> 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".
> 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.
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.
> 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.
>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.
> 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.
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?
I would do better, and point you to the EEOC page covering the applicable regulatory and statute law, which also includes citation to some relevant cases, and entirely supports my description of the disparate impact standards, but since you cited the exact source I would cite, I'll instead just note that our disagreement isn't about authority, it is about application.
> Griggs v. Duke Power is what most people claim makes IQ tests not legal, but that's not what the case was about.
Correct, it is instead the case that laid out the standards I articulated for disparate impact.
> Intelligence is not a protected class.
IQ is differently distributed with regard to a number of protected classes (race is most often noted, but gender also, and if using the same test rather than an age-normed test, also age; probably ethnicity, religion, and national origin, too, but statistics on that are harder to find), so virtually any use of IQ tests (or any criteria that very closely correlates with IQ) is almost certainly going to meet the adverse impact prong of disparate impact analysis, requiring the employer to prove business necessity. (This was exactly the issue in Duke Power, which founnd IQ testing unlawful in the particular circumstances because of the absence of proof of business necessity.)
> Here's the EEOC list of allowed testing.
You need to read more carefully, that's not a list of allowed testing, no such thing exists. That page contains a list of examples of forms of testing, none of which are categorically allowed or prohibited. It also lays out the standards for evaluating disparate impact which I outlined
>and entirely supports my description of the disparate impact standards
When it impacts protected classes.
>unlawful in the particular circumstances because of the absence of proof of business necessity
Yep, and we're discussing jobs where IQ correlates to performance, so once again, do you claim in such jobs IQ testing is not legal? All case law I've read supports using IQ or other cognitive testing in such cases. Do you have a case otherwise? If not, then this entire thread is moot.
That’s the theory; in practice hardly anyone does IQ tests, while employers asking for GPA is an extremely common occurrence. What matters for them is not what is legal, but how likely something is going to cause you legal problems.
I was once asked to take an IQ test for a software developer job. I believe it was more of a formality, and they wouldn't tell us our score. I'm not sure it was legal or not, and I was glad to do it.
That being said, in my 20-year career I've never been asked for my GPA. Not once.
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%20...