arnold@csu-cs.UUCP (Ed Arnold) (04/30/84)
> = Jeff Grunewald >Of course people go to school to get an education. Why else would anybody >spend that kind of money? Surely not only for the partying and fun times. >But don't you think that education also includes how to manage yourself and >your time? Don't you think that besides being trained for a job, we're >being train to handle the little "curves that life throws our way?" I've got news for you Jeff, people spend money on ANYTHING! I know of plenty of people here at C.S.U. who came because their folks wanted them to, or they're not sure what they want to do with their life so they go to school for a while. I also know plenty of people who see the money spent as an investment. They know that forking over 20k now will bring them a higher salary and higher status later in life. What else do you do to reach such status? It is true that you can work your way "up the ranks" but without that piece of paper you'll always be put behind that person who does have it. Why do you need to go to college to party and have fun times? Yes, I do think that education includes how to manage yourself and your time. I don't think I have to spend money to learn that sort of thing. Anyone living on their own learns how to manage time and those infamous curves. I have another news flash for you, handling life's little curves is another word for "maturation." I don't know of anyone who has to pay to grow up. >School *is* an education. It's a total education. This includes doing >your work and having a good time. If you only work, to the exclusion of >having fun, then you are not getting a "total" education. If you only party, >then too, you are not getting a "total" education. No, school isn't a total education, life is a total education. I also don't know anyone who has to pay to live (there are exceptions everywhere :-). >Sure some companies "support this narrowness of mind" (what language is >that phrase anyway :)?), but that is their right. When I was interviewing >for jobs during my senior year (several years ago) only one company had >a QPA requirement to interview with them. Of the more than 25 interviews >I had, only two or three companies asked to view my transcript. Sorry if my prose isn't up to your standards :-). You're right, not all companies have a GPA requirement to interview, but a number do. Those that don't still put much stock in the GPA and your transcripts. Maybe someone at HP could shed some light? On campus, HP will not interview anyone below a 3.3 on a 4.0 scale. I assume that this policy is uniform throughout the nation? >What does this show? I think it shows that companies are aware that a >prospect can learn plenty, without necessarily getting the top grades. >How a prospect presents himself, communicates, etc. are just as important >as how many A's he/she got. After all, to get through four years of >college, you have to have learned something. I agree, but they lean heavily toward the C.S. As I've said before, life is full of exceptions. I think that getting through four years of life is an educational experience, be it in college or elsewhere. In response to Debenedictis wonderful article. Cheers! It is good to see that not everyone has taken such a serious attitude about this crap we students face. The mighty GPA is indeed not that important! As I expected, most flames came from those folks who gained an education while in college. I take my hat off to you people. I have the feeling that many who don't read net.college are in a vocational frame of mind. They read wizards and rogue and that's about it. I have no criticism of either vocational or educational types, I merely wish to point out the differences and make sure no one is claiming to have something that they don't. Eat a Wombat for Lunch, Ed Arnold {hplabs,hpfcla,unmvax,hao,denelcor} (csu-cs!arnold) Colorado State University Ft. Collins, Colorado