I think Brad got a part-time job.

[Mori]

Kai: Hi, it's Kai. Do you have a minute? It's about my best friend Brad. You know him, right?
Winnie: Sure. Is everything OK?
Kai: Yeah. I just feel like we're acquaintances these days.
Winnie: You do? Why?
Kai: He doesn't really call or text me much anymore. His mind seems to be somewhere else, too. The other day...
Winnie: Sorry, but can I interrupt for a second?
Kai: Of course. Go ahead.
Winnie: I think Brad got a part-time job.
Kai: He did? I had no idea.
Winnie: Yeah. I saw him at the coffee shop the other day, but he was working there!
Kai: Oh, I should really be a better friend!

Source: Speak Now 3, Jack C. Richards & David Bohlke, p. 42

Shouldn't it be "I think Brad has gotten (= has obtained) a part-time job"? Using the present perfect tense indicates an action that happened in the past, but continues to have an impact on the present. This directly ties to the reason behind Brad's changed behavior and explains his lack of contact with Kai.

 

[jutfrank]

Shouldn't it be "I think Brad has gotten

That it could be is not to say it should be. But yes, the present perfect would be well justified in this context, for the reason you give.

Of course, if Winnie were to use the present perfect, Kai's response would follow in line:

Winnie: I think Brad has gotten a part-time job.
Kai: He has? I had no idea.

 

[Mori]

That it could be is not to say it should be.

You mean it's not ungrammatical to use the simple past, right?

 

[jutfrank]

No, it isn't ungrammatical.

This has absolutely nothing to do with grammar, by the way. What you're asking is something about which tense/aspect is more appropriate in the given context.

 

[Tarheel]

Well, if they're best friends wouldn't he have told her about the big change?

Perhaps:

Brad got a part-time job. Didn't he tell you?