Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But "financial aid" includes loans. If all you get are loans, then you are still paying out of pocket. When I was applying to colleges, I did not get any non-loan need-based financial aid at any school, but my parents' income was nor $500,000 not even $225,000. Of course, my guidance counselors brainwashed many students (not me) into believing that loans are free money and somehow better than grants or scholarships.
No, it doesn't. MIT provides grants for financial aid, not loans. Where are you getting your information?
IIRC, you are either a late gen x or early millennial. Things have changed a lot since then, namely that tuition is probably 2x what you paid back in the day, if not more.
That is correct (I was born in 1979, so technically late gen x), but I'm not sure how college becoming more expensive helps anybody.
I watched a kid cry in class because he got a B senior year in high school.
I almost started laughing but thought of all of the idiotic busywork he had to do to get straight A's in everything up to that point.
What do A's in everything mean?
That someone will do whatever they are told even if it is stupid?
Which brings up an interesting question. Would employers see him as a useful employee, assuming that he'll do whatever he is told to do without questioning it? Or will they see him as somebody who will break down the first time something doesn't go his way? Probably the later, to be honest. Plus if he's motivated by a reward (4.0 in that case), he likely won't be as much of a doormat in the working world where there are no immediate rewards for sacrifices.
I'm not agreeing with them, but some would argue that the 2.3 has better soft skills, and/or that the 2.3 has a better work ethic since he/she had to struggle more.
Do you think that maybe you could make an argument that a 3.9 is better than a 4.0? The person with the 4.0 was likely always the teacher's pet, likely took easy classes, likely was good at gaming the system, and likely dropped any class where he/she was in danger of getting a B. Whereas the 3.9 student may have dealt with some adversity, and maybe took more challenging classes, and did not walk away from a challenge
Wow you are making a lot of assumptions. Having a 2.3 does not show that one has better soft skills, a better work ethic, or struggled more. You have no idea why someone has a 2.3!
You're very wrong to assume that someone with a 4.0 was the teacher's pet, took easy classes, gamed the system, or dropped classes. Everyone has to take the same courses in the same major. Everyone in a BS in Accounting takes the same accounting courses. Many of them most people would struggle in. Yet people still earn perfect grades without being the teacher's pet or taking easy classes - again everyone in the major takes the same classes and often the same professor. If a person graduates, then they didn't walk away from a challenge. Everyone will face at least 1 course in which they struggle. It's incredibly rare to find someone who didn't have a class that drove them mad.
Wow you are making a lot of assumptions. Having a 2.3 does not show that one has better soft skills, a better work ethic, or struggled more. You have no idea why someone has a 2.3!
Notice I said "I'm not agreeing with them, but some would argue . . .", meaning that I was stating an opinion held by others, which I do not agree with. Many people, including many on this forum, assume that anybody with a high GPA has poor soft skills. I said that I do not agree with that assessment, but it's an opinion held by many employers.
Quote:
You're very wrong to assume that someone with a 4.0 was the teacher's pet, took easy classes, gamed the system, or dropped classes. Everyone has to take the same courses in the same major. Everyone in a BS in Accounting takes the same accounting courses.
Yes, but there usually is at least some choice. And usually multiple professors for at least some of the classes. At least when I was in college (no, I never did this) was if a class was notoriously hard and/or was taught only by a notoriously hard professor, to take it over the summer at another college, and then transfer it over. The credit would transfer, but the grade would not, so it would not affect your GPA. Another option was to take a class as an auditor and then take it again for real. Or officially drop the class when you get into trouble, but keep showing up, and then take it again for real. Plenty of chances to game the system. No, I never did any of that.
Quote:
Many of them most people would struggle in. Yet people still earn perfect grades without being the teacher's pet or taking easy classes - again everyone in the major takes the same classes and often the same professor. If a person graduates, then they didn't walk away from a challenge. Everyone will face at least 1 course in which they struggle. It's incredibly rare to find someone who didn't have a class that drove them mad.
Which is why it's incredibly rare for anybody with a 4.0 in college to have actually earned it.
Wow you are making a lot of assumptions. Having a 2.3 does not show that one has better soft skills, a better work ethic, or struggled more. You have no idea why someone has a 2.3!
You're very wrong to assume that someone with a 4.0 was the teacher's pet, took easy classes, gamed the system, or dropped classes. Everyone has to take the same courses in the same major. Everyone in a BS in Accounting takes the same accounting courses. Many of them most people would struggle in. Yet people still earn perfect grades without being the teacher's pet or taking easy classes - again everyone in the major takes the same classes and often the same professor. If a person graduates, then they didn't walk away from a challenge. Everyone will face at least 1 course in which they struggle. It's incredibly rare to find someone who didn't have a class that drove them mad.
A GPA doesn't tell you anything other than how someone performed at a particular time.
Star athletes have up years and down years. Star athletes tend to have more up years than down years, so that's generally how you determine if they are star athletes.
In undergrad, you have a four year career. So not exactly an extensive runway to prove one's self. One bad term or year can have a significant impact.
Say someone graduated high school with a 3.9 GPA, near the top of their class. Say they started undergrad and started out strong with a 3.6 GPA their first two years. Now let's say the last couple of years they struggled. Maybe something was going on in their lives, they lost motivation, whatever. The last two years their GPA falls to a 2.7. While their cumulative GPA drops to about a 3.1, some grad schools or employers are hyper focused on those last two years because these are usually the core classes. Now let's say this individual, despite their odds, gets into grad school as an adult much later in life. They are hyper focused on their studies and put all their effort into getting it done. They are pulling straight As for a 4.0 GPA.
The point here is that GPA is only an indication of someone's performance at a particular time. Unfortunately, for fresh grads without a lot of experience, you don't have much to draw on outside of those 4 years. But over time, that 2.5 or 3.0 GPA might keep pace or even outpace the 4.0 GPA. Maybe it just took them a little longer to get up to speed because of where they started relative to the 4.0. You just don't know.
That's why I don't think GPA is necessarily an all or nothing indicator of future performance or success. But I also like to go against the grain and think outside the box. It's not for everyone.
Yes, but there usually is at least some choice. And usually multiple professors for at least some of the classes. At least when I was in college (no, I never did this) was if a class was notoriously hard and/or was taught only by a notoriously hard professor, to take it over the summer at another college, and then transfer it over. The credit would transfer, but the grade would not, so it would not affect your GPA. Another option was to take a class as an auditor and then take it again for real. Or officially drop the class when you get into trouble, but keep showing up, and then take it again for real. Plenty of chances to game the system. No, I never did any of that.
Which is why it's incredibly rare for anybody with a 4.0 in college to have actually earned it.
I did not have a choice for most of my professors. I went to a very small university. Even now in grad school, I don't have a choice in professors. There's 1 professor for a class. We don't have 3-4 different sections available. There's 1 section per semester.
There was never an option to audit classes when I was an undergrad. I couldn't take classes elsewhere and transfer them in as I was already an enrolled student so I couldn't transfer anything in.
I graduated with a 4.0 and absolutely earned it. I have a 4.0 in grad school as well. How? Working my *** off. I'm not taking easy classes or gaming any system like you claim people do.
I admit that I did not apply to MIT as an undergrad, but no colleges that I applied to offered any need-based grants.
Just to bring this back on track, we're discussing this specific high school senior you referenced in your initial post (original post below for reference). He had more choices than others as his parents had lots of money (or at least very high incomes).
Quote:
Originally Posted by mitsguy2001
I agree. There was a thread a while ago where a high school senior had to choose between a full scholarship to a state university vs paying full tuition out of pocket at MIT. The consensus was, if he/she wanted to "work to live" and wanted to work for a generic employer close to family, then go for the state school. If he/she wanted to "live to work" and chase jobs at the "top" employers in one of the few fields that cares about where your degree is from, then go to MIT. The problem is, most 17 year olds don't know enough about their life to make that decision. And then there are people who may want to spend their 20s chasing the money, but in their 30s want to settle down and start a family and want more work-life balance.
I graduated in 1989 with a 3.7 GPA (College of Engineering-CS/EE). I had a job offer from every tech firm I interviewed with. One company had multiple sites and I got 3 offers from that company in three different states.
I had a job before I graduated. THAT is the only reason I worked my butt off and maintained high grades.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
