<p>Is this a ok GPA? Many internships and jobs have a requirement of 3.0, does that mean I will be unemployed.</p>
<p>depends where you go to school and what classes you are/were taking.</p>
<p>I agree that it depends on which college you attend and also which field of engineering you are in. If you attend a good engineering school I think employers will care less about your GPA.</p>
<p>If you go to a challenging school and have some kinds of ECs (weren't just goofing off and not studying) than hopefully it won't be a problem. Just because ones have a 3.0 requirement doesn't mean you can't apply...what about going to your career services at school and finding other things on your resume to highlight?</p>
<p>the general average GPA at top schools (top 50 engineering schools) is generally in the 3.1-3.4 range...that means, half of the people graduating have less than that, which means they have a 2._.</p>
<p>"the general average GPA at top schools (top 50 engineering schools) is generally in the 3.1-3.4 range...that means, half of the people graduating have less than that, which means they have a 2._."</p>
<p>we'll, i mean, there are big exceptions to this. for instance, at my school the average GPA is 2.65... and we, by no means, slack off. </p>
<p>if you worked hard and learned a lot, you're gpa shouldn't be a HUGE thing. any worthwhile employer should respect your individual qualities and not look at you like a pack of numbers.</p>
<p>Harvey Mudd's average is 2.65? Source? I find that very hard to believe.</p>
<p><a href="http://gradeinflation.com/hmudd.html%5B/url%5D">http://gradeinflation.com/hmudd.html</a></p>
<p>i meant average all the way across the board (my bad on adding the top 50...i was trying to search for that, and instead got a national average..oops)...obviously this number will probably be off, as some 100-person engineering section of a college may have 4.0s, whereas big schools (im at VT, ours is around a 3.0 i think) which intense engineering programs will undoubtly be lower...
frankly, i think a 2.65 from Cornell or VT or UT is better than a 3.5 from a small, lesser school, because lets face it, most eng. classes are based soley on tests, and you could do bad on one and ace the final and still have a C, but the overall education will be stronger</p>
<p>if you convey yourself as a good guy, i think a 2.8 shouldnt be a problem. being a freshman engineer at princeton, i'd say a 2.8 is still pretty good for the amount of crap we go through. but, i think it also depends on your school</p>
<p>i wouldnt expect a flagship job, though... i know there are people at princeton who graduated with around a 3.0 and work excellent jobs...</p>
<p>kind of off-topic, but im applying to transfer, so if i have a 3.2-3.3 and the average for the school im applying to is a 2.9 (instate, female, good high school record, 1380 SAT), do you think i have a good shot since im above their average by almost half a letter grade?</p>
<p>"Harvey Mudd's average is 2.65? Source? I find that very hard to believe.</p>
<p><a href="http://gradeinflation.com/hmudd.html">http://gradeinflation.com/hmudd.html</a>"</p>
<p>i find that source hard to believe. it is definitely not higher than a 3.0 right now. but, hey, if you want me to go walk down to the dean of students right now and ask, i'd be happy to do so.</p>
<p>but you know how that source can be heavily biased? considering engineering gpa vs overall gpa for hmc. engineers have a ridiculous number of required courses ... and a lot of them are no cakewalk. (supposedly, 2-3 years ago, you had to overload for 2 years to get the engineering degree. they did not change the courseload, but rather, decreased the number of credits in some courses to make the math add up. for instance, Tools (E8) was decreased from 3 credits to 1 credit, even though the requirements are exactly the same). i'm sure it is relatively easier to come out of a place like mudd in a different major (than engineering) and therefore, have a higher gpa to the engineering students.</p>
<p>gradeinflation.com is a biased point estimator for actual gpa, let alone actual engineering gpa. i'm not sold.</p>
<p>
[quote]
i find that source hard to believe. it is definitely not higher than a 3.0 right now. but, hey, if you want me to go walk down to the dean of students right now and ask, i'd be happy to do so.</p>
<p>but you know how that source can be heavily biased? considering engineering gpa vs overall gpa for hmc. engineers have a ridiculous number of required courses ... and a lot of them are no cakewalk. (supposedly, 2-3 years ago, you had to overload for 2 years to get the engineering degree. they did not change the courseload, but rather, decreased the number of credits in some courses to make the math add up. for instance, Tools (E8) was decreased from 3 credits to 1 credit, even though the requirements are exactly the same). i'm sure it is relatively easier to come out of a place like mudd in a different major (than engineering) and therefore, have a higher gpa to the engineering students.</p>
<p>gradeinflation.com is a biased point estimator for actual gpa, let alone actual engineering gpa. i'm not sold.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So you are talking strictly engineering GPA? It's still quite possible to be lower than 3.0 - but 2.65 is very low. And yes, ask the dean, thanks. :)</p>
<p>I don't see why any school would want 2.65 to be the average GPA, unless its a very large one and is lower ranked. 2.65 will screw the vast majority of the students applying to Grad school.</p>
<p>Unless you're talking about just engineering classes rather than the overall GPA.</p>
<p>we joke around here that d is for done. i'm impressed when i hear of people getting b's. you don't hear about too many a's in engineering.</p>
<p>There's a difference between what is rumored, what is said on the streets, and what is in actuality. A lot of engineers exaggerate their grade deflation in order to make themselves feel better. Engineering is difficult but there is no need to exaggerate grade deflation.</p>
<p>As was mentioned earlier, most of the top engineering programs have average GPA at graduate above 3.0. They have to or none of them would stand a chance for graduate school.</p>
<p>Why don't you check out your class rank and see how you compare to your classmates? I think that is a more objective measure than GPA since each program has different difficulty levels. </p>
<p>-Shoebox10</p>
<p>What program you in at VT? I graduated there in 2004 mechanical</p>
<p>I find it hard to believe that the average engineering GPA at Harvey Mudd is 2.65. Even if the grade inflation website GPA of 3.3ish represents the entire school, Harvey Mudd is still around 40% engineering. Simple math shows that the non-engineering major GPA would need to be a little over 3.7, which is preposterous. The engineering GPA is probably in the 3.0-3.3 range.</p>
<p>It's just RocketDA glorifying Mudd. Nothing unusual.</p>
<p>i did further research a the nation wide average (25-75%) for undergrad engineering is 2.87-3.32. So, anything basically 3.3 or better, you're on the upper end</p>
<p>"I find it hard to believe that the average engineering GPA at Harvey Mudd is 2.65."</p>
<p>wait...how many classes have you taken for grades? none... (how many classes have you passed? none...)</p>
<p>remember, 2.65 is a C+ average. (maybe this is a descrepancy at other schools? is a 2.65 a C?)</p>
<p>"It's just RocketDA glorifying Mudd. Nothing unusual."
how is a low gpa average glorification? if anything, it is anti-glorification; we may not perform up to the standards of our professors. if this forum exists for the sake of college-bound students, to which some will pursue engineering, they deserve to know how college students feel about their schools. notice that i never said "mudd is great because it has a low avg gpa". rather, if you reread my posts, i see more room for a slightly depressing take on mudd. </p>
<p>wow.</p>