<p>My dad owns a civil engineering firm and says he’d rather hire a 3.5 over a 4.0 because he believes the 3.5 student to be more rounded thant most 4.0’s.</p>
<p>Well, I would talk to both the 3.5 and 4.0 person. If the 4.0 could express himself/herself well, I would go with that candidate, all else being equal.</p>
<p>I would assume that there would be some prevalent prejudices involving 4.0’s that people would be influenced by. 3.9 would probably be better in that regard.</p>
<p>I am a part-time recruiter for a large aerospace company (we do have “key” and “target” schools by-the-way). A 4.0 student would merit a congratulations on the accomplishment, but really nothing more than that.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why would he assume this? Unless he’s leaving out some qualifying statement, such as that 4.0 applicants he’s come across have less relevant experience, there’s no reason to believe this.</p>
<p>As to the type of student who goes for a 4.0, I think it’s generally more of a personal choice. Most often they know that there will be no significant difference between a 3.7 and a 4.0, but they do it more out of personal goals. They’re also interested/engaged enough in their major to understand that good grades don’t mean everything, so they’re just as active if not more so to pursue internships and extracurriculars.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s some pretty bad logic right there. Usually the only difference between the kid getting A’s and the kid getting B’s is time management and organization, not being well rounded. I think I’m starting to see the pattern. The people who didn’t get a 4.0 can’t imagine how other people did, and assume they must have studied twice as long as they did and forgone social activities completely. All else equal, the kid who goes home and reviews lecture notes and reworks example problems right after class is going to get twice the grade with half the study time compared to the kid who goes home and gets on Facebook, and waits a few days to start doing his work.</p>
<p>I think your Dad should meet some typical 4.0 kids and see how well-rounded they are, but to be honest (and I don’t mean to sound condescending, the fact that he owns his own firm is awesome), well-rounded kids with 4.0s don’t usually apply to small engineering firms.</p>
<p>That’s the problem though: people tend to have prejudices against 4.0s that they will bring up when considering whether or not to recruit them.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is inherently one of the problems I was trying to have a discussion on in the first place. Whether people agree with it or not, I believe that prejudices are a pretty common problem in the recruiting marketplace in so many different ways, with gpa being one of those factors.</p>
<p>The only conclusion that I can come to is similar to what KamelAkbar said.</p>
<p>Most recruiters cannot relate to the 4.0 kid, but can probably relate to the 3.5 kid and as a result some hold biases. It’s easy to like someone who’s similar to you, and it’s even easier to make judgments about people you don’t relate to/don’t like.</p>
<p>Now at the other end of the see-saw, it’s pretty clear that 4.0 kids have a nice advantage in the small company market since the competition may not be as rigorous. Some recruiters fall into the same trap by thinking that a 4.0 will inherently be a better/smarter worker than another applicant that’s sub 4.0. There may be a correlation but we all know from our psych teachers that correlation DOES NOT imply causation.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>First off, it’s really unlikely that all things will be equal between two candidates besides gpa. Life would be too easy if that were the case :). There are far too many things to consider. Secondly, who’s to say the 4.0 is a better fit for the company. Maybe his or her 4.0 could be a detriment in the sense that another company will make a better offer down the road and he or she will run away. From what I’ve heard, most companies don’t get too much value out of new engineers cause they’re too busy spending time and resources training them. This is a big reason why companies that offer education assistance programs bind their workers for X amount of years after completing a degree. But I’m just playing devil’s advocate in this scenario. I don’t think the decision should ever be based on just gpa when all other things are seemingly equal. However, decisions are made based on this “standard” metric because it’s a helluva lot easier to justify quantitatively.</p>
<p>To: mybad101</p>
<p>Your entire post is flawed. Recruiters at competitive firms know exactly what they’re doing, it’s their job to know what candidates are the best fit for the job. Hiring decisions are extremely important to a firm’s success. HR people at competitive firms are screening people based on what their management requests. Management knows what kind of firm they are. Steve Jobs was a college dropout, but you bet he was hiring the best and the brightest to work on the less routine stuff. </p>
<p>(I am assuming the student is not a 4.0 student with an otherwise blank resume, they are definitely the exception, not the rule)</p>
<p>Prejudice is not the issue. Small & less competitive firms know that a 4.0 grad is going to be looking to move up or will be approaching that job as temporary thing if they take the job offer at all. It’s an issue of over qualification, not prejudice. If they have any prejudice at all, it’s because the 4.0 students they do interview are either the type that didn’t excel in other areas, are obviously applying to that firm as a safety, or have burned them in the past by skipping off to another firm after 6 months. Some people are hired to do innovative and complicated work, others do routine work. For the routine work, you don’t need someone with extremely high academic credentials. </p>
<p>I guess you could have issues if you got a 4.0 at a low ranked school, since super competitive jobs are still going to be very tough to get and the less competitive ones don’t need your 4.0. That would be more situational.</p>
<p>You may be completely right. I don’t have any experience recruiting so I was just speculating. All in all, I just want to get a better understanding of how they think.</p>
<p>
That sounds EXACTLY like prejudice. Whether or not it is justified is another point altogether, but they do have a prejudice based on that.
An “overqualified for everything” stigma could very well come up from a 4.0, just like from a PhD or from many years of work experience.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Prejudice: an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason</p>
<p>I’m sorry, but that sounds like the dictionary definition of prejudice. You might argue that the experience of small firms in dealing with 4.0 students constitutes knowledge and reasoning, but it really doesn’t. Each person has individual interests, and they can’t be lumped into an ambitious, pretentious category because of something like a GPA.</p>
<p>Look, for every recruiter that illogically believes a 4.0 candidate is over-qualified and not well-rounded, there are probably more than 1 recruiters that believe such a candidate is smarter and more organized than a 3.5 candidate.</p>
<p>@TaciturnType</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>lol, if we’re going to resort to the dictionary game…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Knowledge: You provided no “Information and skills acquired through experience or education” that would support your idea that a 3.5 student is more well rounded.</p>
<p>Thought: Your “idea or opinion produced by thinking or occurring suddenly in the mind” is based upon this lack of accurate knowledge and information.</p>
<p>Reason: Your “cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event” is developed through such thought and knowledge.</p>
<p>
If arguing semantics is the argument here, then don’t forget that one word in bold.</p>
<p>Assuming 4.0 < 3.5 is certainly prejudice. Though as I said before, that doesn’t mean it’s bad. A lot of stereotypes are good and accurate.</p>
<p>I am retired now but was a manager for a large aerospace company and did hire quite a few college grads. Only two or three candidates had 4.0 GPAs and didn’t hire any of them. Not to say that all 4.0 GPA candidates would be the same but the ones I interviewed seemed to full of themselves to be good to work in a team environment, which we had. </p>
<p>So, if you have the other characteristics I was looking for, then the 4.0 GPA would definitely help. Otherwise, no go.</p>
<p>Agree with HPuck that kids that are full of themselves are deal-breakers in a teaming environment. No shortage of kids like that, not just those with high GPAs. Can be a problem with kids that think them are coming from some so-called “elite” program, but can really be a problem anywhere.</p>
<p>I have known people who got job offers from really exceptional companies and none from the less glamorous ones. That’s just how it works. You’re going to seem most attractive to the companies that are in your league. I read about some psych experiment where person A would meet person B. Both people would be asked how they felt about the other person. Person A would be given a description of person B before the interview. If they described person B as very successful and talented (without telling person B that A had gotten this description), A would describe B as more arrogant. There was a lot more to it, and they were testing for a lot more than just perception of arrogance, but that’s the general idea.</p>
<p>If you have a really random set of credentials (like a 4.0 but no internships or ECs), you don’t have a league, and your job search is going to be full of as many ups and downs as your resume.</p>