<p>Is College GPA really important when you apply for an internship or get a job after graduation??</p>
<p>Which one's better?</p>
<p>Going to an ivy and getting a 3.3ish GPA or going to a good but not as tough like NYU and getting a 3.8ish GPA?? </p>
<p>i'm talking about internships in like business area....</p>
<p>and what are some of the internships/businesses that most ppl majoring in economics work for??</p>
<p>I'm not sure why you'd think that Ivy grading is tougher than at a school like NYU. Ivies are known for grade inflation, and to think that you'd do a half a point worse at an Ivy versus NYU is pretty absurd.</p>
<p>Obviously the better your college GPA, the more options you will have. You know the answer is not "no, college GPA is totally unimportant." Go to the best school you can get into and do the best you can. I'm not sure what more there is to say.</p>
<p>All colleges have Latin awards... cum laude, magna, summa. I'm sure those on your resume/transcript would give you a boost after graduation</p>
<p>
[quote]
All colleges have Latin awards... cum laude, magna, summa. I'm sure those on your resume/transcript would give you a boost after graduation
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No, not all have them. And honors are often meaningless without proper context. It was the case at Harvard a couple years ago that 91% of the class got latin honors. And at some schools, you can get honors just by writing a senior thesis or something.</p>
<p>The GPA is going to be more helpful in terms of providing more information.</p>
<p>THat's Harvard, and they've change. Columbia was never like that. Now Harvard and Columbia give Latin Honors to the top 25-30% of the class. Summa cum laude is top 5%, magna is top 5-15, and cum laude is 15-25.</p>
<p>
[quote]
THat's Harvard, and they've change. Columbia was never like that.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>How does this refute my points that 1) not all colleges have latin honors, 2) latin honors are often meaningless without proper context, and 3) you can get honors by writing a senior thesis at some schools?</p>
<p>I work at a large engineering company that likes to hire college graduates from all over the country. It's just like how colleges want diversity, the company I work at want a diverse workforce. It really doesnt matter what school you go to, it's what you did during college. There are 3 factors in determining your salary: your major, your GPA (broken into 3 categories 3.0-3.3, 3.3-3.6, >=3.6), and your interview. The name of the school does not play a role, although it may help you get an interview. A college hire with a 3.6 GPA from a state school will get paid more than a college hire with a 3.5 GPA from at top engineering school like MIT, assuming they majored in the same subject and did equally well on the interview.</p>
<p>Moral of the story here is that yes, GPA is important and to close the thread before 2002 starts getting into arguments.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I'm not sure why you'd think that Ivy grading is tougher than at a school like NYU. Ivies are known for grade inflation, and to think that you'd do a half a point worse at an Ivy versus NYU is pretty absurd.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>grade inflation only goes so far....its all about the competition you are up against...grade inflation doesnt mean noone gets Cs...in most classes they compare you to your peers and your peers will be smarter and/or more competitive at columbia....so yes it is def very possible to get a much lower GPA at columbia than elsewhere in spite of grade inflation. </p>
<p>To OP: you need to figure out whether to go to the best college you can get into or one where you think you will be competitive among ur peers. Its always very hard to determine that and its mostly a guessing game. I dont know very many ppl that turn down top colleges cause they dont think they'r competitive though.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I work at a large engineering company that likes to hire college graduates from all over the country. It's just like how colleges want diversity, the company I work at want a diverse workforce. It really doesnt matter what school you go to, it's what you did during college. There are 3 factors in determining your salary: your major, your GPA (broken into 3 categories 3.0-3.3, 3.3-3.6, >=3.6), and your interview. The name of the school does not play a role, although it may help you get an interview. A college hire with a 3.6 GPA from a state school will get paid more than a college hire with a 3.5 GPA from at top engineering school like MIT, assuming they majored in the same subject and did equally well on the interview.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Are you saying that at your company two people with the same job get paid differently if they have different GPAs? Or even get paid differently if one is a better interviewer than the other? Or do you mean that those are the factors that determine whether you get HIRED (not your salary once you get hired)?</p>
<p>although i'm willing to believe he's telling the truth, i have never heard of such an arrangement before - especially for the first job coming out of college. there, your initial salary offer is essentially bait to try and lure the best applicants to join your firm. so such a policy indicates that a kid with a 3.6 from Northern State is worth more, is more highly prized, than a kid with a 3.5 from Columbia. And I find it hard to believe that, if an HR executive actually thought about such a proposition, they would think that made sense.</p>
<p>My guess is that the guy just used poor language; I don't see why anyone would lie/flame about this. It might make some sense to perhaps give a "signing bonus" to someone who is really desirable, but I can't see gradations made in salary based whether someone interviewed well or not. (Hell, why would you hire someone who interviewed badly?)</p>
<p>I work at Raytheon Integrated Defense Systems in their Missile Defense Center. There is an equation to determine the starting salary of a new college hire, with 3 factors: how well you did during the interview on a scale from 1 to 5, your GPA on a scale from 1 to 3, where the three levels are 3.0-3.3, 3.3-3.6, 3.6-4.0, out of a 4.0 scale, and your major. This equation is applied for new college hires, which is used to distinguish between those that were hired. Obviously, if you did poorly on your interview, you won't be hired. So yes, if two people were hired for the same job, they would be paid differently if one of them has a GPA in a higher bracket regardless of the school. This may not be fair but my guess is that grade inflation and the difficulty of the school is subjective so they can't be measured accurately and used as factor. </p>
<p>I don't believe anyone is "worth more" or is "more highly prized" just because he/she went to an Ivy League school instead of a state school. If you got the interview, that means you're pretty good at what you do. We like to hire from a very broad range of schools. There is never a need to "lure" fresh college graduates because there is such a large supply of them. One Stanford graduate who doesn't accept an offer can easily be replaced by another one from MIT, as Raytheon receives applications from all over the country. It's only the experienced leaders in industry that requires "luring" with large incentives. I would say there are just as many lower tier school new hires as elite school new hires. I'm not trying to say that a good school won't give you an edge. I'm currently working full-time and studying part-time towards a master's degree at Columbia.</p>