<p>Yeah, I’ve heard that recommendation before and that could definitely be why (the GPA’s we see are usually high) but we’re generally able to sort out our top candidates without speculating about how low a GPA might be or comparing GPA’s. There are plenty of other things to pay attention to.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Some companies like some of the ones I worked for and the ones who turned my older engineering major cousin with a 2.9999 cumulative GPA used GPA as a proxy for work ethic, consistent reliability, and intellectual capability. </p>
<p>Those with cumulative GPAs below 3.0 were perceived as lacking those qualities and thus, not worth taking a risk on.</p>
<p>
Not necessarily. There’s a GPA and then there’s a GPA. Aside from the obvious disparity of GPA between different colleges, there’s usually a disparity even within a college of the GPA based on major and then there’s an individual disparity based on the specific courses one took. For example, if someone decided to take a chemistry minor while pursuing an engineering degree, simply because they’re interested in chemistry, it can easily cause a GPA hit compared with another student who took the same major but no minor or an easy minor. I’d likely think higher of the student with a 2.8 who took a very challenging course load than a student with a 3.2 of the same major who took the minimum of challenges they could get away with.</p>
<p>It’s not so black and white and the GPA can be misleading.</p>
<p>And speaking of GPA - there’s always ‘overall GPA’ and then ‘major GPA’.</p>
<p>bovertine - If all you look for is passing your tech test then applicants really wouldn’t need a college degree. On the other hand, I think technical aptitude is just one aspect of someone’s qualifications.</p>
<p>We also interview. And check references and internships and experience. Like any other employer. We just don’t care about Gpa. It works for us.</p>
<p>Also besides the major gpa/non-major gpa, some colleges use the "+/- " grading system and other’s don’t which could really affect gpa’s. Both my kids went to instate big public u’s. S1’s school used +/- grading. S2’s school did not. That could make a considerable gpa difference over four years but you can’t put that on your resume’.</p>
<p>BTw People need a college degree to work for us because we testify as experts often. Ultimately our hope is they will become licensed engineers and it is very difficult for them to do that without a degree.
Plus we just set that as a threshold. So I guess technically we have a minimum gpa requirement of whatever it takes to earn a degree. Beyond that we don’t check.</p>
<p>
After my lousy first 2 years I was only able to raise my overall GPA to 3.0 (OK 2.98) … however my GPA in my major was in the 3.7-3.8 range … and I believe that carried the day for me.</p>
<p>[url=<a href=“http://www.gradeinflation.com%5DNational”>http://www.gradeinflation.com]National</a> Trends in Grade Inflation, American Colleges and Universities<a href=“list%20of%20schools%20at%20the%20bottom”>/url</a> can give you an idea of what a typical GPA is.</p>
<p>I must say I am thrilled with my son’s GPA, which is just a smidge higher than 2.5. </p>
<p>My husband, who is one of the brightest most successful people I know, finished his freshman year lower than a 2.5.</p>
<p>2.5 cutoff for hiring is arbitrary and does not consider numerous other factors. Just one example is extensive work history that is relevant for your job opp. I am a little confused about the benefits of taking an all or nothing approach to screening for hires.</p>
<p>Most new grads wouldn’t have extensive work history. The only credential they have are their GPA and relevant courses taken. I don’t think any employer would view GPA as the only criteria for new grads, but it is a good benchmark for the first screening. One could have the best personality, but if you couldn’t get an interview then it is hard for that personality to come through. Even if an employer gives technical test, why would they give that test to hundreds of applicants, I would think it would be more targeted to applicants with potential.</p>
<p>Agreed. But GPA does not tell the whole story. I am not trying to convince you - only share my opinion. Hiring managers in my company struggle to deliver candidates who are successful in the real world. I agree that “soft skills” are important - in my world they are most important in dealing with clients - and difficult to screen on paper. But there are signs that we look for - and over time we have improved the track record for new hires based on “fit”. Oh, and I interview lots of kids with significant (judgement call) real world experience through internships, research and summer/campus jobs.</p>
<p>
Not our experience. Not extensive, but enough to make an evaluation.
So what else do you use if you never encounter folks with enough experience? How do you decide between that elite pool your HR computer spits out for you? </p>
<p>
Why not? We have no problem. We want people who are technically knowledgeable in the skill set we want… We don’t delegate the decision over who is technically adept to the schools. We have seen many folks with high GPAs who don’t have the chops, and do poorly on our exam. They managed to get high GPAs by getting access to old exams, or searching out easy teachers, or maybe they knew the stuff really well when they were in school but weren’t really interested enough to remember any of it. Or maybe they are really brainy and accomplished in something we don’t care about. Who knows? </p>
<p>But that’s beside the point, I don’t get why you care. You hire people the way you want, we’ll hire people the way we choose. Maybe your way is better. I don’t know.
I am merely stating a fact that there are many places you can get a job that don’t care much if at all about your GPA. You should be really happy. You are getting all the smartest workers because we don’t care.</p>
<p>bovertine - I don’t care how your firm does it. I am offering my point of view on how my firm(s) do hiring, just like you are. Most readers will need to decide for themselves what’s more relevant for them. I thought that’s what CC is all about, everyone posting their own experience. I certainly don’t have any insight to your company. Not quite sure of your hostility. </p>
<p>BTW - I don’t believe students can get high GPA just by memorization or taking easy courses, at least not at credible colleges.</p>
<p>
It appears trade schools maybe more appropriate for your firm. My firm’s programming language is not taught at most UG or any where. We tend to look for applicants who have aptitude to learn.</p>
<p>
Not quite sure where you get the idea I am hostile.</p>
<p>
No, you are asking why we don’t do it your way. For example -
</p>
<p>Maybe you are right. That’s just not the way we do it. It has worked out fine so far.</p>
<p>
You have a pretty narrow view of what a skill set is. Maybe they should have a trade school for pre-meds instead of the MCAT, or for pre-law instead of an LSAT. I think even McKinsey gives a test, although I’m sure they also care about GPA (and school). By that logic they should hire from trade school.</p>
<p>We give a basic “engineering aptitude” test similar to the Fundamentals of Engineering Exam given to folks wishing to become state licensed engineers. A little harder and more targeted. We don’t test specific “languages” , we test for general math, science, and engineering knowledge and skills, and the ability to interpret cases and codes. </p>
<p>Oh, and there you go again telling us how we should do things. I thought you were just stating facts about your own practices without an opinion on other folks practices?</p>
<p>Just as many colleges take a holistic view of admissions - I think it is wise to take a holistic view for hiring. That’s all - simple as that.</p>
<p>Colleges that take a holistic view of admissions also have minimum requirements before an applicant could have a seat at the table to be reviewed.</p>
<p>
Out of curiosity, what’s the correlation between someone’s test result vs GPA? Many finance firms also do require their analysts to pass certain exams, and they do find applicants with higher GPA are more likely to pass those exams.</p>
<p>We often talk about good SAT/ACT do not compensate for someone’s poor GPA. I wonder why.</p>
<p>
I only have a general idea because as I said, we don’t require GPA to take the exam, so I really only know about the people we hire and a few applicants I know personally. In general I would say that the higher GPAs from the stronger schools score better on the exam.</p>
<p>But we have had folks with low GPAs score very well on the test and become excellent employees. Some of our best. And they might have missed a GPA cutoff. And we instituted the exam because of a couple folks from very reputable schools who looked very good on paper but had little real aptitude and worse yet almost zero interest in what we do. We are generalist engineers in the energy industry, you have to actually be interested in it and do a lot of personal research and study often in fields not specifically related to your major field. </p>
<p>The type of person who skipped some GE class and bombed the exam because they were tinkering with some self-designed home automation might do better for us than the person who felt they had to get an A in every course. I don’t know. But yes, I assume better GPAs typically score better on the test.</p>
<p>Plus you have to write well (we have a written exercise prior to actual hiring), and communicate well because we have to testify to lay people in court. Our process is one that seems to work. </p>
<p>Of course, we could always decide GPA is important in the future. But that doesn’t mean that there still won’t be people who don’t care about it. Plus, don’t forget that not everyone can even hire a person with a high GPA even if they want to. We might even have a hard time attracting those people if we set that criteria. They all seem to want to work for Apple.</p>
<p>We get thousands of resumes for every position we need to fill at both the undergrad and Master’s level. Thousands. So we could arbitrarily decide that we’re not hiring anyone whose last name begins with a B. Or not hiring anyone who went to school in California. Or some such cut.</p>
<p>But we don’t. We use GPA as a first screen cut. It may or may not be arbitrary; it may or may not be fair; it may or may not eliminate a lot of great employees for us. But at a minimum, it is logically defensible-- “kids who have a 2.3 didn’t have grades as high as kids with a 3.5”. Hard to argue the facts in evidence. Whether or not you agree with how we cut the pipeline is irrelevant-- what we do is legal (we are not systematically excluding a particular demographic or ethnic group), quick, and cheap.</p>
<p>Since we still end up with thousands and thousands of resumes it’s not like we’ve winnowed the hiring pool to a trickle.</p>