> It comes from grades being used to evaluate people outside the particular schools they attend.
Are they really, or is just this elaborate illusion supported by most decision makers to give some rationalization to their own selection processes? When you have Harvard being sued for discriminating against Asians, how can we keep a straight face and tell the kids that they need to study hard because the grades matter?
I think this is part of what PG wants to defend in the essay: why do we actually care about grades at all?
Because jobs are at a premium and evaluating prospective hires is hard, so employers look for anything they could use to filter and sort the stream of candidates. Education - both the what and the where is somewhat correlated, so that's what's being used.
The "what" and the "where" do not require the "how many points" to work as a filter, do they?
I think I spent too much on this discussion already, but the point I am trying to make is that standard tests are bad both as a filter for selection and as predictor of performance.
While not necessarily agreeing, I do understand if someone says "I will hire someone good from a top-tier school vs a top student from a not-so-good university". The "what" and "where" are definitely useful data points to filter out candidates.
What I don't understand is any employer that says they will hire based on SAT, GPA or any variation of an IQ test. It seems to be so unreliable measures to the point of actually hindering the process.
Are they really, or is just this elaborate illusion supported by most decision makers to give some rationalization to their own selection processes? When you have Harvard being sued for discriminating against Asians, how can we keep a straight face and tell the kids that they need to study hard because the grades matter?
I think this is part of what PG wants to defend in the essay: why do we actually care about grades at all?