We (finance/banking, real estate development, o&g) require at least a 3.0. Preference is given to 3.5+. Excluded are rejected. The only exception in entry level, non promotion positions. A few of them make it to a promotion level, but most don't.

Conitive ability tests don't test intelligence. They measure ability on a construct designed and tested through an operational definition. Iq for instance is a measure of likely success in a western style high school. True it measures Intelligence, but only intelligence as established by the OD. Any ideas which ones you took? Most have extremely low predicitive and construct validity.

GPA is the academic measure that correlates the highest linearly. On a well designed GPA fx, ~30 percent in variance of future performance is explained.

We receive enough resumes with gpa's over 3.5 that there's really no reason to pick somebody for an interview with lower than that. Without atleast a 3.0 we won't even consider you. High GPA and being outgoing and well-balanced aren't mutually exclusive. In accounting/finance entry-level jobs there's a high correlation between GPA and the individuals understanding of related course material as well as drive.
Are we leaving good candidates off the table, sure, but is our chance of picking a motivated, inteligent, accountable person higher, i would also say yes.

I guess it all depends on what industry you are in or the jobs you are going after, because I've never been asked once by a potential employer what my GPR was and I've only had to order a transcript one time and that was for a professional certification, not a job.

In accounting/finance, GPA absolutely matters. If you are under a 3.0, getting an interview at a top firm will be incredibly difficult.

We won't interview anyone with less than a 3.0

quote:

---

i knew plenty of people in HS and College that spent 5-6 hours a day studying to get their good GPA. They are not smart, they just try hard.

---

You've pointed out an admirable trait - they try hard. Sometimes that is what you are looking for in a hiring decision.

Working hard and GPA are not always 1:1

High GPA is an indicator of either an ability to work hard, natural intelligence, or both.

Low GPA is generally an indicator of neither of those traits.

Sure there are exceptions for whatever reason, but in a stack of entry-level resumes, it's the best place to make a first cut. And if it's not even on the resume, that means it's low.

quote:

---

High GPA is an indicator of either an ability to work hard, natural intelligence, or both.

Low GPA is generally an indicator of neither of those traits.

---

Bingo. People with low GPA's hate to hear this.

My first thought when looking at a college resume without a GPA on it is that they have something to hide.

Big Oil doesn't hire new grads with GPA's less than 3.5.

I think I've seen some slightly below that, with good internships at service companies or prior summers at the same company, but in general, HR has a minimum requirement that they meet.

There are a lot of dumb people that have 3.5+ GPA's, but that's what the interview process is for.

There are so many good applicants looking for work right now that companies (I'm referring to marketing/advertising) don't have to consider anyone without both a good GPA and relevant experience. We can still gather a pool of 5 to interview without picking one over the other. That said, referrals from current employees fill most of the open jobs.

If I had to pick one, I'd pick work experience as being more important here though. Our CEO has said "I don't like being anyone's very first boss" and likes candidates who worked in college (while maintaining decent grades, but maybe not perfect) and took the step of demonstrating an interest in this industry and getting experience.

quote:

---

High GPA is an indicator of either an ability to work hard, natural intelligence, or both.

Low GPA is generally an indicator of neither of those traits.

---

Keep painting with a broad brush.

Did you read the OP? It's a broad brush question. My response you quoted said "generally" and "sure, there are exceptions". But generally this is the case, which is why people with low GPAs face an uphill battle.

[This message has been edited by 20ag07 (edited 10/19/2010 10:57a).]

Those in a position to hire can use a broad brush if they want.

If you have a 3.5 gpa on your resume and have something misspelled or poor grammar, you are out. If you have a 2.5 gpa on your resume and things are in order, you get an interview. I have seen too many people with high gpa's that are excellent students, but that is all they are! Once you get into the real world, your gpa in college means squat. In my opinion, unless you are a solid desk job, pen and paper guy, then gpa is almost irrelevent compared to your intangible traits. Then again, I had a low gpa......I also am not a millionaire yet..

[This message has been edited by RoperJoe02 (edited 10/20/2010 2:19p).]

I've been on the hiring side... you need a broad brush when your job posting brings in over 100 resumes/day.

quote:

---

If you have a 3.5 gpa on your resume and have something misspelled or poor grammer, you are out. If you have a 2.5 gpa on your resume and things are in order, you get an interview.

---

quote:

---

If you have a 3.5 gpa on your resume and have something misspelled or poor grammer, you are out.

---

Comedy gold.

How many correctly spelled resumes has Roper tossed in the trash because he incorrectly thought there were misspellings?

dammit....I knew I was going to do that and even read back through before posting.....corrected now!!

And in my defense....this is just texags and I am not applying!!

To show how ridiculous the policy can be, I know an engineer with combat experience, Ranger school graduate, a D-1 football player, captain in the Army, who graduated from West Point and was a high-ranking officer in the corps not get a job with Exxon while transitioning out of the military because of GPA.

He went to a top 5 Business school instead....

Of course this is an extreme case and I generally agree with the policy. A 3.0 + says something about the applicant whether it be intelligence or hard-work. When I receive resumes, its one of the few things I can use initially to separate candidates to interview.

In the extreme case above, all the other stuff outweighs the number. A D-1 athlete with a 2.9 Engineering GPA at USMA is not the same a a 2.9 TAMU, UT, or MIT for that matter - even in the Corps or ROTC.

[This message has been edited by nick_t (edited 10/21/2010 10:11p).]

It's quite funny that some companies choose to hire GPAs instead of people. GPA has no correlation to career success. None.

You think high GPA means you work hard? How bout working 60-100 hrs in the field? That's a lot harder than getting a 3.5+ imo.

Experience should mean a lot more than a lousy GPA. It's really just something you take home to mommy and daddy.

The problem with experience is that its hard to even know how they did with their experience. Most people have 1 or 2 internships on their resume and you have no idea if they did a good job on those. What the internships show is that this kid took initiative to go get an internship. Personally, if a kid doesn't have both solid internships and a good GPA (3.4+ typically is where I draw the line) then I see no reason to interview them because there are enough candidates with both that I don't need to waste my time.

So all of you GPA hounds.

I guess my 2.8 with Biology makes me dumb? I put my self through school and held a job every year except the first. Yea, I could have made better grades with more effort but I still had a great time while in college. And just for the record, I have a business minor with a 3.3 GPA and I tried way less than I had to in my science courses.

So what I've learned now is that I should have been a Business major. A lot of fun, and easy course work. Still though, I think a lot more aspects should be looked at other than the GPA. Too bad corporate BS tends to get in the way on the front end.

Ivan, doesn't mean you are dumb by any means. But there is this thing called competition. I get a stack of resumes with kids with 3.5-4.0 GPA's and solid internship experience. Why would I pick the 2.8 with good experience over the stack of 3.5-4.0's with good experience? I can only interview 8 or 10 or 12 so there just isn't usually room for those with lower GPA's if the job is one that a lot of people want.

Goose-

I understand the competition aspect to it. If all qualities are equal except the GPA, it does make sense to bring in the higher GPA's.

If you can't tell the whole thing upsets me a little because I do feel the 2.8 held me back. And the biology major for that matter. It's just that I feel I am a harder worker and have done a lot more than the typical 3.5 kid that I knew. Typical 3.5 kids being those that mostly didn't have to worry about anything other than school. Ah well, done with my b**** session.

quote:

---

Typical 3.5 kids being those that mostly didn't have to worry about anything other than school.

---

quote:

---

High GPA is an indicator of either an ability to work hard, natural intelligence, or both.

Low GPA is generally an indicator of neither of those traits.

---

This.

Some industries, and the number of them is rapidly shrinking, couldn't care less about GPA. But an employer would be crazy to not take it into account if it is listed, regardless of industry, for the reason above. Intelligence and work ethic are always in demand.

So does it matter? For entry-level, hell yes. For 8+ years after graduating, not as much.

[This message has been edited by Aggienk (edited 11/2/2010 9:45a).]

quote:

---

High GPA is an indicator of either an ability to work hard, natural intelligence, or both.

Low GPA is generally an indicator of neither of those traits.

---

Have also known quite a few kids with a high GPA that don't know how to work hard at all.

[This message has been edited by IvanAg07 (edited 11/2/2010 10:45a).]

20ag07

You need this part in there before you can laugh too hard.

quote:

---

It's just that I feel I am a harder worker and have done a lot more than the typical 3.5 kid that I knew. Typical 3.5 kids being those that mostly didn't have to worry about anything other than school.

---

sorry bub, but your low GPA tells me that you have a lower than average (compared to your peers, not the general population) intelligence, or you're not willing to put in the time to get it right

piss and moan all you want, but in the real world, I'm hardly the minority in this opinion

Just from knowledge, about 16% of the students make a 3.5 or higher. The average gpa is 2.9.

Typically the student who has a high gpa is usually holding the leadership positions in your organizations. So the argument about having communication skills, etc. does not have merit.

Students with high gpa are better managers of their time and possess better skills that are transferable from industry to another.

It's all about competition and well you are going to do. I advise students every day who are excellent at managing the academics, great communicators, and can effectively lead others.

quote:

---

Just from knowledge, about 16% of the students make a 3.5 or higher. The average gpa is 2.9.

---

Is this A&M statistics?

And no, it's not lower than average intelligence. When I studied an ample amount of time for tests I would score in the top 10% easily. I just found a lot more things to do in my free time than study. Now, being older, I wish I would have done better because everyone is so geared towards one freaking number. Guess it's time to get a masters and blow that one out of the water. Before anyone says anything, yes you can get accepted to a masters program with a sub 3 GPA and a high enough GMAT or GRE. Checked on that already