When developing or evaluating a selection process, it is important to understand why the criteria are what they are. The first question that needs to be asked is the validity of using G.P.A. as a criterion. Is a 2.5 G.P.A. a good predictor of effective performance on the job? Why is 2.5 acceptable, but not 2.3? If challenged, would we be able to provide data to back this up? The three key things for employers to remember in specifying job qualifications such as G.P.A., as with any hiring or employment practice, are: 1) ensuring it is applied consistently; 2) being able to prove that it is job-related; and 3) that it does not result in adverse impact on protected classes. A good guide to use for evaluating the validity of your selection process is the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures. Assuming you have sufficient job-related reasons for the G.P.A. requirement and want to make an exception to the rule, it's important to document, document, document. Document the reason for the exception and articulate that this is a unique exception or change in the standard/minimum qualifications for RAs. It should be documented and clear that the exception or change to the standard is based on job-related business factors. It would be wise to re-post the position with the change in requirement and allow time for other qualified individuals to express interest, including those who may not have applied due to the higher G.P.A. requirement. Also, reach out to campus organizations such as student government, veterans/IWD/minority/women student organizations and resource centers. The campus legal clinic, where many students go for tenant/landlord issues may also be a good option for effective outreach for this type of position.