<p>
</p>
<p>Not to get into a “prestige-match” but GATech is pretty strong school though I fundamentally believe there is very little discrepancies within the top engineering programs. Anyway, regardless of your institution if you work hard and are at the top of your class, you’ll be rewarded.</p>
<p>If it’s ABET-accredited, then it’s all the same at the undergrad level.</p>
<p>I do not disagree with you, nshah. GATech is highly regarded, but the argument here is prestige, not value of the education. I probably would have gone to GT if it wasn’t in the south 
In terms of prestige, however, GATech is not CalTech, MIT, nor Stanford. The school is tough, but a low{er} (and I do mean lower but not LOW) GPA at GT is not as forgiving is it would be at MIT or CalTech. </p>
<p>I do not like the sense of entitlement the OP seems to convey for going to GT. It’s not only silly, but it’s insulting for the OP to think that a 2.75 for GT would trump a 3.55 from a lesser-known program such as Brooklyn Poly or Stevens. Few schools are that prestigious. I’d go so far as to say none are. In terms of getting a cool offer, a higher GPA, and a shown mastery/understanding of the material are the requisites. 2.75 from GT beats a 2.0 from MIT, but a 2.75 from MIT beats a 2.75 from GT, all other things equal.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think comparing schools once you get to that caliber is comparing apples to oranges and is quite silly.</p>
<p>I never said that a 2.75 georgia tech would trump another school with a 3.55 (although it might with other things considered) but it might take the same amount of effort considering rigor.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And that is where your thinking is fundamentally flawed.</p>
<p>That might be true if you are talking about ITT Tech or something, but any actual engineering program from a decent school is going to be rigorous. Period. They still have the same material that is covered if it is ABET accredited, so I fail to see how learning the Navier-Stokes equations or Gauss’s Law or something is harder at Georgia Tech than it is at Big State U, or how that is easier than doing it at MIT. More renowned professors teaching it to you, but it is still the same material, and I am not about to believe that EVERY professor at [insert school here] is harder than every professor at [insert less prestigious school here]. It just doesn’t work that way.</p>
<p>It appears to me that a high GPA from that prestigious U might look good on paper, but if that is all that is on that paper (no internships/job experience, research, significant eng related ECs), then just how impressive can it be? Seems to me that there needs to be something more than just a high GPA–I doubt that it will be the golden ticket just because of prestige of the U w/o some of the aforementioned items.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If my thinking is flawed, yours is also though. You’re basically saying that all schools are of the same difficulty, which is not the case especially in my situation. I’m not about to come on here and toot my horn that Georgia Tech is better than everyone else but if you say all schools are the same I have to disagree.</p>
<p>You can say all you want that you’re learning the same material, but at Georgia Tech you’re playing one two fronts. One is the beating the grading curve and one is actually learning. The first one taking precedence over the second.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I only included GPA in the original post for simplicity’s sake. I wanted to know what kind of disparity there would be in jobs if I got a high gpa and also other things would would boost my resume versus a substandard one. In other words what does this golden ticket mean…higher salary, more job satisfaction, fulfillment, just more options or what…I want to know what is on the other end. And yes I have a deep love for learning and I would never question putting forth my best effort to receive an education.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The obvious argument here is that you may actually be learning less than your peers at less prestigious schools while also maintaining a lower GPA. Interesting as it is, I actually might agree with this.</p>
<p>In any case, the bottom line is that GPA does matter, even at MIT. There was a thread on here recently about someone who had a number of complaints about this, and never seemed to come to terms with it. </p>
<p>Keep your GPA as high as you can within reason. Dont forgo your entire college experience to gain an extra point but if you get too much lower than a 3.0 your job offers will suffer, fair or not. If you have between a 3.0-3.3ish and youre shooting for the top jobs, you better have quite a few other things that stand out about you. >3.5 and someone might give you a chance even if you lack in some other areas. 2.5 and you can still find a job, but it wont be one the ones you seem to be interested in.</p>
<p>I think you should just aim for a 2.5 and not worry. Because everybody gets a job. This is where I exclude what type of job you end up with.</p>
<p>I wonder what people really mean when they say “GPA x at University A is equal to GPA y at University B”.</p>
<p>The only way I see this happening is by comparing standardized test scores for major disciplines. Something like GRE subject tests, or something. Then individuals’ GPAs could be modified by that information (perhaps by multiplying by the school’s average score on the test).</p>
<p>If people mean that at University A people learn y/x more than at University B (assume y > x), I take issue with this when y/x > 3/2. Please, going to MIT doesn’t mean you learn 50% more than somebody going somewhere else.</p>
<p>Let’s be honest, the major difference between going to MIT and going to State U is that the professors are going to be much more renowned, the fact that most of your classmates are extreme top-tier students (at least when they were in high school) and you get to say you went to MIT.</p>
<p>This means that while someone at MIT very well might learn 50% more than someone at State U because they learned from some very cutting edge professors,but it very well might be the case that someone at State U learns 50% more than someone at MIT as well because they weren’t so preoccupied with trying to beat out their peers. It is a two way street.</p>
<p>Some of the best engineers I have known and worked with have come from some relatively unknown schools (like Toledo for example), while I have also worked with some people from highly ranked schools (including Ga Tech) that were just overall very bad engineers. Really, regardless of where you go, you get out of your education what you put into it.</p>
<p>Most employers recognize this fact, and so regardless of your GPA and your school, ultimately, it comes down to a person-by-person basis. There is no magic ticket. There could be a 3.3 guy at GT who, after the interview, gets hired over a 3.8 guy simply because the interpersonal skills were there, the enthusiasm was there, or the experiences were there. On the other hand, a 2.75 from ANY institution is going to be low enough that it would be harder to get that initial interview in the first place without connections or some other insane qualifications on your resume. If I was hiring someone and I had an interview with them and they seemed brilliant in talking to them but had a 2.75 GPA, my first thought would be they don’t apply themselves and I would still be a little hesitant about taking a chance on them. In other words, to the OP, don’t sacrifice your life for that 3.9, but you really should try and keep above a 3.0. There is really no reason that you can’t.</p>
<p>OK guys, thanks for the pep talk, I’ll try to keep it above a 3.0</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Aim higher as long as it doesn’t completely kill you.</p>
<p>Since 3.0 is deans list, I think it’s a safe bet.</p>
<p>And, not to stray off-topic, our student has had one prospective employer compare SAT scores to GPA with regards to employment. Go figure!</p>
<p>SAT scores? Really? That is absolutely ridiculous to base employment on a test that someone took at least 4 years ago!</p>
<p>That is exactly what we thought when we found out about it! Numbers do not mean everything, as one previous poster pointed out…“there is no magic ticket” or number!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That is the single biggest fallacy on this website. ABET sets a minimum requirement for classes. That does not mean that a student at Lamar University is getting the same material as a student at MIT.</p>
<p>Several months back, someone on here pulled syllabi and compared the same classes at a Tier 1A school covered 25% more material on average than a Tier 1B school. I believe the comparison was GT and Texas A&M for EE.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Some organizations and companies try to triangulate IQ using SAT as one indicator (usually in conjunction with an in-house test and something else, like a GRE score).</p>