<p>What are those schools doing? I would be interested to read their position.</p>
<p>^do you mean the schools our DS is applying to?</p>
<p>Yes, how are they telling your DS in reporting his GPA. Are they telling him to report it to the nearest 2 decimal points (doing the normal rounding) or are they telling him to report it to the nearest 1 decimal point and truncating it (or rounding down)?</p>
<p>They haven’t said anything I guess. It is listed as a 3.799 on his transcript so that is what they see. Some of the schools recalculate the GPA anyway. Our school doesn’t weight GPA but these schools convert all A, A- to a 4.0, all B+, B, B- to a 3.0, etc. So by doing that he actually has a 3.9 something so we will see what they give him based on their figures.</p>
<p>It’s not often you actually see what the colleges calculate although with S2 one mentioned it in a letter…that particular college’s GPA calculation was ‘higher’ and it makes sense since it’s to the colleges advantage to report higher GPAs. although the common data set does say on a 4.0 scale…so 3.799 would be 3.8 at the very lowest.</p>
<p>College professor here also. I agree with those who say that a 3.99995 should not be rounded to a 4.0 (UW), or 4.00, or 4.000 . . . However, I don’t see any problem with rounding 3.716 to 3.72. I also don’t see a problem with rounding 3.796 to 3.80. I think listing two places after the decimal point is fairly common.</p>
<p>Incidentally, my high school gave grades in per cents, and for class rank purposes tabulated the averages to four decimal places. So a student might have a 97.6537 average, techically speaking. If anyone listed that on a college application, it would look ridiculous.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sorry, oldfort. We’ll have to agree to disagree on the interpretation of Penn’s website. It clearly states, “…NOT rounded…” with the ‘not’ specifically in caps. (I did not add the caps for emphasis. Penn did.) </p>
<p>I do not know any other way to interpret that directive but to truncate to two decimal places. Taking 3.67 to a 3.7 is “rounding” by any definition. And to my literal reading, that is a no-no.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Me neither. But obviously some do ‘care’ and if the one reading the resume with a ‘discrepancy’ does care…</p>
<p>"There is a difference between 3.66 and 3.67. Get real here people. "</p>
<p>Oldfort, you totally crack me up.</p>
<p>"College professor here also. I agree with those who say that a 3.99995 should not be rounded to a 4.0 (UW), or 4.00, or 4.000 . . . However, I don’t see any problem with rounding 3.716 to 3.72. I also don’t see a problem with rounding 3.796 to 3.80. "</p>
<p>QuantMech, let’s say we are going to report GPA to 2 places after decimal point. Why is rounding 3.716 to 3.72 ok or rounding 3.796 to 3.80 ok, but rounding 3.999 to 4.00 not ok. What is the difference in logic here?</p>
<p>My S’s college truncates to three decimal points on the transcript. It is not rounded. There are several cutoffs that can make a difference to employers, with the most common I have see being a requirement of a 3.0 GPA for many engineering jobs. In engineering, a 2.999 GPA is not a 3.0 GPA and would result in ineligibility for those jobs. I have seen other positions require a 3.2 GPA. I would not assume a 3.199 GPA qualifies. S shows GPA truncated to two decimal points on his resume. </p>
<p>The USA jobs website advises applicants to round to one decimal point, so obviously some take a different approach. In his field, however, every employer, including the USA jobs website, has also asked for the transcript so they will see the GPA carried to three decimals and truncated regardless of the information on the resume.</p>
<p>blubayou - I totally disagree. The reason Penn wants students to show 2 decimal pts is because that’s how they show GPA on their transcript, not because employers out there are insisting on it or they think ROUNDING to 1 decimal is wrong - they just want to have consistency. I know most finance firms want 3.5 GPA or better, but I have never heard of anyone getting out right rejected (or not eligible to interview)because his/her GPA is 3.499999 or 3.445. Penn’s resume writing website (not college application website) didn’t say “do not ROUND it to 2 decimal points,” so we do not know when Penn calculate student’s GPA to 2 decimal points if they do rounding or truncating. Common sense would tell me that they they do rounding to 2 decimal points.</p>
<p>If I remember correctly, Cornell did rounding when calculating D1’s GPA.</p>
<p>“It never even occurred to me that how the hundredths or thousandths place is reported would make a huge difference or would constitute “lying”. Do admissions offices really have time to catch people rounding instead of truncating if they get thousands or tens of thousands of applications”</p>
<p>Me neither. I always figured the 4 decimal places was an artifact of computer programming, because in the real world I can’t imagine conceptualizing a GPA past x.xx. It’s like weighing yourself to x.xxxx pounds. managerially insignificant.</p>
<p>YoHoYoHo: In the olden-days, prior to the existence of weighting, and without A+ = 4.3, a 4.0 GPA meant that a student had received the top possible mark in every class–so in those circumstances, I think that a 4.0 unweighted GPA means something different from 4.0 minus epsilon. </p>
<p>That is not to say that the 4.0 student should be preferred over the 3.996 student–many other elements would go into determining which student was better qualified, in any specific context. On the other hand, if GPA’s over 4.0 are possible, then I think it would be fine to round 3.996 to 4.0</p>
<p>From a scientific standpoint, a requirement for a 3.0 GPA is different from a requirement for a 3.00 GPA (because the number of significant figures is different). Technically, a student with a 2.99 GPA meets the first requirement, but not the second. If it seems that the engineering firm can’t tell the difference between the two requirements, it’s probably because the requirements are being set by the people in HR and not by the engineers.</p>
<p>QuantMech, S’s university always truncates rather than rounds to whatever level of specificity. The way career services is set up a student with a 2.999 GPA would not be allowed to post for a job that requires a 3.0 GPA because the system would kick the student back as ineligible for the job requirements. Whether a firm truncates or rounds or even cares doubtless varies by firm, just as it appears to vary by university.</p>
<p>TheAnalyst, I dream of the day when Scientists Rule the World (bwahaha!) and significant figures mean something. You are definitely correct, though. If I had a student still in school with a 2.999 GPA, I would have the student sign up for a 1 credit super-easy class and be sure to get an A in it.</p>
<p>I will just note that it would be very unlikely for anybody to have a 3.995 unweighted GPA in high school, at least if the grades that are averaged are semester grades. There simply wouldn’t be enough grades for a single B to generate that GPA.</p>
<p>Actually, the way my kids’ school calculates GPAs (using semester grades) - a student with all A’s except for 1 A- in a single class would have a 3.994 GPA - OK, not a 3.995, but very close. While theorectically possible, I don’t think it will happen. At this school, several A minus or lower grades are expected, even among the very best students.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Indeed, they did not. Instead, Pend clearly publishes on their website: ‘do NOT round’. Period. Not sure how much more clear that can be. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As they say on the tv shows, that amounts to, ‘facts not in evidence.’ I will fully admit that I have no idea of what their reasoning is, or isn’t; nor do I much care. But then I won’t speculate on it either, particularly where their directions are extremely clear. ‘Do not round’ can be mean nothing but just that, in my (feeble-minded?) reading.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And yes, Cornell Career’s Services rounds to the hundredth. And that is the point: some do, some do not.</p>
<p>bluebayou - I have to say that your reading or interpretation of it is incorrect, but we are just have to disagree. They do not want you to round/truncate or do anything to make it 1 decimal point because on their official transcript they show 2 decimal points.
Let me ask you this…How do you think Penn calculate to the 2 decimal point on the transcript? Do they round or truncate? If a student has 3.6666, is that 3.67 or 3.66?</p>
<p>Well the comment about schools thinking you lied makes me a bit nervous - My dd’s report card reads 4.5 - we never saw her transcript. So when she did her CA she put 4.5. Well when we went in to see the info - it read 4.495 - certainly was not a deliberate lie! I really don’t think this is a deal killer because it doesn’t make or break a scholarship or admittance - she will get denied for other reasons if she is going to get denied :)</p>