Overachievers and 4.0s
The two seem like they might be mutually exclusive, don't they?
Managing to get through four years of high school or college with a flawless GPA of 4.0 is an accomplishment. There's no doubt in my mind about that. Someone who works that hard to pull that off is definitely an achiever.
But an overachiever? I'm not convinced.
At the heart of the GPA (or SAT/ACT scores, for that matter) is the term standardization. I don't think there's anything wrong with standardized tests, but the education of the individual suffers when standardized tests become the focus of the educational process instead of merely a benchmark. And even in the best case scenario, when they are used only as benchmarks, there's a limit to what they can measure. They are quantities, not qualities...the only quality of an individual that good test scores offer is that they've figured out how to play the game.
Is that the person you want to hire? The individual who will never initiate or innovate, but follow orders? The person who will figure out what you want to hear and then tell it to you? The person who figures out how the system works and then games it, instead of trying to re-invent the system or re-write the rules? If the answer is yes, what kind of company are you running?
I don't cling to personal vendettas, but in my time at college, there were three separate classes where I would, on occasion, challenge the professor and what they were telling us. They hated me for it. And I'm pretty sure that the grades I got in those classes reflected the fact that I was being a big pain in the butt. The people who got 4.0s in the class were jotting down notes and spewing back the same information at the professor via tests and essays.
Yes, I'm probably a little more difficult to manage. (But to my credit, I don't engage in workplace gossip.)
I'm not claiming I'm an overachiever, because I'm my own worst flatterer. What I think is that overachieving is a process, not an event, and an overachiever is someone who lives that process. You strive not to follow in the footsteps of those who came before you, not to follow the map they hand you when you enroll in college classes, but to create your own map that will lead you someplace new.
If you're a student, shoot for the 4.0, by all means, because it can't possibly hurt you in the long run. There will never be a shortage of employers anxious to swoop in and give you a salary to do exactly what they tell you. But if you're sifting through a stack of resumes as a hiring manager, don't look at the 4.0s...look at those who fell short, and try to determine why they fell short. There's might be an interesting story to be heard.
Managing to get through four years of high school or college with a flawless GPA of 4.0 is an accomplishment. There's no doubt in my mind about that. Someone who works that hard to pull that off is definitely an achiever.
But an overachiever? I'm not convinced.
At the heart of the GPA (or SAT/ACT scores, for that matter) is the term standardization. I don't think there's anything wrong with standardized tests, but the education of the individual suffers when standardized tests become the focus of the educational process instead of merely a benchmark. And even in the best case scenario, when they are used only as benchmarks, there's a limit to what they can measure. They are quantities, not qualities...the only quality of an individual that good test scores offer is that they've figured out how to play the game.
Is that the person you want to hire? The individual who will never initiate or innovate, but follow orders? The person who will figure out what you want to hear and then tell it to you? The person who figures out how the system works and then games it, instead of trying to re-invent the system or re-write the rules? If the answer is yes, what kind of company are you running?
I don't cling to personal vendettas, but in my time at college, there were three separate classes where I would, on occasion, challenge the professor and what they were telling us. They hated me for it. And I'm pretty sure that the grades I got in those classes reflected the fact that I was being a big pain in the butt. The people who got 4.0s in the class were jotting down notes and spewing back the same information at the professor via tests and essays.
Yes, I'm probably a little more difficult to manage. (But to my credit, I don't engage in workplace gossip.)
I'm not claiming I'm an overachiever, because I'm my own worst flatterer. What I think is that overachieving is a process, not an event, and an overachiever is someone who lives that process. You strive not to follow in the footsteps of those who came before you, not to follow the map they hand you when you enroll in college classes, but to create your own map that will lead you someplace new.
If you're a student, shoot for the 4.0, by all means, because it can't possibly hurt you in the long run. There will never be a shortage of employers anxious to swoop in and give you a salary to do exactly what they tell you. But if you're sifting through a stack of resumes as a hiring manager, don't look at the 4.0s...look at those who fell short, and try to determine why they fell short. There's might be an interesting story to be heard.