<p>If you were a recruiter, how much would a 4.0 engineering gpa from a target school stand out to you? Obviously you would consider giving the student an interview if they have relevant experience and stuff, but beyond that. Is there anything magical about a 4.0 in engineering that I fail to see?</p>
<p>I'm tired of people saying that it's impossible to get a 4.0 or blah blah cause there's plenty of kids who do it (I'm sure) and it's a great achievement imo. But beyond that, I don't think much of it.</p>
<p>My personal take: the caliber of a 4.0 student is probably pretty close to a 3.75+ anyway, so who cares about a few classes here or there? I would treat a 3.75+ the same exact way, and make a decision based on relevant experience/interview/etc.. keeping in mind that a large part of college grading is based on professors, not the actual material being taught.</p>
<p>This isn’t the business/accounting/finance world so engineering (especially software engineering) doesn’t have “target” schools. We are going to ask:</p>
<p>Maybe my definition of “target” school is inconsistent with the accepted definition.</p>
<p>I was saying “target” school so we could lump all the engineering programs into one. For example, if someone was recruiting Aerospace Engineers, target schools would be MIT, Caltech, UMich, GaTech, etc…</p>
<p>However, if someone was recruiting petroleum engineering or something, it’s unlikely that those same schools listed above would be “target” schools. Instead, they would visit places like TAMU, UT - Austin, LSU, etc…</p>
<p>4.0’s are rare to see… My year only has like 10 or so left across all engineering disciplines for class of 2013.</p>
<p>From the recruiters I talked to while applying for internships this year, they generally lump 3.0+ into the same category. GPA is a factor, but it seems like what you know/what work experience you have matters more. Guess that makes sense. There’s a difference between spouting theory and using it.</p>
<p>Approximately what size is your engineering class? And just out of curiosity, where did you come across that number of 10? I feel like its hard to estimate that number unless the school makes it known.</p>
<p>Again, it is hard to say that “target” schools would be used. My first job out of undergrad was with Westinghouse Energy Systems in Pittsburgh, PA, back when Westinghouse was huge. Pittsburgh is the home of Carnegie Mellon and U-Pitt who I believe (at least CMU) have higher ranked CS program than my undergraduate alma-mater (Michigan State).</p>
<p>I should also note that:</p>
<p>1) MSU has one of the biggest placement services in the USA
2) I did have some prior database experience from an on-campus job</p>
<p>I said all of that to say that engineering does not really deal with the "target school approach like accounting/finance/business and also I agree with Atemporal that 3.0+ students are pretty much grouped together.</p>
<p>My engineering class has a size of 300-400 or so, I can’t remember the exact figure, total class size 1500ish. There was an “4.0 banquet” for juniors honoring their achievements in my junior year, and some smart person decided to publish the picture in our school newspaper and even listed the disciplines. I counted 10 under the engineering caption. Pretty stupid imo. Now all the jealous people will find ways to hate people they barely even know, sometimes.</p>
<p>My friend was mortified when I told her that everyone now knows she has a 4.0, lol.</p>
<p>Maybe it’s not true for the larger multinational corporations (like Exxon Mobil or Chevron), but if you look at some of the more smaller, independent firms they recruit within their regional area simply because it’s easier for them and they find plenty of good talent at schools that are not “powerhouses” per say. For example Devon Energy and Chesapeake Energy recruit at a very limited number of schools:</p>
<p>It’s interesting to note that most schools are geographically close to company HQ, but then Penn State is randomly included (probably because they have a good petroleum engineering program). Hence supporting my argument that there exist these so called “target” schools depending on the industry.</p>
<p>It generally has more impact in the academic sphere. There are technically no GPA cutoffs for graduate programs (well 3.0), but some top universities are rumored to be around 3.8.</p>
<p>That being said, there really isn’t much difference between a 3.75 and 4.0, even when you look at grading rubrics. For the most part I believe it’s: A 4.0, A- 3.7, B+ 3.3, B 3.0, B- 2.7. Depending upon how the exams are curved, that’s maybe a few points.</p>
<p>If I were an interviewer, I would be impressed, but I would also be cautious not to assume too much about the candidate. A 4.0 was very rare at my school when I was an undergrad – my friend actually graduated with a 4.0 in physics and that was rare enough that he was made salutatorian of his college (my school is split up into six different undergrad “colleges”), and he apparently had a seat up on the stage for his graduation ceremony – but I know that 4.0s may not be as rare at other schools. </p>
<p>I also had a few computer science classmates who were obsessed with getting A’s and keeping their GPAs high to the detrement of their own educations. These were guys who assiduously avoided the “difficult” professors and always planned their classes so that they could take required courses with the easiest professor who taught it. I remember one class in particular where the lot of them immediately dropped after the very first quiz having realized that the course was going to be tough. I have to admit that I got a feeling of shadenfreude when they got caught cheating in our architecture class (they had the same answers on their homeworks). They all received F’s for the course and had to write some sort of letter of apology in order to stay in the program. I’m guessing the incident probably prevented them from getting into grad school, too.</p>
<p>So while I’m interviewing the 4.0 candidate, the thought of those cheaters will also be in the back of my mind.</p>
<p>For what it’s worth, I’ve heard from more than one industry recruiter that they’d sooner look at the 3.7 before the 4.0 because in general the 4.0’s are apparently quite cookie cutter. And something to do with challenging oneself (like what Mokonon hinted at). But that’s just what I’ve heard in info sessions around career fair time. </p>
<p>In my schools 2012 graduating class, not one person in my major had a 4.0. There were a few from my department (our dept has 2 accredited majors), but I think they’re all going into academia.</p>
<p>I never considered the “challenging oneself” thought process but I have always either got admitted to schools that I think was too much of a reach (Dartmouth) and/or been hired for jobs when I did not even have a 3.0 GPA. I don’t know if it was the dual-major (Math/CS) or that with the work experience with databases but I somehow “slipped through the cracks” for everything (jobs, grad school, etc).</p>
<p>I’m ashamed to say, but I’ve heard this as well. I don’t think it’s fair for people to hold biases against people with a 4.0, especially hiring managers who can make/break an offer. People make all kinds of assumptions (i.e. kid must be a cheater, liar, have no-life, etc…) that really aren’t valid, but are probably just stemmed from stereotypes. They may also make assumptions at the other end of the spectrum (i.e. kid must be a genius, will instantly be a good employee, etc…)</p>
<p>I personally think that when comparing kids with gpas that high, the whole notion of looking at a number on a piece of paper should be discarded. It should be quite clear that both have worked hard and are capable of handling the school’s work load.</p>
<p>Other factors need to be evaluated to make the final decision. </p>
<p>I’ll stop flogging the dead horse after this post, but I just wanted to see what other people’s opinion was. I do wish schools would publish this information anonymously though.</p>
<p>I don’t think anyone will hold a bias against a 4.0 GPA. If anything, that number will really pop out of a resume. However, that number is not going to help you in the interview.</p>
There are definitely schools targeted by recruiters for a variety of reasons - specific curricula, rigor, accessibility, convenience, etc, plus the fact that companies need both great engineers (for difficult work) and so-so engineers (for routine work). Put all that together and the list of “target schools” for a single company may include everything from MIT to South Central Louisiana State University (Go Muddogs!). It is not a coherent list of “top schools” like you may find for some fields of endeavor.</p>
<p>
I’ve never met one. At Penn State, the highest GPA in each major is made a “Student Marshal” for graduation, and my year the highest GPA so advertised was 3.99 in a single engineering major, 3.98 in several more, and 3.96-3.97 in a few others. A 4.00 means an A in every single course, including gym and philosophy and art history and all those other things, and that is tough to pull off. And for that reason, a stratospheric GPA is a distinction only when finely parsing individuals beyond what most companies need to do.</p>
<p>
And that is how most organizations do it as well.</p>
<p>On a more general note, I know a few 3.95+ GPA students and none of them had trouble scoring interviews or jobs. There are always concerns about candidates, that is why you have interviews and review transcripts before offering a job. A high GPA is a generally good thing, but you need to see that the person also has relevant experience, and has taken classes useful to your company (difficult or not) and demonstrates good interpersonal skills and can actually apply or at least discuss the relevant material, etc, etc.</p>
<p>The weird thing is that you guys seem to believe that getting a 4.0 means you lack social skills, take only easy professors, and don’t do internships.</p>
<p>Maybe some of them are deficient in some way, but most are just smart, have good study habits, and/or are very motivated. Motivated people also do internships and have social skills. Many of these people are just going to be much better candidates for jobs than you.</p>
<p>Is a 4.0 that much better than a 3.75? Not really. I would say most motivated students aim for A’s in every class they take. Some hit the goal and some don’t. </p>
<p>A 4.0 shows consistency and hard work and absolutely nothing else. It cannot do anything but help you, period.</p>
<p>Right. I agree with KamelAkbar. A 4.0 can only help you.</p>
<p>The question is whether or not the amount of time you would spend getting a 4.0, rather than a 3.7, is worth spending on studying rather than extracurriculars and having a better social life. In my opinion it isn’t, but that does not diminish the fact that a 4.0 will look slightly better on a resume than a 3.7.</p>
<p>I am not sure if I am being included in the list of those who think a 4.0 would at all be a detriment - to be clear, I do not. A person who is weak in other areas (interpersonal skills, course selection, etc.) can certainly still get a 4.0, but this is true at all levels - you can have a 3.0 and still have taken easy, useless courses and be hard to work with. Likewise, being a great person and taking hard courses can still result in a 4.0 GPA for the right person, so (as KamelAkbar noted) the 4.0 would by itself only be an asset.</p>