NASA rejects 3.81, 3.73,3.58 and accepts two guys under 3.3( friends)

<p>Whats up with that? The two rejected students didnt make it past the interview, one other guy didnt even make it to the interview. They were fed up and told me that companies dont hire smart people. haha</p>

<p>Then the other two students got the internship. Let me point out that all are citizens and same major(mech e). They explained( i guess they figures it out) that companies make interns do all the "useless/bitc*" work such as making calls and xeroxes(among other stuff) and students with a strong gpa wont be impressed by the environment. Hence, the high gpa guy gets the job for a fulltime job where he will be able to do "real" work.</p>

<p>Can someone explain this theory? I have a feeling this is true.</p>

<p>CS and AutoCAD people are exempted from this example.</p>

<p>Maybe the people with a 3.3 were smarter than the people with a 3.7?
GPA isn't everything.</p>

<p>Sounds like people trying to justify their rejection...</p>

<p>Once you make it to the interview, the most important thing is the interview and not the numbers.</p>

<p>It really depends on what it is they are looking for in the interview. Human beings conduct interviews; they sometimes have biases that affect results.</p>

<p>Can you give more info on the friends?</p>

<p>Maybe they had more experience?</p>

<p>Maybe their interviewer liked their personality better?</p>

<p>Assuming there was some sort of technical questioning, perhaps they did better?</p>

<p>Maybe the 3.81 had bad breath?</p>

<p>There is an endless amount of reasons why one candidate was rejected and one was accepted—GPA is not the end all answer.</p>

<p>It absolutely isn’t because they’re ‘saving’ the higher GPA people. They’re going to hire the best people that they can now to get them in the system and have a leg up on getting them again later. If the high GPA people didn’t have as much experience as the others that would more than explain it. Companies want to see what you’ve done actually on a job as opposed to just in a classroom. Your GPA will get you TO the interview, but never PAST it.</p>

<p>I’m guessing the lower-gpa people had a few wildcards up their sleeves. GPA isn’t everything… especially in a world of undergraduate research, independent projects, and letters of recommendation.</p>

<p>Maybe the lower-gpa people did better in the interview. Logic would seem to indicate this is a reasonable possibility.</p>

<p>It is always funny to me to read things like this - I don’t know why, I guess it’s some sort of sick enjoyment I get from watching the grade obsessed people in this world struggle a little lol, sry. When it really comes down to it there are a large percentage of people with high GPAs that have very little going on outside of school. Not always just activities, but also personality, people skills, and leadership qualities - I don’t know if your friends fell into any of these categories, but my gut would tell me that it’s something along those lines… I have some friends that have much higher GPAs than myself and are certainly smarter than me, at least in an academic sense, yet they managed to blow a number of interviews and ended up with no internship/coop for the summer… So, your story is not out of the norm - it happens often.</p>

<p>resumes and numbers are used to get interviews. once you get to the interview you’re on a whole different playing field. </p>

<p>im guessing most employers wont use the resume again after the interview process to make their decisions, but use them as references.</p>

<p>Since when does a higher gpa mean you are best for the job. If I had 2 applicants for my softyware team</p>

<p>A = 4.0 nerdy virgin
B = 2.9 ladies man who is very confident in his ways.</p>

<p>Id take B every time. </p>

<p>I graduated with a 2.8, and didn’t give a crap about school. I went to a state school and have had zero problem beating out those with higher gpa’s from much better schools at many interviews.</p>

<p>In fact projects and experience are actually better than gpa.</p>

<p>They explained( i guess they figures it out) that companies make interns do all the “useless/bitc*” work such as making calls and xeroxes(among other stuff) and students with a strong gpa wont be impressed by the environment.</p>

<p>i think this is a very inappropriate explanation on their and your part. what youre basically assuming here is that the 3.3s are, literally, ■■■■■■■ and enjoy repetitive and mindless tasks. from my own experience most people from across the gpa spectrum hate repetitive, boring, and useless work. in fact, some higher gpas actually enjoy repetitive work while some lower gpas hate it. keep in mind undergrad engineers actually do a lot of repetitive work, practicing the same types of problems over and over until you get it right.</p>

<p>different schools?</p>

<p>Dark21 beat me to it, but different schools? There’s a bit of a difference between a 3.8 at San Jose Sate with no other real experience and 3.3 at Caltech who’s already had one or more summers of research at JPL for NASA, to give an extreme example. Before I get flamed for this, I acknowledge the fact that San Jose State is a fine school for engineering, and has a partnership with the NASA Ames Research Center.</p>

<p>You’re still missing the point. Once you actually get to the interview your GPA is obviously high enough for the to consider you. I won’t say that it completely goes out the window at that point but if you’ve got better experience as a 3.3 over a 3.8 as long as you make it to the interview you’ll very probably be getting the job. All your GPA will ever do for you is get you TO the interview.</p>

<p>Probably the two guys that got the internship proved that not only they were smart enough for the available positions, but that they could also fit in with the people currently working on the project. Your friends probably got rejected because they were socially awkward during the interview or possibly too confident. Companies want people that are smart and well rounded.</p>

<p>I see many people bring in the “too nerdy” equation. But WHY would you want anything less for places like NASA? It does not matter because some positions in the company require technical skills that (may?) come with a strong academic record.</p>

<p>So they went to the research professor and all ( including two from some other major not related to NASA) were accepted for the positions. All the professor asked was —> did you make it to the dean’s list? They said yes and it was done.</p>

<p>The problem is, that they did not make it to the interview with NASA, that is bothersome. Maybe their resume was stupid looking. I have more examples of people who were flown to texas/ohio by one company but couldnt make it past the telephone interview with others. I guess they really do look for different criteria.</p>

<p>Was there an experience, either with work or research, difference between the candidates?</p>

<p>It’s not like company’s spend sleepless nights looking for the perfect intern candidate.
The bottom line is that large companies do not evaluate every qualified resume they have. Maybe something caught the attention on the resumes for the guys that got highered, maybe NASA just randomly picked 10 people out of the qualified pool to interview and found what they wanted in those interviews, or maybe your friends resumes were poorly focused. Who knows? But the bottom line is that GPA certainly isn’t everything. You have to be some what normal because as much as companies want smart guys, they want smart guys who can communicate and fit in even more.</p>

<p>There’s a wildcard. A high GPA won’t help or hurt you too much, above a certain cutoff, just as long as that’s not the only difference between you and the next guy.</p>

<p>Is it so hard to believe that the interviewers just liked the lower GPA people better? Why not? When you strip away GPA considerations, a lot of students look a lot alike. It’s then that things like coursework, research, projects, curriculum, etc. come into play.</p>

<p>You can have a 4.0 GPA and have no research, no activities, no special projects, no independent study, and just a straight major taking the regular required courses and cake electives.</p>

<p>You can also have a 3.1 GPA and have > 4 semesters of undergraduate research, a couple of contributions to special projects, an interesting and relevant independent study, a double major and minor and the most relevant and academically rigorous electives the department offers.</p>

<p>If the GPA cutoff is a 3.0 for the position, they strip the GPA information out of those candidate descriptions… and when you don’t see the GPA, who do you like better?</p>

<p>hmm … one possible scenario … </p>

<p>3.8 GPA guy at interview …
“This job sounds interesting … how will the job expand my skills? what will I get paid? will I be the boss? the work day ends at 5:00, right? Finally, if I get an offer can I wait until Friday to give a response because I really would like to hear from the folks at Boeing before deciding on this job.”</p>

<p>3.3 GPA guy at the interview.
“This is by far my first choice for an internship … if I’m lucky enough to get selected I’m in. I’ve always been facinated by space; please look at this essay I wrote in 5th grade it’s titled “When I grow up I want to work at NASA”. I’m ready to start tomorrow and do whatever it takes to help NASA on it’s mission.”</p>

<p>Who would you hire?</p>

<p>OK, that is a little absurd … however I have been part of hiring practices for 25 years and have been in many situations where the difference in passion and interest between applicants was this stark.</p>