<p>Hypothetically, say you are an employer in a semi-prestigious field with a high paying job. You get the following resumes on your desk. With only this information, what order do you call the applicants in for an interview (do you turn away any right off the bat as well?)? </p>
<ol>
<li><p>Princeton University, GPA: 2.5</p></li>
<li><p>College of William and Mary, GPA: 3.3</p></li>
<li><p>Community College, GPA: 4.0 </p></li>
<li><p>Vanderbilt University, GPA: 3.0</p></li>
<li><p>Boston College, GPA: 3.4</p></li>
<li><p>University of Massachusetts, Amherst, GPA: 3.8</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Don’t see the point in automatically dismissing any of them (except maybe the Princeton kid). Order? Do it alphabetically by their last name or something. I guess the people I’d look at first would be the community college kid (3) and the Massachusetts-Amherst kid (6).</p>
<p>Come on. We like to look down on community college here, but a 4.0 is no small feat, and does say something about the person’s work ethic.</p>
<p>Someone with a 4.0 at a community college hasn’t finished their bachelor’s degree yet. So I’m not sure what that resume is doing in the same pile.</p>
<p>If I had time, I would interview all of them. If not, I would choose #2 and #4. I don’t mind a B student as long as he or she interviews well. My third choice would probably be #6.</p>
<p>I would interview the Princeton kid to see if he/she has a good explanation for the low GPA. Princeton is significantly more prestigious than any of these schools.</p>
<p>IME and those of several supervisors/HR colleagues, anyone with a GPA below 3.0 is often automatically dropped from consideration, especially when the candidate has just graduated/has less than 5-8 years of work experience. </p>
<p>Even in the case of STEM majors as was the case with one older Physics/Computer Engineering major from URochester who graduated just ten-thousanth of a point below 3.0 cum average. Most of his interviewers automatically halted the interviews when the topic of grades came up. It really hindered his job prospects for the first several months after graduation until he finally got hired and did well enough to gain promotions and references. He is now a senior project manager who heads the department of programmers at a technology company out in Southern Cal. </p>
<p>Only exceptions I heard about was if the candidate was a STEM graduate from a place like MIT, Caltech, Reed, UChicago, or CMU and even then…he/she better have a good explanation.</p>
<p>I would always comb out the classes that were relevant to the job I was trying to fill. No need to look at someone’s music grade if was I looking for a thermal engineer. I would then recalculate the GPA for the relevant classes. I did not use the GPA as the first discriminator, however. I would look to see any relevant research or summer (or term) jobs in the field.</p>
<p>I disagree. Maybe it is more prestigious, but I wouldn’t call it “significantly more prestigious” than William and Mary or Vanderbilt, to say the least. And just because it is prestigious does not mean it’s more difficult than any of these schools - on the contrary, Princeton’s one of the Ivies known for grade inflation. If the kid still only averaged a 2.5, I’d instinctively go for virtually any of the other students first - probably in order of GPA.</p>
<p>Princeton may have deflated…but from what I’ve read in the NYT article below, the average GPA of Princeton graduates from class of 2009 was still around a 3.39. </p>
<p>In that context, a 2.5 GPA is still way below the mean. If we’re talking Engineering/STEM, it is still below the mean according to several Princeton alums…including a cousin-in-law who majored in Biochemistry and a friend who majored in EE.</p>
<p>Very surprised people haven’t mentioned #5 yet. #1 and #3 are out (there’s no reason for a 2.5 GPA, and in any high-paying field a bachelors is required) So in order, #2, #5, #6, #4. </p>
<h1>6 is third because the bottom quarter students at William and Mary and BC have a similar profile to the top quarter students at UMass Amherst. A student above the median at these schools (which a 3.3./3.4 student would be) would likely have been near the top of the class at UMass-Amherst.</h1>
<p>The correct answer is, as previously mentioned, E. Not enough information. No company in the world hires employees based on nothing but a college name and GPA, ergo this is really just an exercise in attempted prestige-wankery.</p>
<p>If the guy with a 3.0 from Vanderbilt has three successful internships in the field, while the guy with a 3.8 from UMass has done nothing but go to class and party, Mr. Vandy is probably going to get the job. Real-world experience > GPA.</p>
<p>Out of curiosity, on what basis do you assume the bottom quarter of W&M and BC have a similar profile to the top quarter students at UMass-Amherst?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Agree with the first paragraph. Only minor quibble is that most semi-prestigious companies or even regular entry companies do set the interviewing/hiring floor at 3.0 for entry-level positions with a possible slight lowering of that for graduates who attended really rigorous undergrads like MIT. </p>
<p>As for the second paragraph, I have one question. What if the candidate who had no internships explained that it was because he/she had to take a time-consuming job each summer to defray a substantial portion of state college tuition and fees…especially when you know that the relevant internships are almost always unpaid?</p>
<p>Cobrat, my assertion is based on incoming SATs and GPAs readily available from collegeboard. I know, I know, SATs and GPAs do not perfectly correlate with performance in college but they are clearly very strong indicators as they are used heavily in admissions. (As well as my personal experience if that counts for anything)</p>
<p>And I think especially since the OP posted that all applicants had the same major, I think for the purpose of argument we should consider the rest of the resumes if not equal, relatively the same competition wise. I thought it goes without saying that there are many other important parts of the resume. Clearly inequities in extra curricular activities and prior internships would affect the decision.</p>
<p>Edit: My My am I embarrassed, Cobrat. Top 25% scores reported by CB at UMass would be the bottom of the top 25% while bottom 25% reported by CB for the other two schools would be the top of the bottom 25%. Still, I don’t think it affects my analysis too much-at most perhaps the first three applicants I listed would be considered equal. W&M and BC are still quite a few steps up in selectivity, though not as stark as I had mentioned previously, enough at least to make up for the GPA difference.</p>
<p>But did they really have no time at all whatsoever to pursue real-world work experience in their field? Couldn’t they have cut back on the partying and done an in-semester internship for even 10 hours a week?</p>
<p>The point of my hypothetical was, more or less, that someone who has invested the time and energy into gaining real-world experience outside the classroom is going to be a more competitive candidate for most positions than someone who spent their time in other ways.</p>