LogFAQs > #914356398

Zeus posted...

Which is the same thing as being more effective.

No, it's one element of effectiveness. Specifically, cost-effectiveness. Most of the time, they don't do the job any faster or more accurately than a human cashier would. They just do the job well enough, such that employing them to cut costs is appealing for managers.

Furthermore, regardless of how we're defining "effective," you need to look at the context. TC suggested that cashiers should operate more effectively in order to avoid being replaced by self-serve ones. Therefore, any facet of effectiveness that a cashier can't improve on (no matter what they do, they're still going to need to eat) is irrelevant. Try to pay attention.

Zeus posted...

"Smart" people who aren't willing to work hard don't exactly bring much value to the table.

And GPA doesn't particularly reflect how willing somebody is to work hard. It mostly just reflects how willing somebody is to put in the required effort to memorize material for a one-time exam, which is a very specific task that they're choosing to work hard on (one whose only reward isn't particularly valuable, no less).

Greenfox111 posted...

yeah group assignments need to go out the window

If you want new professionals to never have had experience working in a group before, sure. You may be surprised to find out, however, that collaborative work is pretty common in most professional fields, and not knowing how to work effectively with other people makes an employee pretty useless.