Moreover, you assume that professors have wide choice in what/how they teach and grade, whereas many are coming under the same pressure to pass students that has done so much to destroy K-12 education.

Most all form of judging are artificial, in as much as they are subjective and based on the MAP of those judging.

The answer to ‘are you a good student’ isn’t anymore objective than ‘are you a good Christian’ and I’m sure I don’t have to spell out how subjective that answer is!

Of course ‘well-rounded’ graduates are a plus, but, again, well-rounded carries a strongly subjective definition.

Companies often prefer people who were involved in outside activities for no other reason than that they play well with others.

First, I think you’re really right. I think the hiring process has evolved to make things like GPA top importance, not the underlying behaviors, work ethic, etc of the employee in question. In other words, it feels like the hiring proces can often be based on artificial things… things that often look great on paper but don’t transfer to, you know, real work/ideas.

Secondly, I think the question begs asking: where is that importance for surface level things being founded? This certainly isn’t the end all be all statement, but: many parts of college grades are terribly artificial. Plenty of the courses I took in college that I got A’s and B’s in, I knew I hadn’t really learned much. Some of the courses I got C’s in I felt had really taught me a lot and were valuable. And, honestly, many of the best lessons learned can’t be quantified within a GPA or test score. I think as long as GPA and scores are what employers reward, that’s what college students will do – they’ll get good grades, even if that doesn’t always mean being as well-rounded or learning as much outside the classroom. And that’s what employers will get. I guess it just comes down to the fact that there’s a lot more to a person than a number.