ITs one of those wierd issues where in some ways we attempt to justify our organizations based on statistical criteria.
ITs almost as if by saying that our organizations have really high GPA's it somehow makes it better or more relevant to society.
I guess it does stand as a possible objective measure . . but for it to be truly relevant our organization would have to been the independant variable when it came to GPA.
For example: IF a lot of people joined Kappa Sigma at whatever GPA and the trend was to jump up a full 1.0, we could claim that Kappa Sigma is an organization that is relevant to college life because it improves scholarship.
However, if we just recruit high GPA people, we are kind of making a false claim. We are claiming credit for what already exists. That would make us more an honor society, than a social/service group.
However, a lot of people are very sensitive to outside scrutiny and they believe that it enhances the prestige of their chapter/organization by having a higher a GPA. And the easiest way to do that is to just arbitraily eliminate people with a low GPA.
I guess it makes us feel better than others. A common human trait.
Sorry to ramble, my blood sugar is crashing.
Quote:
Originally posted by LB1914
I'm sorry if it seems like I am rambling about this, but this is one of my pet peeves about Greekdom.
|