One of the most irritating viral statements that I have been seeing since I was in high school is: "A 2.0 student can know more than a 4.0 student. Grades don't determine intelligence, they test obedience."

There are countless studies and arguments against grades, and I am fully aware that the grading system is a flawed, necessary evil in schools. Peter Kaufman, a professor of sociology at the State University of New York states, "according Howard Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences there are at least five other types of intelligence: musical, bodily (kinesthetic), spatial, interpersonal, and intrapersonal. As we all know, most of these other forms of intelligence will not get you a place on the honor roll. Despite the flawed system of grading, and the fact that there are many more ways to determine intelligence, grades should not be taken lightly.

I find the argument that a 2.0 student can know more than a 4.0 student to be completely ridiculous. A student with a 2.0 grade point average is earning C grades in every single class. Granted, an extremely intelligent person could have not tried for a semester and done poorly in every class. Even so, the argument that a straight C student still knows more is ludicrous, and to say that it's wrong to obey what a teacher says is important to know simply makes no sense.

In a general college class, there is no possible way that someone who earns a C could know more about the subject matter than someone who earns an A. The aforementioned statement is something that students use as an excuse to be lazy, uninspired students and not spend enough time learning what they are spending thousands of dollars to be taught. That is not to say that everyone who does not get exceptional grades are poor students. However, I think that most college students would agree with me when I say that we would all have better grades if we spent more time studying and preparing for tests.

Do grades even matter after graduation? It is safe to say that employers care more about work experience, and how well interviews go, than college GPAs. However, employers are still usually forced to consider objective details when screening job candidates. They often find it safer to assume that applicants with great grades are more organized, harder working, and learned more about the job field while in school than those with average grades. The argument is often made that employers are not going to care what a graduate's grades were in many general education, entry-level classes. This is mostly true. However, they are also seen as accurate representations of an applicant's ability to learn and retain lots of new information in a short amount of time, which is critical when starting a new job.

Without a doubt, the grading system at a vast majority of universities is flawed. Despite this, it is inaccurate to state that grades do not determine how much a student knows about class subject matter. While employers care much more about qualifications other than grades, earning better ones will do nothing, but strengthen a resumé. College students: rather than making excuses about the flaws of our grading system, accept it for what it is. Be passionate about the classes you choose to take, and find the determination to retain what professors say is important to know. If that is accomplished, then better grades will come with it in the end.