Higher GPA

[parhodox_sigma]

Originally posted by jubilance1922
Sorors, I really don't agree with raising the minimum gpa to 3.0. Why? Because I would not have made it!

When I was pursuing membership into Sigma, I had a 2.8 gpa as a chemistry major. I was also a regional officer for NSBE, an officer in the chemistry fraternity, and working 2 jobs for a total of 40 hours/week working. Even though my gpa was a 2.8, it didn't mean that I was just sitting around doing nothing. I was very involved and plus I had to hustle to get the money to pay tuition (and my fees as well!)

I think that raising the gpa to 3.0 will make a lot of quality women who want to give to our sisterhood ineligible. We should be after quality women, but gpa isn't always an indication of that.

Sorhor I agree with you. I came in with a 2.8 and I'm a civil eng. major. Not excusing anything, but I didn't take regular freshmen classes, I'm taking Calc 1, 2, and 3, physics 1 and 2, and anything else that has to do with my major, while other freshmen are taking English, and Phy Ed. So you need to take in account of the type of classes they are taking. Cause I know my freshmen year I was alsways studying and didn't go anywhere. So to say that 2. whatever isn't good, you need to look at the big pic. and see the type of classes they are taking.

[TRSimon]

Originally posted by jubilance1922
Sorors, I really don't agree with raising the minimum gpa to 3.0. Why? Because I would not have made it!

When I was pursuing membership into Sigma, I had a 2.8 gpa as a chemistry major. I was also a regional officer for NSBE, an officer in the chemistry fraternity, and working 2 jobs for a total of 40 hours/week working. Even though my gpa was a 2.8, it didn't mean that I was just sitting around doing nothing. I was very involved and plus I had to hustle to get the money to pay tuition (and my fees as well!)

I think that raising the gpa to 3.0 will make a lot of quality women who want to give to our sisterhood ineligible. We should be after quality women, but gpa isn't always an indication of that.

Soror, I agree that GPA is not always an indication of quality, but if someone truly wants to join Sigma or any other organization, she will not let the GPA requirement stop her. I have known several NPHC members who kept trying until their GPAs/community service/finances were what Sigma and their other orgs of choice called for.

We (Sigma Gamma Rho Sorority, Inc.) are founded on scholarship and high scholastic attainment. I say that if we have sorors who have those low GPAs, we should do what we can to help them as we are our sisters' keepers, but we should not keep the bar low.

[jubilance1922]

Originally posted by TRSimon
Soror, I agree that GPA is not always an indication of quality, but if someone truly wants to join Sigma or any other organization, she will not let the GPA requirement stop her. I have known several NPHC members who kept trying until their GPAs/community service/finances were what Sigma and their other orgs of choice called for.

We (Sigma Gamma Rho Sorority, Inc.) are founded on scholarship and high scholastic attainment. I say that if we have sorors who have those low GPAs, we should do what we can to help them as we are our sisters' keepers, but we should not keep the bar low.

Well soror, I respectfully disagree. I do not consider my GPA to be low. I am in a very demanding program at one of the top research institutions in the country, and in the fall, I will be pursuing my PhD in chemistry at one of the nation's premier institutions. I'm saying that to demonstrate that a 2.8 is NOT low - in fact, compared to others in my program, its pretty high.

I'm not saying take a young woman with a 1.5 or 2.0 even, but making the requirement 3.0? I personally think we will be shooting ourselves in the foot. While GPA is somewhat important, it is not an absolute indication of a person's work ethic, drive, or intelligence. I could have had a 4.0 if I majored in something that came easier to me. Yet I went to something that challenged me and make me work hard, and as a result, I wasn't perfect. But I learned a ton about myself as a person, and I think that's the type of quality woman we want to attract to Sigma.

[TRSimon]

Originally posted by jubilance1922
Well soror, I respectfully disagree. I do not consider my GPA to be low. I am in a very demanding program at one of the top research institutions in the country, and in the fall, I will be pursuing my PhD in chemistry at one of the nation's premier institutions. I'm saying that to demonstrate that a 2.8 is NOT low - in fact, compared to others in my program, its pretty high.

I'm not saying take a young woman with a 1.5 or 2.0 even, but making the requirement 3.0? I personally think we will be shooting ourselves in the foot. While GPA is somewhat important, it is not an absolute indication of a person's work ethic, drive, or intelligence. I could have had a 4.0 if I majored in something that came easier to me. Yet I went to something that challenged me and make me work hard, and as a result, I wasn't perfect. But I learned a ton about myself as a person, and I think that's the type of quality woman we want to attract to Sigma.

on your accomplishments.

[PrettyPoodle95]

Originally posted by James
Sorry to crash your thread . . well not really

I think the people that commented that excellence is not solely a GPA issue are on the right track.

Sometimes we forget that some of he most successful people in the world didn't have the best GPA's in school. GPA is a singular measure of worth.

THANK YOU!!! GPA is not everything. I know many Sorors who came in with just a 2.5. Does this make them work for Sigma any less? Does it make them unsuccessful? Does it hinder them from moving on to grad school and graduating and becoming successful in life, no? Just because you may have been able to achieve high GPA's doesn't mean that those who didn't are not worthy to be in our organizations. Now if the person has a low GPA because they were lazy and never went to class, that is a different story. We need to look at these people overall! Everyone is just not a good student, meaning they could be bad test takers, they could have ADD or other factors. I personally was a horrible student in undergrad and am currently in graduate school. Just because my GPA was low didn’t mean I didn’t work hard for SIGMA. But those who inducted me could see the whole me and not just my GPA. I became Basileus of my chapter not even a year after I came in and held that position for 2 years. Did my GPA affect my ability to move SIGMA forward? NO! This is a sensitive issue for me because I think we put to much emphasis on GPA and not the person as a whole. Do we look at what circumstances caused a person to just have a 2.5 or a 2.7? I am not saying that we should be accepting people with 1.9's no, but we need to look at the person as a whole.

[LB1914]

My best friend, who ended up being one of the hardest-working people in his chapter, had roughly a 2.6 when he crossed. Conversely, there were people that came in with him that had GPAs over 3.0 that were nowhere to be found. They were focused on their books(which was a good thing), but outside of class they didn't do anything besides sleep or play video games.

I personally wouldn't want anyone that had like a 2.0, but I don't see any issue with sticking with 2.5 and above. You have to look at the whole individual when you are measuring a candidate's worth. That person with the 2.8 may have done poorly in a previous major and may now have over a 3.0 in their current major. At the same time, the person with the 3.8 may be in something like American Studies or Recreation and may not be as "smart" as their GPA would lead you to believe.

I have seen some NPHC chapters personally ask for higher GPAs than what their National standards or even their university asks for, but if they want to pass up what could be quality members that is their loss. A person could have looked at me back and undergrad and said, "Oh, he's not much. He barely has over a 2.5 and probably won't graduate". Today, I am in an MBA program with aspirations of continuing on to law school. You can't always get the entire picture of an individual just by what is on paper. I knew girls that made the Dean's List every semester that were known campus freaks, so GPA doesn't say much about character, overall work ethic, or that person's long-term potential.

[LB1914]

Msn4med1975 brought up a good point. My ex-wife graduated with a 2.75. That did not raise eyebrows or garner her any accolades. However, she was one of those people that initially chose the wrong major and suffered for it. She tried Engineering, then Computer Science. After getting too many C's and realizing that she was not cut out for those fields, she finally realized that she loved working with children and chose Elementary Education. She had over a 3.0 in her major classes, but since she still had those pesky C's from her previous classes she finished at 2.75. She then went on to get about a 3.92 or so in graduate school(this rat bastard gave her a "B" in her final semester-she had a 4.0 up to that point). Now, if we are using the standard "3.0 or you are not exhibiting scholarship" philosophy, people like her that actually ended up displaying scholarship in the end and becoming productive in their careers would have been deemed too "dumb" to make the cut.

I'm sorry if it seems like I am rambling about this, but this is one of my pet peeves about Greekdom.

[James]

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.

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.

[msn4med1975]

Originally posted by LB1914
Msn4med1975 brought up a good point. My ex-wife graduated with a 2.75. That did not raise eyebrows or garner her any accolades. However, she was one of those people that initially chose the wrong major and suffered for it. She tried Engineering, then Computer Science. After getting too many C's and realizing that she was not cut out for those fields, she finally realized that she loved working with children and chose Elementary Education. She had over a 3.0 in her major classes, but since she still had those pesky C's from her previous classes she finished at 2.75. She then went on to get about a 3.92 or so in graduate school(this rat bastard gave her a "B" in her final semester-she had a 4.0 up to that point). Now, if we are using the standard "3.0 or you are not exhibiting scholarship" philosophy, people like her that actually ended up displaying scholarship in the end and becoming productive in their careers would have been deemed too "dumb" to make the cut.

I'm sorry if it seems like I am rambling about this, but this is one of my pet peeves about Greekdom.

GPA is a sticking point a lot of times and while my issue was major I can see the flip side as well. A good girlfriend of mine also struggled in undergrad but it was because she was lazy. The only time she submitted she barely had the GPA and somewhere between then and graduation it slipped below a 2.5 so she couldn't submit again and right now can't submit on the alumnae level. She's working on an advanced degree (and where this should have been her turnaround point as it is for most people) she continues to struggle because of that laziness. I know once she's done she'll meet requirements for most of our orgs but I can't say right now she'd be an asset to any org NOT just because her GPA is low but because she seems to still want things handed to her instead of working hard to get them.

[SummerChild]

Originally posted by parhodox_sigma
Sorhor I agree with you. I came in with a 2.8 and I'm a civil eng. major. Not excusing anything, but I didn't take regular freshmen classes, I'm taking Calc 1, 2, and 3, physics 1 and 2, and anything else that has to do with my major, while other freshmen are taking English, and Phy Ed. So you need to take in account of the type of classes they are taking. Cause I know my freshmen year I was alsways studying and didn't go anywhere. So to say that 2. whatever isn't good, you need to look at the big pic. and see the type of classes they are taking.

Ladies, I hope that you don't mind me giving my opinion as it relates to my sorority. I would be in favor of the GPA requirement being raised to 3.0. Parhodox_Sigma, I also studied Engineering at the Undergraduate (and graduate) level and although the classes were challenging, I was still able to maintain at minimum a 3.2, graduated with honors and completed graduate school with a 3.4 in Electrical Engineering. It took alot of hard, hard work, staying up all night long many a night, and tapping my resources in the form of other students who better understood what was going on in class and who was willing to study together and do problem sets together. During those days I also balanced leadership positions in campus orgs, etc. Even now, I balance lawschool with community service that I have been doing once a week EVERY WEEK for three years before I became a member of my sorority and now do even more as a sorority member. I say all of that to say that certain majors do require more work and time but I don't think that we can get so caught up in the major that we excuse students who do not exhibit academic excellence.

To me, it's not relative to the major at all. In my opinion, a young woman should exhibit academic excellence, no matter her major. **For me the emphasis is on being excellent in whatever you put your hand to (academics, community service, leadership). ** In my opinion, these are the women that would catch my attention - those who are just the bomb diggity and balance academics, community service, and leadership while still exhibiting class and grace.

Further, if a woman is too busy with her family/ children, etc. and her grades are "lukewarm" (a C average) as a result, then perhaps she should consider waiting b/c it does not seem to me that it would be prudent for her to pile sorority obligations on top of everything else that she is doing given the fact that she's already doing so much that her grades are "lukewarm."

I'm rambling but my point was that I would be in favor of raising the GPA to 3.0. I think that it's safe to say that all of the sororities were founded on academic excellence and I just don't consider a C or C+ average "excellent." I would look for the creme de la creme and if the woman is not, then she should keep working IMO.

SC

[LB1914]

(From the American Heritage Dictionary)

schol-ar-ship(n.)
1. The methods, discipline, and attainments of a scholar or scholars.
2. Knowledge resulting from study and research in a particular field.

schol-ar(n).
1. a .A learned person.
b. A specialist in a given branch of knowledge.
2. One who attends school or studies with a teacher; a student.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I do not see any reference to persons having to maintain Dean's List-status in order to exhibit scholarship.

[jubilance1922]

Originally posted by SummerChild
Ladies, I hope that you don't mind me giving my opinion as it relates to my sorority. I would be in favor of the GPA requirement being raised to 3.0. Parhodox_Sigma, I also studied Engineering at the Undergraduate (and graduate) level and although the classes were challenging, I was still able to maintain at minimum a 3.2, graduated with honors and completed graduate school with a 3.4 in Electrical Engineering. It took alot of hard, hard work, staying up all night long many a night, and tapping my resources in the form of other students who better understood what was going on in class and who was willing to study together and do problem sets together. During those days I also balanced leadership positions in campus orgs, etc. Even now, I balance lawschool with community service that I have been doing once a week EVERY WEEK for three years before I became a member of my sorority and now do even more as a sorority member. I say all of that to say that certain majors do require more work and time but I don't think that we can get so caught up in the major that we excuse students who do not exhibit academic excellence.

To me, it's not relative to the major at all. In my opinion, a young woman should exhibit academic excellence, no matter her major. **For me the emphasis is on being excellent in whatever you put your hand to (academics, community service, leadership). ** In my opinion, these are the women that would catch my attention - those who are just the bomb diggity and balance academics, community service, and leadership while still exhibiting class and grace.

Further, if a woman is too busy with her family/ children, etc. and her grades are "lukewarm" (a C average) as a result, then perhaps she should consider waiting b/c it does not seem to me that it would be prudent for her to pile sorority obligations on top of everything else that she is doing given the fact that she's already doing so much that her grades are "lukewarm."

I'm rambling but my point was that I would be in favor of raising the GPA to 3.0. I think that it's safe to say that all of the sororities were founded on academic excellence and I just don't consider a C or C+ average "excellent." I would look for the creme de la creme and if the woman is not, then she should keep working IMO.

SC

SummerChild,

I applaud you for your efforts. Unfortunately, not everyone can perform at that same level. Am I any less committed to community service? NO. Am I any less committed to sisterhood? NO. Am I any less committed to scholarship? NO, because I'm beginning work on my PhD in the fall. We all know that GPA is really a subjective thing, because all professors (and TAs) grade differently. Also, all institutions are different. I really don't believe that someone with a 2.8 or a 2.9 GPA that is involved in extracurricular activities and the community should be penalized for doing the right things. We say that we want people who are well-rounded, and not just bookworms. Well, being well-rounded comes with a price, because the time you spend at the soup kitchen could have been used at the library. And let's also not forget the people who major in Physical Education or Theatre because its much easier than Chemical Engineering or Pre-med. GPA is simply not a measure of how "scholastic" or "scholarly" a person is.

[TRSimon]

Originally posted by jubilance1922
SummerChild,

I applaud you for your efforts. Unfortunately, not everyone can perform at that same level. Am I any less committed to community service? NO. Am I any less committed to sisterhood? NO. Am I any less committed to scholarship? NO, because I'm beginning work on my PhD in the fall. We all know that GPA is really a subjective thing, because all professors (and TAs) grade differently. Also, all institutions are different. I really don't believe that someone with a 2.8 or a 2.9 GPA that is involved in extracurricular activities and the community should be penalized for doing the right things. We say that we want people who are well-rounded, and not just bookworms. Well, being well-rounded comes with a price, because the time you spend at the soup kitchen could have been used at the library. And let's also not forget the people who major in Physical Education or Theatre because its much easier than Chemical Engineering or Pre-med. GPA is simply not a measure of how "scholastic" or "scholarly" a person is.

Everyone who has a 3.0 or higher is not a physical education taking, bookworm with no life. I know 3.9 gpa MDs (who had lives) who went to the best schools in the nation (Johns Hopkins, Emory, etc.) so it is not impossible to major in science and make good grades.

While scholarship is not defined by any GPA, every student should strive for EXCELLENCE in his or her chosen field. If you're doing that, great, but I think the GPA should be raised.

[SummerChild]

Originally posted by TRSimon
Everyone who has a 3.0 or higher is not a physical education taking, bookworm with no life. I know 3.9 gpa MDs (who had lives) who went to the best schools in the nation (Johns Hopkins, Emory, etc.) so it is not impossible to major in science and make good grades.

While scholarship is not defined by any GPA, every student should strive for EXCELLENCE in his or her chosen field. If you're doing that, great, but I think the GPA should be raised.

Just want to preface this again by saying that I am only speaking for myself and can only speak to my preference for my sorority and that I don't mean to speak for other sororities.

I completely agree with you TRSimon. Yes, all, it is possible to major in a difficult subject, go to a good school and still maintain above a 3.0. I think that sometimes we really sell ourselves short. Further, yes, all of this can be done while being a well-rounded individual, maintaining community service and leadership as well. I'm sure that we all have living proof in each one of our organizations.

Good discussion.

SC

[jubilance1922]

I still maintain that we would be missing out on quality women by raising the GPA requirement. I am very committed to Sigma Gamma Rho, I love my sisterhood, and I work hard for it. I don't think that I'm any less of a soror because my GPA is a 2.8 and my soror's GPA is a 3.5.

I think someone else brought up the good point about changing majors. I ruined my GPA by being in a major that I didn't like and getting C's. Had I started out where I am now, I would have over a 3.0. Should I and others be penalized for that? I think not.