Letters to the Editor
-
Indeed, why bother?
Having gone to a run-of-the-mill state university (UW-Eau Claire, if you must know), I'll gladly add an "Amen" to the young man's sentiment as to the relative non-difference between an A and a B. For all but the cream of the crop (and those attending more prestigious universities or those who aspire to post-graduate study), the difference between a 3.50 and a 3.00 grade point average is pretty minor.
In fact, I know that many employers shun the uber-achievers. A candidate with a 4.0 average is just as likely to be seen as inflexible and incapable of dealing with failure as someone who might have struggled a bit early in college but managed to graduate with moderate success. One of my former colleagues who was active in recruiting recent grads (for a successful company that competed strongly for top-notch grads) would gather up all the 4.0 GPA resumes and promptly throw them all in the trash. Male or female, for that matter.
Why the difference between male and female students, though? I'm sure there's a myriad of reasons, but somehow I doubt there's an overarching sense of "male entitlement" involved. I didn't give much of a rip about getting straight A's (same as many of my classmates), and the thought of "I'm a guy, so I don't have to try as hard" never once popped into my head.
I think feminism, in its myriad forms, has taught many young women that they need to work a lot harder to get ahead. Sadly, in this male-dominated society, this is probably still true. But the fact that young men don't feel the need to run just as fast on the gerbil wheel is hardly a harbinger of doom. It's just that not nearly as many people are drumming into their heads that a 3.75 GPA won't quite cut it.
And perhaps (hopefully) in the long run this trend in female over-achievement will help balance out our society's patriarchal bent. Alas, my guess is that it'll just churn out more masculine-thinking, must-win women.