-working groups of people I've ever met.

Original Post by 4theloss:

I attend Hampshire College. they do not give point based grades-- instead, the teacher writes you a detailed evaluation for each class that you take. Hand a stack of THOSE to a potential employer and then it really says something about you! And they will know just what they are getting.

 Wow, I think that would have really made me a better person and a harder worker. But it would be a pain now, trying to translate those into something that grad schools can use for admissions.

Original Post by emilyd22222:

Wow, I think that would have really made me a better person and a harder worker. But it would be a pain now, trying to translate those into something that grad schools can use for admissions.

 it's actually not too bad. We have a very high grad school acceptance rate. I believe almost all grad schools are willing to accept what is called your "portfolio" (a collection of all your teacher evaluations) as an application.

Honestly, to require a 3.5 would just cause some SERIOUS grade inflation after a few years, especially if affluent students started doing more poorly.  I'm forced to maintain a 3.5 for my grants, but not everyone is, of course.  There's already a grade inflation problem across the US--a few years ago, 90% of students graduated from Harvard with honors degrees.  Seriously?  I don't want to push that any more than we already have.  Where do others shine, then?  I understand where you're coming from, but you wouldn't have a whole lot of legitimacy to the system after a few years--universities are a lot of business working these days already.  Let's still have the education count!

Nope. It's unfair. I had over a 3.5 until... my boyfriend lost his job and moved in with me when I was making $9 an hour, my roommates began to hate me, for the most part unjustly, I was caught in the middle, tried to move back home, found out my parents were divorcing and my mom moving 3 states away, found out my dad was moving in with his girlfriend, had to pack my stuff from home on the night before a final, kept supporting boyfriend, watched the house I grew up in get sold, proceeded to move 4 times in 6 months, etc etc. I'm doing much better now - my boyfriend is supporting me and has a great job, my mom moved back to my state, and my last grades were A's - but you can't expect people to maintain those sort of grades because life happens. I actually failed a class for the first time in my life, but with all that happened, I can't blame myself for doing poorly. Furthermore, I have many talents that can't be measured by a GPA, like speaking 2 foreign languages fluently (which I learned from scratch), working as a tutor, and volunteering, that I feel are more valueable than what my grades have been every quarter. It'd be like not letting somebody into college because their IQ wasn't high enough when it's entirely possible that they just had a bad day when they took the test.

wow, thank you all so much for your input. im trying to piece it all together now, but this contributed to my debate nicely. thanks for helping me maintain my 3.9

Something I didn't notice anyone else mention.... Asia has MUCH higher criteria for students to continue on in school. Most students go 5.5 days a week and have tutors if they can afford it. If they can't pass their end of year exams, they CAN NOT go to high school and certainly not college. The wealthy have tutors and have a better chance of getting into college. Grades are crazy. My son taught English at a university and he was appalled at what he saw. He would assign grades and the administrators (or someone!) would change them! The president of the university killed 2 students on campus in a drunk driving accident. NO one was allowed to talk about it. The families were paid $500 and told to go away or risk prison. The president of the university didn't have a degree and was inept--however, he was a (communist) party member and got the job. The stress level to succeed are enormous. As most Chinese only have one child (son) to take care of (pay for) the parents' retirement. You need a college degree to have almost any paying job. No degree, you become a street vendor. It was SO eye-opening, my son returned home and joined the Army to serve his belove U S of A! 

I think 3.5 is a little high to be required. I think students who have higher GPAs should get discounts on tuition, which is an incentive to get better grades (unless the people who are doing poorly are the ones going to college completely on mommy and daddy's paycheck). Maybe some colleges already do this? I'm not sure.

Wow, that is so unrealistic. 3.5/4.00 is a B+/A-. The normal average in a class is about a B-. So that would mean that more than half the students at college should not be there? That would discourage people from going to school, seeing as they would feel like they can't achieve anything. Plus, if you have a job, keeping a 3.5 is unrealistic.

I think it's pointless.  If everyone, or even more than half of people, could maintain a 3.5, then the 3.5 would be meaningless.  Professors would simply curve to a B+ instead of to a C or a D.  All it buys us is a little self esteem.

Maintaining a decent GPA to continue receiving (merit-based) grants and scholarships is another story.

I haven't read through all the posts, but this would be my comment...requiring a 3.5 GPA for students in a school to ensure that we turn out the best <fill in blank with occupation> can easily be achieved by requiring a higher GPA in the courses required for the major itself and not all the filler calsses that you also need.  The 3.5 in not necessary to achieve this.

Besides, a person can have a 3.5 GPA at one school that is not at all comprable to another school.  Seriously, a 2.0 from Princeton, Harvard, Oxford, etc is not nearly the same as a 4.0 from the community college down the road.