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!

Good thing no one read the rest of the posts to see it's 2.5, not 3.5.

2.5 is easily doable. If you can't maintain a 2.5, you don't need to be in uni. 

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.

...

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?

 totally agreed!
the circumstances might be different in college, but at my high school, the valedictorian is a girl whose GPA is like 4.3 because she's slid on by, taking regular ol' english, history, science, and math courses, along with classes like AP art history and AP Spanish [Spanish was her first language].
then you have folks like me: I've spent the last 3 1/2 years taking every honors and AP course I possibly could, working really really hard [while enduring some family crises of my own].. and my GPA is only 3.4.
I also agree with what megsambit said.
in short, I think it's crap ;p

Sorry I missed the update before--saw the post, read it, voiced my opinion.

Anyway, as for maintaining a 2.5 in college, I think it depends.  Since you call school "uni," I assume you're not in the USA.  As such, I don't know how financing college works for you.  I am only answering with a US perspective because that's all I know.

-- If you are representing your school in any sort of official function (i.e. you're on a sports team), it's reasonable to require a 2.5 GPA.

-- If you receive any financial aid from the government or from the school itself, it's reasonable to require a 2.5 GPA.

Otherwise, in the US, we pay for the privilege of attending college.  While a 2.5 GPA should be perfectly obtainable, I'm not in favor of requiring people who are paying to attend school using their own funds (or funding from their family or a private group) to meet an arbitrary GPA requirement to stay enrolled.  You already have to meet basic requirements to graduate, and I think those should be sufficient.

i say if you can do a 2.0, then go for it! even though I graduated with a 3.87

Shoot. I didn't see that it was 2.5. Well, if it's 2.5, that's setting the bar a little lower. I think that much of the system in school is flawed, seeing as I've had classes where I aced every test and missed 2 pieces of homework and barely made a B, and other classes where the formatting of the class changed so completely from the midterm to the final that nobody in class even managed a C, and certain classes that I thought I'd get a D where I got an A, that it can be hard to tell.

Well, I think that for community colleges, most of the students have other things on their plate - family, full-time jobs, back from a prolonged break, just finished getting their GED - to worry about getting better than 2.5 at all times. However, the univeristy I'm attempting to attend does require a minimum 2.5 GPA at all times, as well as a 2.5 average minimum GPA to even apply, let alone make it in. If you fall below that line, you get on academic probation, and I believe that if you do that two quarters in a row, you get kicked out of your major. I could be wrong, but if you do it yet another quarter, you get kicked out of school completely. I do agree with that system, but I feel there should be exceptions for people who have extraordinary circumstances, like a death in the family or another unexpected event. They should have at least a quarter to make it out without repercussions. But, school is for learning and working hard, so maintaining a 2.5 GPA seems reasonable.

ok, well not everyone that is going to college will be doctors or lawyers. I went to college and ended up having to take a fail in one of my classes b/c i was taking too many units and didn't watn my other grades to suffer. it made it really hard to bring my gpa back up. College is voluntary and not everyone is there with a mission to get straight A's. I think it would be ridiculous to require everyone to maintain a 3.5.

Edit: ok, sawsome posts that said 2.5. I didn't feel like reading all the replies. 2.5 is more reasonable. I know my college would put you on academic probation if you got certain grades. I never had to worry about that, so I'm not sure what the requirements were. But I think they might have been right around 2.5 and if you got below that for a couple quarters, then you could get kicked out. Something like that lol.

A 2.0 is a C, right?  And C is supposed to be average, right?  So, in theory, a university that demands a GPA of 2.5 or more from its students is either (a) expecting to kick out half its students every year or (b) guilty of grade inflation.  (Yes, I'm well aware that (b) is the correct answer.)

With regard to a few of the comments about GPA not being a real reflection of a person's ability in the field, I agree that that's often true - but to me that says that there are other things that need to be evaluated rather than that GPA should be meaningless.  I must admit I love the idea of the progress reports rather than grades (though I have to admit some of the letters would be pretty depressing: "John Doe does not attend class.  He does not do his assignments and makes his lab partner do all the work."  Fortunately, the fun-to-write good letters would make up for it.)

I don't think anybody should be required to do anything. My brother who is one of the most intelligent people I know, had a GPA of 3.0 because of his school (known to give out crappy grades) + his major. I have a GPA of around 3.7 on the otherhand and I worked much less than him for it.

Schools are different, their standards are different. if your major is something relatively simple and your school's one of those schools a 3rd tier school/or a high ivy that gives out inflated grades.... it's different.

And I say if you want a 2.0 or whatever, just do it. I mean you'll be the one who'll be responsible for it but if you are ready for the responsibility, who cares.

AND With a gpa of 2.0, they will not get into med school/law school so you won't have anything to worry about them being your future whatever.

Original Post by alibsam:

Good thing no one read the rest of the posts to see it's 2.5, not 3.5.

 

2.5 is easily doable. If you can't maintain a 2.5, you don't need to be in uni. 

Ever met any Engineering students? If we demanded a 3.5 GPA we'd have no engineers. 2.5 is easily doable in arts, sciences and economics, I agree, not so much in engineering. Doable for sure, just less emphasis on the "easily".

Original Post by p0nda:

Original Post by alibsam:

Good thing no one read the rest of the posts to see it's 2.5, not 3.5.

 

2.5 is easily doable. If you can't maintain a 2.5, you don't need to be in uni. 

Ever met any Engineering students? If we demanded a 3.5 GPA we'd have no engineers. 2.5 is easily doable in arts, sciences and economics, I agree, not so much in engineering. Doable for sure, just less emphasis on the "easily".

 Oh phooey.  2.5 is doable in engineering, even 3.5.  Shoot, I have a friend who had a perfect GPA as some sort of engineer at MIT.

Engineers are clever:  They realize that if they say that lower grades are acceptable in their majors and cause others to believe this, then they can get away with doing less work.

Original Post by dnrothx:

 Oh phooey.  2.5 is doable in engineering, even 3.5. 

Sure, a 3.5 is doable in engineering school.  I knew a guy that carried a 20 hour load in ME and ChemE, not "easy A" courses either, and maintained a 4.0 even while pledging a frat, being a member of a honor society, and running for student council.  His notes got a lot of people through thermo.  However, I think it's safe to say that this can't be expected of everyone.

Of course, while painting the rec room in said frat house he put a can of paint in the autoshaker without a lid, and managed to use a hand saw to cut through its own power cord.

Original Post by dnrothx:

 Oh phooey.  2.5 is doable in engineering, even 3.5.  Shoot, I have a friend who had a perfect GPA as some sort of engineer at MIT.

Engineers are clever:  They realize that if they say that lower grades are acceptable in their majors and cause others to believe this, then they can get away with doing less work.

Stop your nonsense, I didn't say it isn't doable - in fact I was just thinking about my friend who is in engineering right now in Los Angeles who works full time and still pulls off a 4.0 - it's just not as easy as it is in other faculties. I've seen their course load and know the concepts they have to grasp in 13 weeks - from an outsider looking in, the amount of work they have to do is ... boggling.

Original Post by p0nda:

Original Post by dnrothx:

 Oh phooey.  2.5 is doable in engineering, even 3.5.  Shoot, I have a friend who had a perfect GPA as some sort of engineer at MIT.

Engineers are clever:  They realize that if they say that lower grades are acceptable in their majors and cause others to believe this, then they can get away with doing less work.

Stop your nonsense, I didn't say it isn't doable - in fact I was just thinking about my friend who is in engineering right now in Los Angeles who works full time and still pulls off a 4.0 - it's just not as easy as it is in other faculties. I've seen their course load and know the concepts they have to grasp in 13 weeks - from an outsider looking in, the amount of work they have to do is ... boggling.

The GPA is definitely not proof of intelligence or capability. I've worked with many engineers and the ones who easily get A's are often the worst engineers, because they can only regurgitate facts and can not reason or think through a matter. Very often these students have to have things spelled out to them in very simple terms and then they get it.

Original Post by santonacci:

Original Post by dnrothx:

 Oh phooey.  2.5 is doable in engineering, even 3.5. 

Sure, a 3.5 is doable in engineering school.  I knew a guy that carried a 20 hour load in ME and ChemE, not "easy A" courses either, and maintained a 4.0 even while pledging a frat, being a member of a honor society, and running for student council.  His notes got a lot of people through thermo.  However, I think it's safe to say that this can't be expected of everyone.

Of course, while painting the rec room in said frat house he put a can of paint in the autoshaker without a lid, and managed to use a hand saw to cut through its own power cord.

 I love this story. It is so true with what I have experienced.

My son is pursuing a Mechanical Engineering degree and a Construction Systems Management degree at OSU. He was put on academic probation from the engineering school after winter quarter 2008, and can not reapply to that major until after winter quarter 2009. He is currently taking CSM classes and the rest of his electives so he can get his GPA back up.

The problem:  he can't take tests well. He never could. He can sit down and explain everything about a subject. He understands the subjects. He can perform the work. Then he takes a test and blows it.

My son did an internship this summer with a huge construction company in Orlando, FL. They loved him. They want to hire him. They are telling him to finish his CSM degree and then finish his ME degree after they hire him. They see his abilities and know his work ethic.

Nonsense - so all students must excel?  They who among these excellent students is "Average" - 3.5 on a 4.0 scale, or 7.0 scale.

Here's my take:

Education is important. It's also a privilege. But it should not be the privilege of only one type of person.

If someone wants to pursue education, they should be able to do so. If they are not getting subsidized and are paying for it themselves, they should be able to continue to do so for as long as they want to continue trying.

Some people need to take classes more than once to pass them. That's OK. College should not be an elitist institution for "smart" people only. I think there's a lot to be said for guts, too. There are many people who have the desire and will continue to work hard as long as they are given the chance, to meet the graduation requirements. If it takes them 10 years instead of 4 because they have to take some classes over to meet those requirements, who are we to say - "No, you've taken too long, you have to stop trying now. We have decided you have failed!"  Only the individual should be able to decide when to stop educating themselves.

I don't think that everyone should be able to graduate without meeting graduation standards; but I do think everyone should be able to keep trying until they meet them, and not be kicked out due to some arbitrary number.

Original Post by pgeorgian:

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?

 PG I completly agree...

My boyfriend is going to school for Kinesiology and prosthetics. He gets loans and he is a full time student... however we live together and we both have to maintain jobs to be able to pay our bills such as rent/car/insurance etc. He is very smart however because he goes to school from 8am-3pm and then works from 4-10 as a cook he only gets so much time to study... He studies on the train to and from and studies when work is slow and comes home and studies and gets less sleep then he should... But he is around a 2.5-3.0 and of course it bugs him because he wants to do better but he is making what he can with what he has..

I think that requiring that type of gpa would be hard to achieve by many commuter students that are putting themselves through school and have to work.

Original Post by zarelha:

Here's my take:

There are many people who have the desire and will continue to work hard as long as they are given the chance, to meet the graduation requirements. If it takes them 10 years instead of 4 because they have to take some classes over to meet those requirements, who are we to say - "No, you've taken too long, you have to stop trying now. We have decided you have failed!"  Only the individual should be able to decide when to stop educating themselves.

I don't think that everyone should be able to graduate without meeting graduation standards; but I do think everyone should be able to keep trying until they meet them, and not be kicked out due to some arbitrary number.

 With regard to the time limit, I've never heard of a university that didn't allow 10 years to graduate - but most don't allow any longer.  I suspect the reason is that very few students remember the courses they took 10 years ago and it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to award a degree for a subject the student doesn't remember.