<p>
[quote]
perhaps im being a little to naive here but correct me if i am wrong. if engineering is what you love and what you wish to do in life why would you even care if you got a C in engineering when you could pull an A in say any other unrelated major. afterall if you truely love engineering you would put your all into and only pull a C along with alot of other people what is the problem? im sure the person hiring you majored in engineering and knows the troubles of getting a high gpa. im also sure he or she would rather hire someone that has four rigerous years of knowledge in the field rather than someone who opted for a higher gpa and studied a field that has nothing to do with the job in question. i guess what i am trying to say here is that gpa shouldnt matter what you learn should. but as i said i dont know much about the subject but looking from an outside and logical view i dont see the problem with with having a 2.8gpa if you are learning what you love and can apply it to the workplace after college.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I wish things really were that easy. But sadly, life tends to be more complicated than that. The sad fact is that there are a lot of bonuses and benefits you get that are highly GPA dependent, without regard for the fact that certain majors, like engineering, are more difficult than others.</p>
<p>To give you one very simple example, many auto insurance companies will give cheaper rates to college students who can maintain a certain GPA level (usually over a 3.0). However, that is without regard to the fact that it is far harder to maintain that GPA in certain majors. The upshot is that a greater percentage of engineering students than liberal arts students end up having to pay more for auto insurance premiums because they can't get the "good student" bonus because their grades are too low, despite the fact that they tend to study harder than the liberal arts students do. </p>
<p>On a far more weighty note, there are many scholarships that are highly dependent on GPA. For example, I know a guy who obtained an outside scholarship that would have basically paid for his entire schooling for all 4 years. This was great for him because he came from a family that just didn't have the means to put him through school, so without this scholarship, he probably wouldn't be able to go to school at all. However, according to a clause in the scholarship, he would keep this scholarship active only if he maintained a 3.0 GPA. This clause basically deterred him from studying engineering. He actually wanted to study engineering, but the bottom line is, he wouldn't dare do anything that would jeopardize his scholarship. No scholarship, no school. So he ended up studying one of the easy liberal arts. He even once told me that he isn't really all that excited about what he was studying, and he'd rather be studying engineering. But at the end of the day, he has to do what he has to do to protect his scholarship, no matter what. It's better to get a liberal arts degree than to have to drop out because your engineering grades cause you to lose your outside scholraship.</p>
<p>I can also think of scholarship athletes. Basically, according to NCAA rules, to keep your athletic scholarship, you have to stay academically eligible, which basically means that you have to be getting at least a 2.0. There are plenty of engineering students who work hard and nonetheless get less than a 2.0. Keep in mind that a C- is worth only a 1.7. So a semester of straight C-'s in engineering (which is very possible in an engineering curricula) means that you've lost your eligible, and hence have probably lost your athletic scholarship. I've known quite a few people who put themselves through school via athletic scholarships - football scholarships, track scholarships, swimming scholarships, wrestling scholarships, baseball scholarships, etc. - and I can see how some of them would not dare to major in engineering because doing so might mean jeopardizing their athletic scholarship. </p>
<p>Or take the case of the "superstar" postgrad scholarships, such as the Rhodes Scholarship, Marshall Scholarship, Truman Scholarship, and so forth. Ever notice how few engineering students actually win these scholarships? I strongly suspect that relatively low GPA's has a lot of do with why so few of these scholarship winners are engineers. For example, there are many schools that actually state in their policies that they WILL NOT endorse your candidacy for a certain scholarship if you don't have a certain minimum GPA, without regard for the fact that certain majors are more difficult than others. Without this endorsement from your school, you can't even apply for the scholarship. </p>
<p>For example, Berkeley specifically states that you have to have at least a 3.7 after your freshman year to apply for the Marshall Scholarship. Yet the fact is, it is far far easier to get a 3.7 in certain majors at Berkeley than in others. But Berkeley doesn't care about that. </p>
<p>"Graduating seniors or recent graduates who are U.S. citizens and have a minimum 3.7 GPA after their freshman year are eligible to apply. "</p>
<p><a href="http://scholarships.berkeley.edu/prestigious.html#marshall%5B/url%5D">http://scholarships.berkeley.edu/prestigious.html#marshall</a></p>
<p>Or how about things like study abroad programs? Lots of schools have minimum GPA's to determine eligiblity for study-abroad programs, again, without regard for the fact that some majors are more difficult than others. For example, Texas Tech states that you must have a 2.5 to be eligible for its study abroad program. So if you study a super-difficult major like Chemical Engineering at Texas Tech and you end up with a 2.4, too bad, you're not allowed to study abroad. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.iaff.ttu.edu/main/StudyAbroad/Programs/gettingstarted.asp%5B/url%5D">http://www.iaff.ttu.edu/main/StudyAbroad/Programs/gettingstarted.asp</a></p>
<p>Hence, the point is, by studying engineering and submitting yourself to the low engineering grading curve, you stand to lose a lot of benefits that are GPA dependent. For example, you may lose out on a good-student car insurance premiums because your engineering GPA indicates that you're not a "good student" (when in reality, you are probably a better student than the liberal arts students who have much higher GPA's). You may lose out on a variety of scholarships and benefits or eligibility to study abroad and a wide assortment of other perks because your engineering grades indicate that you're not a "good student". </p>
<p>So I think the REAL problem is not so much that there are different grading standards between engineering and lib arts. The REAL problem is that a lot of organizations don't care that there are different grading standards. For example, the Rhodes Scholarship competition doesn't seem to care that engineering students have to work harder than liberal arts students to get the same grades. Professional school adcoms don't seem to care. Lots of organizations just don't care. Either they don't know or (more likely) they don't WANT to know. </p>
<p>Personally, what I think that engineering schools should do is simply change the rules to help their students. For example, why don't they just hand out two sets of grades - the "internal" grades (which only the engineering department and the students can see), and the "external" grades, which is what the rest of the world will see. The external grades would be much higher than the internal grades. That would put the engineering students on the same plane as the liberal arts students to get, say, cheaper auto insurance or to be eligible for the Rhodes Scholarship or for travel abroad. </p>
<p>Lest you think this is controversial, I would point out that MIT gives out 2 version of transcripts, one internal and one external. The internal transcript contains much more information than the external one does, the big difference being that the internal transcript shows your "hidden" freshman grades, as well as also things like late drops. MIT doesn't do this to necessarily make its students look better to the outside world. But the point is, if MIT can provide students with 2 sets of transcripts, then other schools can do it too.</p>