<p>Wouldn't that get in the way of **** ing anything that walks?</p>
<p>
[quote]
I'm not trying to say that Vail's advice is right for everyone, but we shouldn't be harassing him just because he thinks getting into a good grad school is more important than a rich social life.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't think I'm harassing him. Heck, I'm not saying that I completely disagree with him. Everyone should be free to find value in anything they wish to find value in. However, you don't need good grades to get into a good grad school-- that's my point. In my program, which is generally considered pretty good in my field, there are students who had as low as 2.9 GPAs. He made up for that with good essays and demonstrated maturity in his later work life. Granted, he also went to Pomona College...</p>
<p>But really, I don't think that you need to give up your social life/dating life for a good GPA. I graduated from a top 25 school with over a 3.7 and did a lot of socializing and had a steady girlfriend the whole time (I'm with her today.) I would not be as well-developed of an individual if I had not done this stuff, and I know that while my GPA may have been higher, I wouldn't have been as interesting to an employer.</p>
<p>When you sit down at an interview, your GPA may come up for 15 seconds. At the most. After that, it's about YOU. What can YOU offer that employer. YOU YOU YOU. Your grades are not you, and they do not demonstrate that you will fit in at an organization. Most employers would much rather have you working at an internship or demonstrating outside interests at the cost of some of your GPA than hire a 4.0 library worm.</p>
<p>And really, grad schools aren't that different. Outside of maybe medical school and maybe law school, most grad schools will overlook your GPA after a few years of work experience. The vast majority of people I know at top 10 grad programs did not have GPAs outside of a 3.3-3.7 range. They instead had personality, research experience, work experience, and outside activities that helped make them more interesting people.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Out of all my friends who do not go to college, most are far better at 'socializing and networking' than those who do go to college. Given my experience, I seriously doubt that college is necessary to cultivate these skills.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No, it's not. But the fact is that the network you'll develop in college will tend to be of a higher quality than just straight out of high school. Even if you do push your way up the ladder out of HS, it's a tough climb. What college offers you is a chance to connect to people who may be that future employer or connection to an employer.</p>
<p>I got my current internship with the State Dept. in large part thanks to an internship I did back in undergrad, which was thanks to someone else that was at the career center at UCDC. Seriously, these connections can make a huge difference. Even after you're done with school (grad school included), you need connections. It's not like the need for being social and "networky" ends after grad school.</p>
<p>Nor is dating the only way to learn interpersonal skills. But having been in a relationship now for almost 8 years, I can say that I've learned a lot of patience, diplomacy, and other similar skills from being in a relationship. Living with someone else is not terribly unlike the office. And learning how to live/work with others is one of the most important skills for almost anyone.</p>
<p>Well, except for professors. They can be those hermetic introverts. But that's a whole different conversation.</p>
<p>Go Sklog! As I said in my post, I think my first year of college has been made better, not worse, by having the two relationships I've had, even though they didn't last. Now you may view my 3.6 as utter failure compared to your 4.0, but I think of it as complete success because I put 100% into academics while being enriched in life through those relationships. And, no, my GPA would not have been higher if I hadn't dated because when I needed to study, just told the bf, "Hey, I have to study now". This is why bf #2 didn't last; he heard that line too many times, and felt like I didn't have time for him. Not true, but that's a whole different discussion.</p>
<p>frostburg2010,</p>
<p>A 3.6 is a fine GPA, and more than good enough for almost anything. You have more than enough time to pull it up even higher.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Even if you plan on going to grad school, there are tons of ways to make up for a "deficient" GPA.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'm a believer in the whole 'ounce of prevention = pound of care' philosophy, and I've seen plenty of examples in real-life that make that hold true. I'm going to work hard now so that I don't have to worry about making up a deficient GPA. </p>
<p>
[quote]
All I'm saying is that after you're done with school, you'll remember your friends, classmates, and professors.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Fair enough, that explains why I advocate 'reliable friendships' over somewhat more difficult to deal with 'romantic relationships', I've said this several times before. </p>
<p>
[quote]
The vast majority of people I know at top 10 grad programs did not have GPAs outside of a 3.3-3.7 range. They instead had personality, research experience, work experience, and outside activities that helped make them more interesting people.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Same thing as before, some people can have all of that and more without having to focus on finding their 'significant other' while in college.</p>
<p>
[quote]
So to each their own, but Vail, lighten up. Just because you can't be bothered by college life doesn't mean people who do are less of a student than you. They just feel the monetary investment isn't only so they can go from their room, to class, and back to their room to study, and then sleep.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Never said/implied that they were less of a student. And I commute to college, so I do a lot more than just class-->room-->study-->sleep. Furthermore, are you implying that those who don't believe in dating while in college only follow the CRSS cycle you described above?</p>
<p>'Everyone should be free to find value in anything they wish to find value in.'</p>
<p>At least we can agree on this.</p>
<p>'He made up for that with good essays and demonstrated maturity in his later work life.'</p>
<p>While this is reassuring to hear, I think most people would rather work hard now than have to 'make up' for deficiencies later on.</p>
<p>'After that, it's about YOU. What can YOU offer that employer. YOU YOU YOU.'</p>
<p>Needless to say, being a bookworm and having a good personality ARE NOT mutually exclusive. Having a busy social life doesn't necessarily mean someone is a 'better' fit for an organization than someone who doesn't. While I'm not entirely disagreeing with you here, I think you're being too broad with your statements. Just as your friend was admitted with a 2.9, someone with no life in college can easily make up for it later and take on a job where heavy interpersonal skills are a pre-requisite.</p>
<p>'But the fact is that the network you'll develop in college will tend to be of a higher quality than just straight out of high school.'</p>
<p>In your experience, going to college gives one a better social network than could otherwise be had by not going to college. In my experience, this is not the case. The 'fact is' that unless either of us produces some sort of study to prove our case (and I'm pretty sure none exists as this topic is so subjective), we'll just have to agree to disagree.</p>
<p>I'm glad that your relationship and connections have benefited you, UCLAri. In your experience, you have derived valuable skills from social endeavors that are going to help you succeed for the rest of your life. But we are not clones, and your experiences are not everyone else's. People with long term relationships and social connections might get little to nothing out of them, and even if they did benefit from a more rich social life, it does NOT guarantee their success in life, just as having a good GPA does NOT guarantee one a job. Again, I do not entirely agree with Vail, as I believe GPA is not the key to living a rich and rewarding life. But, in my opinion, connections and social skills aren't the key, either.</p>
<p>PS. Sorry about not knowing how to use the cool little quotation boxes you're using. I'm CC illiterate, I guess.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
Never said/implied that they were less of a student. And I commute to college, so I do a lot more than just class-->room-->study-->sleep. Furthermore, are you implying that those who don't believe in dating while in college only follow the CRSS cycle you described above?
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>no, I'm not suggesting that at all. As for you not implying people being less of a student, I'm drawing off a similar comment you had in a different thread, where you said anyone who used alcohol or drugs in college didn't deserve to be there. So, yeah, you kind of did say and imply that people who participated in a certain aspect of college life were less of a student. Perhaps you were being sarcastic, but judging by your other posts I would be hard pressed to make that jump in judgment.</p>
<p>
[quote]
PS. Sorry about not knowing how to use the cool little quotation boxes you're using. I'm CC illiterate, I guess.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Don't worry about it, I was using underscores or italics to quote people for quite a while.</p>
<p>Quote boxes are done like this, just remove the underscore signs (_)</p>
<p>[<em>quote]I'm quoting this![</em>/quote]</p>
<p>The "Help and Rules" link to the left has info about more things that you can do, like italics and URLs. </p>
<p>
[quote]
I'm drawing off a similar comment you had in a different thread, where you said anyone who used alcohol or drugs in college didn't deserve to be there.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>How about no. Reread that thread, JadeLi said that:</p>
<p>
[quote]
Anyone who drinks or smokes doesn't deserve to go to college.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I started to respond to their comment and I was going to say that that's probably too harsh, but that anyone who drinks or smokes on their college campus when their rules strictly forbid it wouldn't deserve to go, but I decided against even typing that.</p>
<p>
[quote]
So, yeah, you kind of did say and imply that people who participated in a certain aspect of college life were less of a student. Perhaps you were being sarcastic, but judging by your other posts I would be hard pressed to make that jump in judgment.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And the rest of your post quickly falls apart...</p>
<p>Thanks, Vail!</p>
<p>Actually, that post was directed to Vali. But thanks for the confidence boost. As I said, I'm happy with it :).</p>
<p>
[quote]
Same thing as before, some people can have all of that and more without having to focus on finding their 'significant other' while in college.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Sure. But what if you don't have to find that person? What if that person ends up finding you? Would you simply brush off a date with someone?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Would you simply brush off a date with someone?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Define "brush off". Do you mean 'turn down', because if so, then the answer is going to be yes. I've got better things to do with my free time than to date -- especially while I'm in college. I've pretty much made up my mind not to get married anyhow, so what would be the point in dating?</p>
<p>But would I tell them that, of course not (not in that manner), I'm not heartless, after all. I've never had to 'let someone down easy' before, but I'm fairly sure I could handle it without causing the other person undue pain and suffering. For starters, I'd simply let them know that I have a 'no dating' policy, and that I'd not only say 'no' to them, but to anybody who asked.</p>
<p>Vail,</p>
<p>Ah, now your attitude makes sense. You have no desire to marry or date anyway. So then your case, I would argue, is an anomaly. I don't think that the vast majority of people share your sentiments about dating or marrying.</p>
<p>In the end, do what gives you the most utility (be homo economicus).</p>
<p>But just out of curiosity, why no marrying?</p>
<p>"I've pretty much made up my mind not to get married anyhow"</p>
<p>My mom said the same thing when she was in college; in August she and my dad will celebrate their 24th wedding anniversary. People change their minds. Why are you so unopen to that possibility?</p>
<p>I thought the same thing when I was younger, although I would probably not date at all and be more self-reliant than the opposite extreme, which is being a desperate, needy person with no self respect. Some people would rather hang on to an emotionally or physically abusive relationship than having to face the situation of not having a significant other, and move on to a better life. Being in a relationship in college should be an added bonus, not something you should be miserable without.</p>
<p>'Being in a relationship in college should be an added bonus, not something you should be miserable without.'</p>
<p>You hit the nail right on the head, mavsin.</p>
<p>I haven't read much of this thread, but...</p>
<p>My girlfriend and I started dating junior year of high school. We decided that we wanted to go to college together and now both attend a top 25 university. Furthermore, we've both declared double majors (chemical engineering / math; public policy & management / intenational relations) and are both maintaining 4.0's.</p>
<p>While neither of us drink or party, we have both become friends with other, great people who we spend time with frequently. Going to school together has been a huge plus for both of us.</p>
<p>Certainly, this type of thing wouldn't work with everyone; it really depends on the individuals involved</p>
<p>So, you've been together and commited for about 3 years. You're lucky. </p>
<p>Even though I say he's lucky, I am not defined by my relationship status. I've spent A LOT more time single than with a bf, so I can function just fine by myself. masvin does have it right; relationships are an added bonus. </p>
<p>I believe I see the light at the end of this topic's tunnel.</p>
<p>The reason I don't want to get married...well, I suppose it all starts with a discussion of reasonable risk. With knowledge of what could go wrong, is the risk I'm about to take worth the benefits the activity could yield? </p>
<p>That's the question I asked myself some months (probably about a year?) ago, and over time, I've decided that the ask that question and find the answer to it as it applies to marriage. Would the risk of divorce and all the troubles that ensue be worth some 'benefits' that I've only heard about? I've decided that the answer is no, marriage just isn't worth it. It's far too easy for men to get screwed over should a marriage go bad (for whatever reason), since 'family courts' seem to automatically award women with 50% or more of everything of everything, even if a pre-nuptial agreement was signed to prevent such theivery!</p>
<p>Let's do a math experiment shall we? Now, its a well known fact that a some odd years ago, the national divorce rate was 50%, I feel fairly confident when I say that its only gone up since then, but, since 50% is such a nice round number to work with, we'll give them the benefit of the doubt and say that the divorce rate is 50%. Now, it has to be 50% after some X number of years, it would be reasonable to assume 2-3, so I'll play the optimist and say 3 years. So, a 50% divorce rate over 3 years of marriage. If you take two married couples, check back with them in 3 years, then statistically, only one out of these two couples would still be married. So for that couple you mentioned that had been married 24 years (congrats to them BTW, they've beaten the odds many times over), that would be eight 3-year cycles, meaning that (statistically) of course, there are eight couples out there who did not enjoy such success, meaning sixteen people who have been hurt and only been left worse off because of marriage. </p>
<p>As I said earlier, that was just a little math experiment, I already typed this post up before coming online, and I haven't done much research on the national divorce rate anyhow, but it still remains that the rate was/is/will be 50% (or higher). This means that marriage is literally a toss-up, with failure being a most dreadful option, which would occur half the time. I don't wish to invoke such pain and suffering on myself unnecessarily (I'm no masochist, after all). </p>
<p>
[quote]
Ah, now your attitude makes sense. You have no desire to marry or date anyway. So then your case, I would argue, is an anomaly. I don't think that the vast majority of people share your sentiments about dating or marrying.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'm aware of that fact, and that's why, if I'm not mistaken, I've tried to remember the fact that my not wanting to get married at all is contrary to the wishes of many of the people in this topic. As a result, I've tried to condition my advice towards someone who may or may not wish to get married in the future, and just advise them to not date while in college (especially not in their freshman year, where they should be more concerned than ever IMHO with trying to get into the "swing" of college academics).</p>
<p>Vail,</p>
<p>Life is full of risks. If you take that attitude with you everywhere, you'll never get any return on investment. High risk means high returns. </p>
<p>I suggest that you not look at what everyone else does, but what you do. 90% of people who apply to Harvard don't get in. Does that mean that you shouldn't apply if you feel like a strong candidate?</p>