5 ms·

> In the engineering/academic world, grades do matter and are highly predictive of ability. People with poorer grades often struggle a lot. This is a purely em

> In the engineering/academic world, grades do matter and are highly predictive of ability. People with poorer grades often struggle a lot. This is a purely empirical question to which you seem to have simply assumed an answer. While there are difficulties to studying this question empirically there have been solid studies to this effect. I've seen a few solid survey papers on personnel selection methods; a solid example is Schmidt and Hunter (1998). Schmidt and a couple of others published an updated version of the survey as a working paper in 2016[1], which has a clear section on GPA: > The validity value for grade point average (GPA) in Table 1 is for college and graduate level grade point averages. No estimates are available for high school grade point average, which may have validity higher than the .34 in Table 1. Apparently most of the validity of GPA is captured by GMA, because the incremental validity of GPA is negligible (less than .01). GPA has not been studied in relation to training performance, where its validity might be expected to be higher than the .34 for job performance, because of the strong resemblance between training programs and classroom demands. (GMA in this context is a "general mental ability test"—basically an IQ test.) This observation does not lend much credence to the idea that grades are "highly predictive of ability" or that people with low grades "often struggle a lot". [1]: https://home.ubalt.edu/tmitch/645/articles/2016-100%20Yrs%20Working%20Paper%20for%20Research%20Gate%2010-17.pdf https://home.ubalt.edu/tmitch/645/articles/2016-100%20Yrs%20...

xyzzyz 8y ago
Apparently most of the validity of GPA is captured by GMA, because the incremental validity of GPA is negligible (less than .01). Just because GPA is basically a worse IQ test doesn’t mean that it’s useless. In fact, if you assume that IQ tests are useful in hiring, this actually makes GPA more useful, since US employers can freely use GPA in hiring, while use of IQ is significantly more complicated.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > In fact, if you assume that IQ tests are useful in hiring, this actually makes GPA more useful, since US employers can freely use GPA in hiring, while use of IQ is significantly more complicated. Except that's not at all true of the underlying legal standard, and if GPA is essentially an IQ test, it is illegal in the exact same conditions as IQ tests, and any temporary advantage attend from the fact that plaintiff's lawyers haven't yet recognized that GPA is factually nearly identical to an IQ test, and some employer is going to get a big surprise when they first do realize that.
  - ChrisLomont 8y ago
    >it is illegal in the exact same conditions as IQ tests And IQ tests are legal to give during hiring, in just about any form, if that result correlates to useful for that job. Since we're talking about jobs where IQ/GPA may well correlate to candidate quality for that position, this is not an issue. You have to first show there is no correlation between GPA or IQ and job performance to claim it's not legal.
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      > And IQ tests are legal to give during hiring, in just about any form, if that result correlates to useful for that job No, “correlates to useful” is not the standard; there also needs to not be a less discriminatory alternative available. > You have to first show there is no correlation between GPA or IQ and job performance to claim it's not legal. No, you don't: business necessity is an affirmative defense to disparate impact discrimination claims; once the unequal impact is proven, the challenged employer is required to prove the link to job performance. If they succeed, the challenging party has the burden of showing the existence of a less discriminatory alternative.
      - ChrisLomont 8y ago
        Cite a case. Griggs v. Duke Power is what most people claim makes IQ tests not legal, but that's not what the case was about. It was about discrimination against blacks, which is a legal protected class. Intelligence is not a legal protected class, so this ruling does not impact such tests for general intelligence. >there also needs to not be a less discriminatory alternative available This was to prevent discrimination against blacks (if you're using the case above), not for intelligence. It's perfectly legal to discriminate based on intelligence, however you want to measure it. >once the unequal impact is proven Only against protected classes. Intelligence is not a protected class. Here's [1] the EEOC list of allowed testing. Top of the list is general cognitive tests. So, what case are you basing your claims on? Are you conflating discrimination against a protected class with discrimination against intelligence? [1] https://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/factemployment_procedures.html https://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/factemployment_procedures.h...
sannee 8y ago
> This observation does not lend much credence to the idea that grades are "highly predictive of ability" or that people with low grades "often struggle a lot". The paper does not seem to control for differences between colleges. It's unsurprising that the predictive value of, say, 3.8 GPA would massively differ between individual schools.

xyzzyz 8y ago

Apparently most of the validity of GPA is captured by GMA, because the incremental validity of GPA is negligible (less than .01). Just because GPA is basically a worse IQ test doesn’t mean that it’s useless. In fact, if you assume that IQ tests are useful in hiring, this actually makes GPA more useful, since US employers can freely use GPA in hiring, while use of IQ is significantly more complicated.

dragonwriter 8y ago
> In fact, if you assume that IQ tests are useful in hiring, this actually makes GPA more useful, since US employers can freely use GPA in hiring, while use of IQ is significantly more complicated. Except that's not at all true of the underlying legal standard, and if GPA is essentially an IQ test, it is illegal in the exact same conditions as IQ tests, and any temporary advantage attend from the fact that plaintiff's lawyers haven't yet recognized that GPA is factually nearly identical to an IQ test, and some employer is going to get a big surprise when they first do realize that.
- ChrisLomont 8y ago
  >it is illegal in the exact same conditions as IQ tests And IQ tests are legal to give during hiring, in just about any form, if that result correlates to useful for that job. Since we're talking about jobs where IQ/GPA may well correlate to candidate quality for that position, this is not an issue. You have to first show there is no correlation between GPA or IQ and job performance to claim it's not legal.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > And IQ tests are legal to give during hiring, in just about any form, if that result correlates to useful for that job No, “correlates to useful” is not the standard; there also needs to not be a less discriminatory alternative available. > You have to first show there is no correlation between GPA or IQ and job performance to claim it's not legal. No, you don't: business necessity is an affirmative defense to disparate impact discrimination claims; once the unequal impact is proven, the challenged employer is required to prove the link to job performance. If they succeed, the challenging party has the burden of showing the existence of a less discriminatory alternative.
    - ChrisLomont 8y ago
      Cite a case. Griggs v. Duke Power is what most people claim makes IQ tests not legal, but that's not what the case was about. It was about discrimination against blacks, which is a legal protected class. Intelligence is not a legal protected class, so this ruling does not impact such tests for general intelligence. >there also needs to not be a less discriminatory alternative available This was to prevent discrimination against blacks (if you're using the case above), not for intelligence. It's perfectly legal to discriminate based on intelligence, however you want to measure it. >once the unequal impact is proven Only against protected classes. Intelligence is not a protected class. Here's [1] the EEOC list of allowed testing. Top of the list is general cognitive tests. So, what case are you basing your claims on? Are you conflating discrimination against a protected class with discrimination against intelligence? [1] https://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/factemployment_procedures.html https://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/factemployment_procedures.h...

sannee 8y ago

> This observation does not lend much credence to the idea that grades are "highly predictive of ability" or that people with low grades "often struggle a lot". The paper does not seem to control for differences between colleges. It's unsurprising that the predictive value of, say, 3.8 GPA would massively differ between individual schools.