You're an employer, and you get these resumes on your desk

[cobrat]

<p>

@BodePlot

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>IME and those of high school classmates who mostly went off to elite colleges/universities, using high school GPAs/SATs as a yardstick to determine student intelligence/quality is way too sketchy. </p>

<p>We’ve encountered far too many college classmates with stratospheric high school GPA/SATs at our respective colleges who flunked out, placed on academic suspension, or floundered to graduation with 2.0-level GPAs whereas many others with subterranean HS GPAs and lower SATs who were admitted or transferred in from less selective publics/private schools continued to maintain and graduated with 3.5+ level GPAs…including many in STEM fields. </p>

<p>I myself am a living example of the latter type of student. </p>

<p>In short, we’ve came to the conclusion that has also been shared by most hiring managers/HR colleagues I’ve had that one’s high school stats become effectively meaningless the moment one steps on the college campus to begin their college career. </p>

<p>The only people I know IRL who believes high school GPA/SATs are a valid yardstick to measure a college student’s/graduate’s intelligence/capabilities are a few pathetic 40-somethings I used to know who continued to brag about how they were accepted to Harvard or some other HYPS school despite the fact they flunked/dropped out due to bad grades and are now working low-level jobs or living off of their parents. </p>

<p>

@polarscribe

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>

<p>A few questions:</p>

<ol>
<li>Why are you assuming that if they’re not interning during the summers/during the school year that “they’re partying”? </li>
</ol>

<p>They could be working during summers, taking class overloads to the limit while paying the same in-state tuition, and doing co-curricular/EC activities to graduate early. They could also be working part-time during the year along with summers and doing all of that to defray in-state college tuition and fees. I’ve known plenty of UMass-Amherst and other state university graduates who never did internships because of the scenarios I mentioned above. </p>

<ol>
<li>Is there a way for you to know whether the internship was really gained as a result of the student’s own academic performance, drive, and initiative? Or were some/all of those internships “guaranteed” and probably effective “lounge fests” because the Senior VP/CEO/Owner of the firm(s) in question are parents, relatives, or close friends of the family? </li>
</ol>

<p>Knew several acquaintances, college classmates, relatives from a distant way wealthier part of my family, and some interns at a few companies I worked for who fit the above description.</p>

[polarscribe]

<p>

@cobrat

Why are you assuming that if they’re not interning during the summers/during the school year that “they’re partying”?

</p>

<p>“…while the guy with a 3.8 from UMass has done nothing but go to class and party…”</p>

<p>Because I so stated in the hypothetical that I made up. :)</p>

<p>

@cobrat

Is there a way for you to know whether the internship was really gained as a result of the student’s own academic performance, drive, and initiative?

</p>

<p>Sure. Ask them to describe their experience and what they accomplished. If they goofed off all day in their uncle’s office, they won’t have much to show for it.</p>

<p>The vast majority of internships are not “lounge fests.” Many are even paid - both of mine have been. You won’t get rich on them, but you make enough to live on. You get a chance to directly show your skills and value in the workplace, in a more meaningful way than relying on a GPA or a college name.</p>

<p>

@cobrat

In short, we’ve came to the conclusion that has also been shared by most hiring managers/HR colleagues I’ve had that one’s high school stats become effectively meaningless the moment one steps on the college campus to begin their college career.

</p>

<p>This is absolutely, 100% true.</p>

[RML]

<p>I’d look at their ECs and pictures. I will then interview those that made the cut. The best person who did well in the interview gets my nod. Of course, I will not hire an UGLY Ivy League graduate and / or an academically under-achieving non-Ivy grad.</p>

[Vorpals]

<p>6, 5, 2, just based on GPA, and then 1 (due to grade deflation), 3, 5.</p>

[xiggi]

<p>

1. Princeton University, GPA: 2.5
2. College of William and Mary, GPA: 3.3
3. Community College, GPA: 4.0
4. Vanderbilt University, GPA: 3.0
5. Boston College, GPA: 3.4
6. University of Massachusetts, Amherst, GPA: 3.8

</p>

<p>Given the current economy, the answer is very easy. </p>

<p>If the employer looking to fill “a high paying position in a semi-prestigious field” has any common sense, he doesn’t call anyone from that list, and makes a call to a competent HR person to find qualified candidates.</p>

[polarscribe]

<p>

@RML

I’d look at their ECs and pictures.

</p>

<p>You’re not from the US, are you? Pictures aren’t included with resum</p>

[guidedbywire]

<p>5,2,4,6,1,3</p>

[sefago]

<p>Princeton grad all the way … . everyone knows that a 4.0 at a community college is a 2.0 at an Ivy. GPA adjustment using the princeton graduate as a basis</p>

<p>

1. Princeton University, GPA: 2.5
2. College of William and Mary, GPA: 2.7
3. Community College, GPA: 2.5
4. Vanderbilt University, GPA: 2.4
5. Boston College, GPA: 2.2
6. University of Massachusetts, Amherst, GPA: 3.7

</p>

<p>Seriously though, people with such GPAs do get jobs. I know someone with a 3.3 from Boston College at PWC, while not the tippy top, still a decent job</p>

[sefago]

<p>To be honest- if the job involves hardwork, and there are less concerns concerning prestige, GPA should come first, after examining what classes are in the mix. A high GPA signifies a hard worker, and a 3.8 even from UMass-Amherst is still a pretty good worker</p>

[cobrat]

<p>Sefago,</p>

<p>Princeton is grade deflated relative to other inflated Ivies. The above would only be somewhat accurate if we were talking about MIT or Reed, not Princeton. I mean…the average of all students from their class of 2009 graduated was a 3.39…which isn’t too far off from their more inflated Ivy cousins. </p>

<p>Moreover, one of the Princeton alums I know has confirmed that as he did EE at Princeton undergrad and later TAed undergrad engineering courses at MIT where he went for his PhD in the same field. He said the grading was more harsh for the undergrad courses at MIT than it was at Princeton.</p>

[sefago]

<p>Thats MIT . . .Reed is no MIT neither are the schools on that list. I wonder if the kids at Reed get exceptionally smarter or hardworking when they get to Reed lol. </p>

<p>Grade inflation does not mean much. I worked extremely hard in college for some classes, writing exceptional research papers, while professors kept on giving me the standard “B” because administration was complaining about grade inflation. Yes grading might be lax at Princeton but that does not mean people from Vandy or Williams and Mary will able to get over a 3.0 there.</p>

<p>People at Princeton are usually the best of the best. Being close to the bottom does not mean you are close to the bottom of the overall population</p>

[cobrat]

<p>^^</p>

<p>Nearly every Princeton alum I’ve known said that even with grade deflation, it takes a lot to do so poorly to graduate with less than a 3.0…not to say a 2.5 unless one’s an Engineering major. </p>

<p>Even then, a 2.5 was still widely considered a disgraceful GPA as that’s still below the average engineering major GPA according to the ones who were engineering majors. </p>

<p>As for the last two sentences, that’s exactly what those pathetic 40-something acquaintances who kept bragging about their HYPS acceptances, but dropped/flunked out and ended up doing low-level work or living off of their parents kept saying. </p>

<p>Even after the rest of us…including their former HYPS classsmates who actually graduated felt they were tiresome bores who were doing little more than spewing self-serving nonsense.</p>

[jadedwhartonguy]

<p>The key here is that the Princeton kid still has access to awesome on campus recruiting. The Vandy and W&M kids also have great OCR opportunities. So in real life the high gpas from worse colleges will have a harder time. Applying directly is infinitely less promising than doing OCR.</p>

[Consolation]

<p>I’ve hired a fair number of people and I do not think that I have ever seen a GPA on a resume. I don’t recall ever making a decision to see someone or not based on their grades. </p>

<p>The real answer is of course that there isn’t enough information to give a rational answer. Having said that, when I was hiring I was looking primarily for innate brain power, intellectual curiosity, communication skills, and excellent writing ability. So the Princeton grad would be my #1 interview, as most likely to have been pre-screened for those qualities by the institution, and most likely to have been held to a high standard while there.</p>

[Pizzagirl]

<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>ROFL. What employer looks at actual transcripts and re-calculates GPA? And do they also account for some schools that give A-, B+ etc and other schools that give just A’s and B’s? Please. No one in the real world has the time for this nonsense.</p>

[Pizzagirl]

<p>

I’d look at their ECs and pictures. I will then interview those that made the cut. The best person who did well in the interview gets my nod. Of course, I will not hire an UGLY Ivy League graduate and / or an academically under-achieving non-Ivy grad.

</p>

<p>This is why we know your experience in the US and your familiarity with US cultural mores is so limited. Pictures aren’t included with resumes here, and you’d face a lawsuit if you discriminated based on appearance.</p>

[GoBlue81]

<p>I presume RML’s post is kinda tongue-in-cheek?</p>

[xiggi]

<p>Probably not, but he hardly told us the truth. Everyone who knows him also knows that he would simply hire anyone who shows up wearing anything from this place:</p>

<p>[University</a> of California, Berkeley Apparel, Alumni Clothing, Athletic Merchandise : Cal Student Store](<a href=“efollett”>efollett)</p>

<p>;)</p>

[drax12]

<p>… to think that looks is unimportant in hiring practices. Does anyone think that this is going to be communicated to the public? Do you think that an offer to a propective hiree will be forthcoming without a face-to-face interview?</p>

<p>The art of hiring hot associates by partners of firms is quite extensive. And I’m not insinuating anything beyond this.</p>

<p>Look at what happened to Gwynneth Paltrow when she donned a fat-suit.</p>

<p>There have been various surveys which show that better-looking people will have better opportunities. It’s a fact of life.</p>

[willmingtonwave]

<p>For a humanities major or something, they all would get interviewed except the CC student (which does not belong) and the Princeton student. Most companies/firms/whatever are going to have a 3.0 minimum.</p>