I completely agree with the example you provided KaiRu. As for differentiating millions of applicants, they can hit on research experience, strength of recommendations, and if they are interested in GPA (which is to be so), it'd be better to evaluate the relevant subjects scores and not the ones that push GPA down to hell. For example, if we have 2 applicants with scores:
Applicant 1: A+,A+,A+, A, A ... in math-based (relevant) subjects and D, C, C, C-,B- ... in "anti-math" subjects.
Applicant 2: D, D-, C+, D+ C+.. in math based subjects and A++++++++++++s in non-math ones.
Provided that the second GPA is much higher. Which one would you choose? The first one obviously right?!
I know that GPA is not the only indicator but I don't agree with the following statement and I'll say why
GPA is great indicator of commitment and overall level for recent graduates.
First, I don't know what you mean in recent graduates. I think you express the idea that recent graduates are more or less similar in all other evaluation criteria so GPA is one more tool for differentiating. Second of all, I have experience with students and what I see is people with high motivation, great minds, one cannot state mathematical problem they can't solve, they are studding much in summer, winter holidays, their only entertaining facility is math, but if you look at their GPAs you'll probably have a heart attack. Since all the non-technical subjects are destroying their GPAs. So I prefer people with one concrete direction of interest rather than studding everything well. When I begin to study a lesson from non-math subject (from the school age) I need at least 1-2 hours sitting with book and looking at the first page and getting psychologically prepared to start. And the thing is that these subjects are not going to be used ever at work.
Regards