<p>well, if that doesn't work out, i will still be an engineer.</p>
<p>so what's your problem?</p>
<p>I don't have a problem. You do.</p>
<p>well, just the fact that you had to dig through my old posts and post it here for no reason is pretty out-of-sanity line, don't you think?</p>
<p>You were being rude. While I don't expect you to agree with everything I post, I expect a bit more civility from somebody who claimed to graduate from an Ivy. Note, my advice is from somebody who has experience while your point of view is from someone who just got his first job.</p>
<p>ok. i sincerely apologize for being rude. i actually went a bit overboard. i shouldn't have said some of the stuff i've said. again, i apologize.</p>
<p>I think a 3.5 is the 95%tile at my old school. haha...</p>
<p>I agree with the idea of not listing a low GPA, but the number I've seen thrown around the most is 3.0 and not 3.5. Of course, if you know for sure that the company won't hire sub 3.5's, then don't list a 3.4. If you know that they do hire 2.5's and you have a 3.4, it would be silly for you not to write it down.</p>
<p>If it's important for the company, the HR person will ask for it and write your GPA on the resume before circulating to the rest of the company. But don't volunteer the info if the GPA is very low.</p>
<p>upppppppppppp</p>
<p>Chevron would most definitely be a big payer in CA. And the oil industry isn't going away anytime soon let me tell you that. Even if you wipe every single car on the planet off gasoline. You still have airplanes (a huge fuel consumer), buildings, agricultural tools, manufacturing industries, aspalt etc etc which are all highly dependent on the energy or materials obtained through crude oil processing.</p>
<p>Microsoft might be a big payer at first, but you will probably level off fast. Same with other tech-based companies.</p>
<p>any other thoughts?</p>