<p>I know I've read about this topic multiple times before on these forums but I can't find the threads with a search. </p>
<p>Do people actually list a GPA other than their cumulative GPA when applying for jobs? I would think the company would expect your cumulative GPA so if you list your major GPA do you make a note stating it is indeed your major GPA? List both to show that your worst marks are in not as important classes? Obviously the only reason to include your major GPA is if it is higher than your cumulative. Basically I guess the question comes down to what do companies want to see? I have a couple nasty first semester marks (chem,calc1) that I wouldn't mind leaving out of my GPA. </p>
<p>Or is this all just useless because they are going to look at your transcript anyway? You would think someone that **** the bed first year but had a 4.0 from second year to graduation shouldn't really be at any disadvantage to someone who actually graduated with a 4.0. Which makes me think major GPA should hold the most weight.</p>
<p>A job seeker fresh out of school should assume that employers will want to look at a transcript. If listed, overall GPA on resume should match the transcript; if GPA of any subset of courses is listed, an explanation of what the subset of courses is should be included (e.g. “GPA: 3.12 overall, 3.55 in [subject/department] courses”).</p>
<p>From what I remember, you seem to be interested in the oil and gas industry. For a resume, I think you can really go either way with a major or overall GPA, as long as you are honest and label a “Major” GPA as such.</p>
<p>The larger oil/gas companies will all ask for a cumulative and major GPA when filling out their online applications and probably during initial interviews as well. They will also want to see a transcript during the final stage of the interview process. I wouldn’t worry about it too much. As long as you are able to pull in the initial interview and do well in that, GPA is less of a factor than you would think.</p>
<p>Surprisingly few people will look at your transcript when hiring - the better the school the fewer the people. However, every company will perform a background check after making the job offer and before your first day of work. Every company (that I’ve seen) will require a transcript as part of that background check. At that point, you already have the job so they don’t care about your grades. Instead, someone from HR is checking 3 things: that you actually went to that school, your major, and your GPA (and if you graduated for a full-time position). Your GPA needs to match the GPA on your transcript exactly. If you put 3.0 on your resume and your transcript shows 2.99, you lose the job. So don’t play the rounding game - put your exact GPA as shown on your transcript on your resume.</p>
<p>There are some other specialized GPA’s that pop up. Most people also put a Major GPA (classes taken in their major school) because that’s usually higher than the overall GPA (if it’s not, leave it off). That’s OK as long as you specifically list it as “Major GPA” on the resume.</p>
<p>If your overall GPA is good (>2.8 or so), list it. Otherwise when I read the resume I’m going to assume it’s a low overall GPA and I’m probably not going to select you for an interview. If you put a Major GPA with no Overall GPA, that’s better than no GPA at all, but I’m still going to assume a big gap between the two. An Overall GPA with no Major GPA is fine, because I always assume Major GPA > Overall GPA. The most positive response from me is if you list both.</p>
<p>Your Major GPA is usually higher because you tend to take most of your major classes in your junior and senior years and junior and senior grades are usually higher than freshman and sophomore grades.</p>
<p>Your Major GPA only includes classes with your major school in the designation. So if you’re an ME, ME101, ME201, ME315, etc. would all count but Math101, Chem202, Physics 212, etc. would not count. If your school does not designate based on majors, any class taught by a professor in your major school counts. And a major school is something like “Mechanical Engineering”. Engineering as a whole is usually a college, not a school.</p>
<p>As one who’s hired many software engineers, I have never paid any attention to GPA.
For entry level positions, I look at internships/work experience, basic subject knowledge, and personality. Frankly, personality is the number one reason you’ll get a job or not get a job.<br>
The schools don’t really teach you how to do what we do. You’ll learn that on the job.</p>
<p>I strongly disagree. In a company, you can be just another set of hands or you can have unique skills that make you valuable. How are you going to develop unique skills if you copy what everyone else does?</p>
<p>You stand out by internalizing the skills, methods, and procedures learned at a company, but then to improve them using your abilities. With no work experience, the only abilities you have come from your education.</p>
<p>Yes and no. There’s a difference between skills (taught by schools) and the ability to perform a job. Unless the job involves sitting in a cubicle and typing all day, with little to no human interaction, then yes, a school can teach you a skill. However, those jobs are perfect candidates for off-shoring to a cheaper labor environment.
The human interaction and collaborative product development abilities that are required for a successful career cannot be taught by a school, as these are personality and environmental traits.
Every company has a corporate culture, and for the most part you must fit that corporate culture, or you won’t be successful or happy with your job.
Some of the best developers I’ve ever hired have not even earned a college degree.</p>
<p>You greatly downgrade the value of education. I mean, why even have colleges at all, then? Let’s make engineering an apprenticeship trade.</p>
<p>The real value that comes from an engineering education is not what’s in the books, but how you look at a problem and structure a solution. Successful students in engineering programs must be able to think logically, and that’s a very important skill. In addition, the value of an education is exposing students to a wide variety of tools they can use to solve problems not so that they memorize the procedure (you can always go and reread the book) but so that students are able to connect problems to tools they can use to solve those problems.</p>
<p>The old approach of “I’ll learn everything I need to know when I start working” can be adequate, but not exceptional. If you want to stay employed and move up through a company, you need to be exceptional. That can’t be outsourced.</p>
<p>That may apply to the other engineering areas but not software engineering/development. What are in those “books” especially the technical books (not on campus) are the latest trends in technology. So in a way, software engineering and development does have more of an apprenticeship feel to it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not exactly. You need to know the latest skills and be marketable…not really exceptional. I keep seeing posts about “moving up through a company”. That is not a real goal anymore. For one, unless you are some CIO or CTO at a software firm, you are not making much more money than the techies for middle management. The question then becomes “why should I manage 100 people and be worried about all of them when I can learn the hottest skill and worry about my work only?..for the same money.” My employer has independent consultants billing at a rate that is much higher than the person they report to. Hell, me and my line manager are at the SAME pay level. He chooses technical management. I bounce from project to project with any need on databases or data warehouses.</p>
<p>Why the same pay for managers of the techies?..because the techies can walk across the street and work for the competitor…and be on the payroll by next week.</p>
<p>Disclaimer: I am talking software engineering/development…not the other areas of engineering.</p>