Ahem…like trying to read an article on CC with Firefox because the animation as it loads on other browsers is critical but the fact that it prevents articles from loading at all on a very popular browser isn’t so important? 
Interesting that being smart and trying hard can be a negative. The upshot is that no one is perfect. Just a question of where you place your priorities.
“There is nothing wrong with having a 4.0 in college, attained sensibly. Setting the actual goal of maintaining a 4.0 will almost always cause a student to emerge with a lower-quality education than the student could have had, though, due to the GPA protectionism that almost always follows from that goal.”
^^This is an important distinction. One of my kids was a 4.0 student through high school, college, and a masters degree in structural engineering. It’s absurd to tell her that’s an indication of some sort of failure or personality flaw. In her case it’s a byproduct of other goals she’s had for herself, combined with intelligence, hard work, planning, smart prioritizing, great time management, curiosity, being able to recover from setbacks (she definitely did not get A’s on every assignment and test for all those years), and a lot of deep learning. But grades were never a primary goal for her. I’ve never seen her take an easier class for the grade. She’s an excellent writer (honestly effective communication is part of why she’s done so well), and also has social skills. She’d be the first to tell you she does have areas where she needs to grow and get better, but she happens to be very very strong academically.
A 4.0 in college marks the attainment of something very few people can do at all (I certainly never came close). There certainly weren’t many summa cum laude’s at her college of engineering graduation. It’s not a negative, and it’s also not the only important thing, as the article correctly pointed out. It’s just one marker. How you get there does matter and the GPA alone doesn’t speak to that.
Yes, there is a difference between a 4.0 GPA attained as a byproduct of overall academic strength from an excellent student, versus a 4.0 GPA that was attained through grade grubbing and tactical course selection for “easy A” courses (though the student who does the latter still has to be pretty good, even if not at the level of the excellent student).
Probably those who have a negative impression of 4.0 GPA students have encountered too many of the grade-grubbers and not enough of the excellent students.
However, while medical schools presumably want the excellent students, they may be getting a lot of the grade-grubbers among those who pass their initial GPA screens (not 4.0 GPA, but only a little below).
It’s sad anyone thinks top performers are suspect, emotionally unbalanced, or grubbers. Maybe you met some. But that’s not enough.
Just as in college admissions, for an employee search, rather than assume top performers are special or undesirable, I’d look deeper. Not assume.
Many people assume that a single anecdote that they personally encounter is representative, even if it is actually an outlier compared to the data. Note the saying “seeing is believing”. Note also that news articles that are about data (e.g. students having trouble affording college) generally do include anecdotal examples (e.g. a student’s personal story about trouble affording college) because they believe anecdotes over data.
Inaccurate stereotyping of this sort is not limited to 4.0 GPA students. It is widespread across other characteristics, including race, ethnicity, religion, etc…
And this ridiculous notion that failure = success. Or that you can do what you want and the top colleges will come beg you to enroll. “Just be you” is hardly even good life advice, much less for admissions or job shots. (Oddly, this cycles me right back to the need for the right conformity.)
Sorry in advance for the giant brag: Not all of these kids are try-hards. My D is one of those straight A kids but highly original. One of her elementary school teachers called on her last every time because her imaginative answers tended to blow up a discussion. When the kindergarten teacher asked each kid to name their favorite animal, D’s answer was “pangolin.” The teacher had to google it. She started writing fan-fiction in her early teens.
It all carried forward to college. Often enough, the professor would ask, “Does anyone other than MagD know the answer to this? No? Ok, MagD?” She signed up for O-Chem (against the advice of the instructor) even though she had not taken any college chemistry, only AP Chem in 11th grade. It was easy for her. She did all this while going to bed each night and ten and getting 8 hours sleep and playing rugby.
So what’s my point? There are many kids like her who do not have to work any harder but consistently get better results. That two hour math assignment might take her 15 minutes. Every other kid did the same O-Chem lab experiment but hers was the only one that worked. She found others like her at college, not the majority but a significant enough minority that they should not be dismissed.
There are a couple of things worth noting. She has ZERO ambition. She is just as likely to be an elementary school teacher as ever do anything more notable. And she was not always like this. She did not “teach herself to read” and we never pushed her. She had around a 3.0 in junior high, but eventually the fastest horses pull ahead. As others can attest, it has been interesting to have a front row seat on one of these kids.
I’ll second that, Magnetron. There are kids who get the grades, do the sports (or that time robber, marching band,) do it all, get the sleep, have friends, and write delightfully about other connections.
Their LoRs talk about their production, intelligence, creativity, helpfulness to others, and more.
What I think posters should focus on isn’t an inherent distrust of a 4.0, “just cuz.” Maybe they mean the difference between a “can do it all” versus a slice that games it. Rather than refer to all as drudges, or accuse them of scamming or padding, look deeper.
I wouldn’t want some kid who games the system (and nor do top colleges.) As I said, I wouldn’t stop at the gpa alone, to make an admit or hiring decision, yea or nay.
So she doesn’t fit the student example in the opening paragraph of the original article, of the kid who was so distraught over his A-. She “recovered from setbacks” aka not As, and succeeded.
I take that as one of the key points of the article.
I remember my D’s upset at her first B. She was in 9th grade? I forget the year (but I guarantee if I ask her she’ll remember). She was really distraught. And we talked about it. And she eventually “lost her fear of Bs” which in her case really meant “lost her need to be perfect”. And this allowed to try harder things, and more things at once.
Talking yesterday with my son who is going to a tippy top school next year:
I: I hope you are ready for your GPA not to be 4.0 in college any more.
S: I’ll take this as a challenge.
I: No, I didn’t mean it this way!..
@Magnetron Have a friend like this. Got almost all As at MIT undergraduate and Masters without studying too hard and also got all As from one of top law schools. He could have worked for pretty much any company he wanted but is one of the least ambitious people I know. I asked him once about this, and this is what he said generally.
“I know I am smart and work efficiently. I can finish tasks in 50% of times than normal people. But as long as I make comfortable living, I have no desire to bust my chops to make more money. I am generally content with my comfortable life.”
He wasn’t a genius but regularly placed tops in state math competitions and got into HYPM early without any hooks. He could finish SAT math section in 15 minutes and check his answers twice to make sure he didn’t make any silly mistake.
And he’s very humble in that he never feels the need to brag or show off.